The assertion that atheism is simply a “lack of belief” in God is often presented as a neutral, intellectually honest stance. However, this definition raises significant philosophical, logical, and practical issues that are frequently misunderstood or misrepresented.
1. Misdefining Atheism as a Mere Lack of Belief
Claiming atheism is a “lack of belief” sidesteps the philosophical responsibility of defending a worldview. Atheism, particularly in its strong form, often makes the positive claim that no gods exist, requiring justification. Even weak atheism involves assumptions that need addressing.
Paul Copan explains: “The attempt to redefine atheism as a mere ‘lack of belief’ avoids the intellectual responsibility of defending the claim that God does not exist.”¹
Alvin Plantinga writes: “A belief that God does not exist is every bit as much a claim as the belief that He does.”²
¹ Paul Copan, True for You, But Not for Me (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009).
² Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
2. Ignoring the Burden of Proof
By framing atheism as a lack of belief, some atheists claim they have no burden of proof. However, in any debate, both sides must provide reasons for their positions. Atheists asserting “God does not exist” bear the same evidential burden as theists.
Greg Koukl explains: “Anyone making a claim has the responsibility to give reasons for it. The ‘lack of belief’ approach doesn’t exempt atheists from this rule.”³
³ Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).
3. Treating Lack of Belief as Neutral
Some atheists present their lack of belief as neutral, implying no bias. However, neutrality is rarely achievable when discussing ultimate questions. Lack of belief still involves assumptions about reality, morality, and existence.
C.S. Lewis remarks: “You cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot honestly be ‘neutral.’”⁴
⁴ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1943).
4. Equating Lack of Belief with Skepticism
Skepticism involves critical thinking and the suspension of belief pending evidence. By contrast, defining atheism as a lack of belief often bypasses critical engagement with arguments for God’s existence.
Michael Shermer writes: “Skepticism means following the evidence wherever it leads, not dismissing it outright.”⁵
⁵ Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things (New York: Holt, 2002).
5. Failing to Define Atheism Consistently
Some atheists inconsistently define atheism, alternating between a lack of belief and the claim that God does not exist. This equivocation avoids clear accountability in debates.
William Lane Craig notes: “Definitional sleight of hand often shields atheism from the very critique it demands of others.”⁶
⁶ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
6. Misrepresenting Theism as Blind Faith
Atheists who emphasize their lack of belief often portray theists as relying solely on blind faith. This ignores the substantial body of philosophical, historical, and scientific evidence supporting theistic belief.
Timothy Keller states: “Faith is not opposed to reason; it is based on reason and goes beyond it.”⁷
⁷ Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York: Penguin, 2008).
7. Avoiding Worldview Implications
Atheists who focus on lack of belief often avoid addressing broader implications, such as morality, meaning, and consciousness. Every worldview, including atheism, must provide answers to these questions.
Alvin Plantinga explains: “Atheistic naturalism struggles to provide a coherent account of the basic features of human experience.”⁸
⁸ Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
8. Treating Lack of Belief as a Default Position
Some atheists claim that lacking belief is the natural, default state. However, belief in God or gods has been nearly universal throughout history, suggesting otherwise.
Justin Barrett writes: “The evidence suggests that belief in gods arises naturally from the way human minds work.”⁹
⁹ Justin L. Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2004).
9. Dismissing Religious Experience
Atheists often reject religious experiences as subjective or delusional without engaging with their widespread and consistent nature across cultures. While not definitive, religious experiences are significant evidence for belief.
William James notes: “Religious experience… stands at the very center of the person’s consciousness and affects the whole of life.”¹⁰
¹⁰ William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Penguin, 1985).
10. Assuming Lack of Belief Means Lack of Assumptions
Atheists often claim that their lack of belief is free from philosophical commitments. However, atheism implicitly assumes naturalism or materialism, which require justification.
Alister McGrath explains: “Atheism is far from being a neutral position; it carries a host of unexamined assumptions about the world.”¹¹
¹¹ Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism (New York: Doubleday, 2004).
11. Misunderstanding Agnosticism
Atheists often blur the line between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism addresses uncertainty about knowledge, while atheism, even in its “lack of belief” form, implies a stance on belief.
Blaise Pascal writes: “Skepticism is useful for finding the truth, but skepticism which is constant is a sickness of the intellect.”¹²
¹² Blaise Pascal, Pensées, Fragment 131.
12. Reducing Belief to Indoctrination
Many atheists claim that belief in God is solely the result of cultural indoctrination. This view ignores the rational and experiential basis for faith.
C.S. Lewis remarks: “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not.”¹³
¹³ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001).
13. Denying Evidence
Atheists often dismiss philosophical and historical evidence for God’s existence without addressing its premises.
N.T. Wright writes: “The evidence for the resurrection, for example, is as strong as any event in ancient history.”¹⁴
¹⁴ N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
14. Avoiding Moral Implications
If God does not exist, morality must be grounded elsewhere. Atheists often avoid addressing the implications of this.
Timothy Keller writes: “If there is no God, then there is no basis for objective morality.”¹⁵
¹⁵ Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York: Penguin, 2008).
15. Misrepresenting “Non-Resistant Non-Belief”
Alex O’Connor’s concept of Non-Resistant Non-Belief suggests that some people lack belief in God despite being open to evidence. While this position appears honest, it oversimplifies non-belief, which can be influenced by intellectual or emotional resistance.
William Lane Craig counters: “Non-resistance does not fully explain non-belief. Intellectual and emotional factors play significant roles.”¹⁶
¹⁶ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
Logical Syllogism
Premise 1: All worldviews, including atheism, entail implicit assumptions.
Premise 2: A lack of belief in God is not neutral, as it assumes naturalism or materialism.
Premise 3: Assumptions must be justified and open to critique.
Conclusion: Atheism as a “lack of belief” is inadequate without addressing its assumptions.
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment