Atheism is the default position

The phrase “atheism is the default position” is often heard and, like atheism itself, it’s often misunderstood and misused. Uncovering the error is a rather simple affair when you have the correct definitions in mind.

“A”: Without
“Theism”: Belief in god(s)
“Atheism”: Without a belief in god(s)

For example, this entry on the weirdly named “Is God a Squirrel? [1] blog boldly asserts:

“Atheism is a response to religion. It is a disbelief in god(s). It is not something one is born with.”

Here is where the author runs into problems. Atheism is not a response to a religion, nor a disbelief in religion or gods, nor a religion in itself. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. The author flies perilously close to this idea throughout the article:

“Lets say I believe in flying farnoggles. Now, of course you have never heard of a flying farnoggle in your life. You have no concept of what one is. You can not believe, or disbelieve them because you have no knowledge of them. So to say that you were born with a disbelief in flying farnoggles would be ridiculous.”

Without knowledge of farnoggles or gods no one can be considered to actively hold the belief they exist. They lack the belief, and can therefore be considered “afarnoggles” and atheists.

If seems a little strange, that’s because it is. Atheism is not a term which should exist, nor would it but for the prevalence of theistic beliefs. Yes, atheism can be considered a response to theistic beliefs, but it is strictly the lack of a belief. As Sam Harris says, we do not have a word for people who do not play the piano – and nor should we.

“In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” – Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

So next time you hear someone contest “atheism is the default position” they are probably labouring under incorrect definitions.

Footnotes

[1] I would answer “no”, as squirrel’s actually exist.

Tagged with: , ,


  • Pingback: Atheism ~ Morality in everyday Life. « An atheist dwelling in the Himalayas.

  • http://thingsfindothinks.com/ Findo

    Your statement that ‘atheism’ means a-theism (not-theism) mistakes the origin of the word. The etymology is actually athe-ism (literally no-god-ism). Sure, many now are a-theists, but many are also athe-ists.

    Also interesting is the research of Dr Olivera Petrovich which is showing that even in cultures with no real concept of a creator, a theistic creator is the default view of children. They’re not born ‘blank slates’ after all.

    • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

      So you’re splitting the difference between “not theism” and “no-god-ism”?

      As for the children, the theory of mind plays interesting tricks on the mind and occurs later in life.

      • http://thingsfindothinks.com/ Findo

        You’re the one who convinced me that not believing in gods and believing that no gods exist are not identical positions. In any case, the fact remains about the etymology being athe-ism and not a-theism (think of it just a little like how inflammable is not in-flammable but inflame-able)

        It was Antony Flew who argued for the word to be thought of as a-theism, btw.

        As for the children, the theory of mind plays interesting tricks on the mind and occurs later in life.

        So that’s why they start of believing in a creator and ‘later in life’ become atheists? :P 
        I’ve not read her research, just seen a few interviews, and it looks like interesting research. What it yields concretely remains to be seen. I mentioned it merely to make that point that at the very least it appears to falsify the common assumption that children are born as blank slates or atheists.

        • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

          You’re the one who convinced me that not believing in gods and believing that no gods exist are not identical positions.

          Doesn’t _sound_ like something I would say. It is possible not to believe in gods, yet they do exist.  Asserting gods definitely do not exist is beyond of what could reasonably be claimed.  I do not think these are equivalent positions – unless we were talking about something else?

          So that’s why they start of believing in a creator and ‘later in life’ become atheists? :P

          No, that’s why they start with no beliefs at all (or even the capacity for belief) then misapply the theory of mind to the universe itself – wrongly believing nature has a mind of it’s own.

          I have not read the research either, so I may be completely wrong about this.

          • http://thingsfindothinks.com/ Findo

            Doesn’t _sound_ like something I would say. It is possible not to believe in gods, yet they do exist.  Asserting gods definitely do not exist is beyond of what could reasonably be claimed.  I do not think these are equivalent positions – unless we were talking about something else?

            I’m confused.. I agreed that they’re not identical positions, and despite saying it doesn’t ‘sound’ like what you’d say, you then went ahead and said it… *scratches head*

            I would add that believing no gods exist is also not necessarily equivalent to ‘asserting gods definitely do not exist’. I know you have problems with the idea that one can reasonably hold to beliefs which cannot be proved, but I think we do it all the time, and have little choice but to do so, often, else we’d be left in a position of doing nothing. Besides, the beliefs and assumptions upon which empirical science is based can’t technically be proved either, but some of us have good reason to accept the validity of those assumptions, but that’s a tangent and a half ;)

            misapply the theory of mind to the universe itself – wrongly believing nature has a mind of it’s own.

            I didn’t understand Petrovich to say that they children assumed the universe or nature had a mind of its own.

            • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

              I would add that believing no gods exist is also not necessarily equivalent to ‘asserting gods definitely do not exist’.

              I agree. Don’t dance just yet – it won’t last long.

              I know you have problems with the idea that one can reasonably hold to beliefs which cannot be proved,

              I have no idea how you developed that idea. Nothing outside of mathematics can be proved absolutely. We are dealing with probabilities.

              … Besides, the beliefs and assumptions upon which empirical science is based can’t technically be proved either,

              Beats magic.

  • Pingback: The Perils of Not Being a Christian « The Inactive Activist

  • Pingback: Theism Vs Atheism; Billboard Wars! | An atheist dwelling in the Himalayas.


Father Bob and Aronra

This week I meet with Aronra in Melbourne for the Global Atheist Convention, and thought it would be a good idea to chat up with Australia’s most popular secular humanist Catholic Father Bob for a chat.  Strap yourself in for this one.


Further Reading

Excellent Marriage

On Thursday the 17th May the churches of Tasmania will be hosting an event at the Stanley Burbury Theatre entitled “Excellent Marriage”.  According to their web site the event “aims to celebrate the importance and value of marriage for the Australian community”.  They say  “people from religious and non-religious backgrounds, young and old, are all invited to…
Continue reading

More Ultimate Answers

This is a continuation of my reply to Andrew Finden’s “one last philosophical hurrah” post, and addresses the question “why believe there is a god?” It is encouraging to read the opening statement of this section where Andrew admits “that one can cannot prove that God exists”, however he quickly (and rightly) dismisses philosophical materialism…
Continue reading

Ultimate Answers

Those who have been following this blog for a while will, no doubt, recall the various discussions/debates/arguments I have had with Andrew Finden in the past. As frustrating as I find them at times, I think he often tackles interesting and difficult topics with a calm intelligence not very often found in the religious debate. This…
Continue reading

Dear Mr. Swan,

Wayne Swan is currently having meeting to finalise the Australian federal budget.  In these tough economic times it is more important than ever to ensure your hard earned tax dollar is being spent in the most effective and efficient manner.  In view of this I can think of one poorly thought out federal program which,…
Continue reading

We have it all

Last weekend I attend the second Global Atheist Convention run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia in Melbourne. The convention attracted over 4,000 attendees to listen to extraordinary line up of world class speakers from a variety of disciplines on a wide range of topics. The convention began with a comedy line up including the brilliantly hilarious…
Continue reading

Poor Pell

Last Monday on Australia’s ABC television network the jet-lagged evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins squared off against Catholic Cardinal George Pell on the “Q and A” program with unimpressive results. A transcript of the entire show can be found in the ABC’s web site. The level of intellectual debate on this episode of Q and A…
Continue reading


Back to top

Follow @askegg, @cynskeptical, @jimpalfreyman, and @nigelhoney on Twitter.

Designed by Andrew Skegg for using the Twitter Bootstrap framework.