"Atheists Lack Belief in God" is a Deepity

Many atheists are fond of saying that they "lack belief in God". Unfortunately, this is a vague phrase that can be read in two ways. It's widely accepted and has been the source of much confusion because it is what Daniel Dennett has coined, a deepity. I have written about deepities before here and here.

A deepity is a phrase that balances precariously between two interpretations. On one reading, the phrase is true, but trivially so. On the second reading, the phrase would be profound if it were true, but that second interpretation is actually false. Somehow, the truth of the first reading seems to rub off on the second one, making it seem profound and true.

Here's Dennett's explanation:

 
Let's face it, most atheists think that God's existence is more likely false than true. What else could it possibly mean when they quote their wise sage, Carl Sagan, and tell believers that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? To say that they lack belief is, in that case, trivially true. It's trivially true because failure of ascent to the claim "theism is more likely true than false" is entailed by (even mildly) holding the opposite belief.

But the phrase "atheists lack belief in God" can be also be interpreted as follows: atheists have no opinion on whether theism is true or false. Now if that's true, then there's a very profound implication that atheist's seem to love: they have no burden of proof.

Oooooh.

Deep.

Unfortunately, for atheists, it's false*.

Deepities are beguiling, but fallacious. Atheists, who normally take great pride in avoiding fallacies of reasoning, would do well to avoid this deepity and do something that should come easily to those who so strongly endorse rationality: they should take on the burden to defend exactly what they believe.

Philosopher Dan Dennett

*Folks for whom the latter interpretation is true include those who haven't thought about it enough, like a baby, but who in their right mind would call such a person an atheist? Isn't the term supposed to pack even a little bit of a punch? People commonly known as agnostics also have no burden to support the notion that God's existence is more likely false than true, but they do have a burden of rejoinder.

Daniel Dennett: The magic of consciousness

In his book, Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness, philosopher and cognitive scientist, Daniel Dennett, explains how consciousness is like magic, but not in the way that you probably think it is:

"It seems to many people that consciousness is a mystery, the most wonderful magic show imaginable, an unending series of special effects that defy explanation. I think that they are mistaken, that consciousness is a physical, biological phenomenon–like metabolism or reproduction or self-repair–that is exquisitely ingenious in its operation, but not miraculous or even, in the end, mysterious. Part of the problem of explaining consciousness is that there are powerful forces acting to make us think it is more marvelous than it actually is. In this it is like stage magic, a set of phenomena that exploit our gullibility, and even our desire to be fooled, bamboozled, awestruck.  The task of explaining stage magic is in some regards a thankless task; the person who tells people how an effect is achieved is often resented, considered a spoilsport, a party-pooper.  I often get the impression that my attempts to explain consciousness provoke similar resistence. Isn’t it nicer if we all are allowed to wallow in the magical mysteriousness of it all? Or even this: If you actually manage to explain consciousness, they say, you will diminish us all, turn us into mere protein robots, mere things.  

Such is the prevailing wind into which I must launch my work, but sometimes the difficulty of the task inspires strategies that exploit the very imagery that I wish in the end to combat. The comparison between consciousness and stage magic is particularly apt, for the romantic and gullible among us have much the same yearning regarding stage magic that they have regarding consciousness. Lee Siegel draws our attention to the fundamental twist in his excellent book, Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India:

“I’m writing a book on magic,” I explain, and I’m asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers.  “No,” I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic.”  Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."