Default Position for God: Should it be Atheism?

One question that regularly arises in religious debates is whether atheism is the default position. Many Christians assume theism is default, often due to a misunderstanding of what "default" means, combined with a preference for theism to hold that status. To approach this rationally, it's helpful to clarify what a default position means, what it  entails and why atheism, as lack of belief in God, is widely regarded as the default in this context.

Introduction

‘Default’ can vary by context, but it generally means ‘what holds in the absence of exceptions or overriding factors’. Consider a simple example from daily life: In our house, the default is, that we have a takeaway pizza every Friday. This means that, if there are no other plans, that’s what we do. It doesn’t mean we might not go out, and that could be to a pizza restaurant or anywhere else. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have guests over and cook for them. Likewise, it doesn’t mean that we don’t order Chinese. It simply means, that if there are no other plans of any sort, we order a pizza, i.e. it just describes the baseline when nothing else intervenes.

In philosophical discussions about propositions (in this case, claims about God's existence), the default position refers to the stance taken when all positive claims are set aside or lack sufficient support. This requires clarifying key terms: Theism is the belief that "God exists" is true. Atheism, in the sense used here (often called ‘weak’  or ‘negative’ atheism), is simply the absence of that belief, no commitment to God's non-existence either. (Positive or ‘strong’ atheism, which asserts ‘God does not exist’, is a separate claim requiring its own justification). Agnosticism, meanwhile, concerns knowledge: it holds that we cannot (or do not) know whether God exists. This distinction matters more than raw belief when identifying a default, as we'll see (For a fuller discussion, see my blog post link here).

What Does a Default Position Entail?

A default position is not itself a truth-claim; it carries no burden of proof and makes no assertion about reality. It simply describes the rational starting point given the current evidence (or lack thereof). It draws on accumulated knowledge, widely accepted objective facts (e.g., scientific discoveries) and self-evident assumptions (e.g., the existence of an external world or other minds), rather than unproven beliefs.

Some argue that we accept certain things without proof, such as the existence of other minds, an external world, the uniformity of nature (future like past), or the constancy of physical laws. These are often called ‘properly basic’ beliefs in epistemology, they are justified pragmatically, not deductively proven.

Let's examine them briefly, distinguishing evidence from strict proof (in science and philosophy, ‘proof’ typically applies only to maths/logic; elsewhere we accumulate evidence that makes denial irrational).

Other minds exist

 We know our own mind exists, but we can't directly access others'. The ‘philosophical zombie’ thought experiment imagines beings physically identical to us, but lacking consciousness. Yet if someone behaves exactly as a conscious human would, in every observable way, what grounds remain for denying they have a mind? Our own consciousness drives behaviour; something must drive theirs. Denying other minds leads to radical scepticism that's pragmatically untenable.

An external world exists

 Similar to the above, the ‘brain in a vat’ scenario questions whether our experiences reflect reality. But even if we're a brain receiving simulated inputs, those inputs come from somewhere, an external source. We can only respond to the world as we perceive it; absolute scepticism here is self-defeating.

The future resembles the past (Problem of Induction)

 We have overwhelming experience that patterns hold. While not deductively certain, the track record justifies planning as if tomorrow will be similar, unless evidence suggests otherwise. You have no proof that you are not going to break your leg this afternoon, but you still book your holiday on the assumption you won’t and deal with any eventually as or when it arises.

Physical laws are constant

 Gravity and other laws have held consistently for millennia. We can't prove they'll hold tomorrow, but the evidence makes denial irrational. Living as if they might change arbitrarily would paralyse action.

In short, knowledge rests on evidence and pragmatic reasonableness, not absolute proof. We accept these basics because denying them would be irrational given our experience. The default can shift with new evidence, cultural changes, or discoveries, but it starts from what's currently justified.

Why Not Accept God's Existence as Default?

Some point out that over 80% of the world's population believes in a deity, suggesting theism should be the default. But popularity (argumentum ad populum) doesn't determine truth, majority belief can be mistaken.

The presumption of atheism (a concept popularized by philosopher Antony Flew in 1976) [2] holds that, absent compelling evidence, the rational starting point is non-belief in God. This doesn't imply God doesn't exist or that theism is false, only that the claim "God exists" requires positive support, especially since evidence for it (across history, philosophy, science, etc.) remains controversial and contested in academia. Theistic belief, while sincere, thus counts as a claim rather than a neutral baseline.

This view is influential in many debates, but it's not without challenge in academic philosophy. Some philosophers argue that true neutrality is agnosticism (suspension of judgment), since both theism and atheism involve claims requiring substantiation. Others, drawing on Reformed epistemology (e.g., Alvin Plantinga) [3], contend that belief in God can be 'properly basic' justified without evidence, similar to belief in other minds, through an innate sensus divinitatis (sense of divinity). If that's the case, theism could be a rational default for some people, depending on their experiences and cognitive circumstances.

Conclusion

Defining atheism as lack of belief in God means the default position doesn't affect how theists live. Christians can continue worshipping, raising children in faith, and practicing their religion as always. What the default highlights is that this occurs against a backdrop of no recognized god, for those not holding theistic belief, life proceeds as if no god exists.

Interestingly, this practical outcome aligns with strong atheists (who believe God does not exist), though the two positions arrive there differently: one from absence of belief, the other from active disbelief. Both are compatible with the evidence-based, conservative approach to claims about reality.

Notes

1. Logical Fallacy of Ad Populum - Wikipedia

2. The Presumption of Atheism - Anthony Flew - 1976

3. Faith and Rationality - edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff -+ 1983.

November 2025