The Incoherence of Lack-theism

Previously in "Can Non-Resistant Non-Belief be Compatible with Atheism" I write "as defined in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (SEoP) as "(A)n atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition."

If you are a lack-theist, you are simply confused; the claim of atheism is the negation of the theistic claim! If you want to state your psychological state, that is, you lack belief in God (you don't possess the proposition God exists), that isn't a positive claim and frankly removes you from the debate. Your brain state, like a weather pattern, isn't a debatable position and doesn't demonstrate a rationally held position, it's just how your brain happens to be at this point. By this logic, a stone lacks belief in the proposition God exists. In principle this can't be a legitimate position of a NRNB, as that too is a brain state, not a rational position, in fact every proposition is a brain state if this is true, which you just happen to find yourself in. So, why should anyone take anything you say seriously? SEoP evaluates atheism as a psychological state as "One problem with defining “atheism” as a psychological state is that philosophers do not define “theism” as a psychological state, nor should they. “Theism,” like most other philosophical “-isms”, is understood in philosophy to be a proposition. This is crucial because philosophers want to say that theism is true or false and, most importantly, to construct or evaluate arguments for theism. Psychological states cannot be true or false, nor can they be the conclusions of arguments." ". [1][2]

In other words if proponents of such a view, the proposition "God exists" is lacking in your psychological state, akin to a weather pattern, which given certain conditions e.g. presssure, humidity etc. Always produces rain in any given same state. Similarly, brain states always produce the same outcomes e.g. lack of belief.

If the Brain State (BS) the proposition "God exists" is lacking ~BS1 in Person (P) then P ~BS1 is a person that lacks belief in God exists. However, this follows every proposition is a brain state. So, we can imagine P¹ holding a web of psychological brain states ~BS1, BS2(I am rational), BS3 (The earth orbits the sun), BS4...... BSn.

Each individual brain states could have sub-truths or propositions e.g. BS3.1: "the science says X," BS3.2: "the pictures of Earth from outer space are real" BS3.3....
But none of these propositions are strictly true, they are psychological states, anymore than Weather Pattern (WP) WP1 where WP1 where it rains is true or false, it just is.

So P² with the web of psychological states ~BS1, BS2, ~BS3, ~BS4...., or P³ BS1, BS2, BS3, BS4...., can be said to be no less rational than P¹. As each state, is akin to the different weather patterns, which are neither true or false! A weather pattern might correspond to reality e.g. WP1 always corresponds to rain and if WP1 obtains then in such a state it does rain and could be what is actually happening outside my window. But equally, WP2 or WPn are equally possible state of affairs.
Weather patterns emerge from physical laws and naturalistic mechanisms that are complex mix of different factors that can cause a variety of different circumstances.

Brain states similarly, are a complex system of electrochemical states that can form different neurological states in the brain, meaning BS1 is such a state, which could be triggered if the correct neurological electrochemical elements are triggered to get the correct state.

So, if we are to take the claim a lack-theist, lacks belief in BS1 (~BS1) seriously, what does that really entail? What would it mean to say you lack a belief in any proposition?

When I say I do not believe in Thor for example,  it isn't that I lack belief in such a proposition, I have reasons why Thor doesn't exist, namely, because we know where thunder and lightening comes from, and it's never from a bearded man in a skirt and a hammer (to name but one reason to deny the existence of Thor).

In other words, it isn't due to a lack, that I do not believe a proposition, its because I have reasons not to believe such a proposition is true. If I'm merely ignorant of a claim, for instance "how do polypeptides form?", I have no experience or understanding in chemistry, making me ilequiped to make an informed decision. I'm simply ignorant to the question, I do not lack a belief,  I simply am ignorant in the subject and probably don't even understand what I don't understand about the complexities in chemistry.

When a lack-theist says ~BS1 they are making an unique claim, that their psychological state lacks such a proposition, which follows that every proposition is a brain state, which makes their position uniquely not open to critique.

They are describing a passive state, not a rationally held position if God exists or not, akin to stating  "I have no thoughts in my head." Which is philosophically inert as a stone lacking belief.

Lack-theism therefore, can not be a rationally held position, nor does it allow such a person into the debate,  as they are making no claims about anything.

If the lack-theist want to enter the debate,  they have to have a position that can be detailed, defined and defended.

The lack-theist will on one side of their mouth,  demand evidence for BS1, yet on the other offer nothing in defence of ~BS1. Both BS1 & ~BS1 are claims if the proposition means anything at all, so to salvage their position,  they must be willing to enter the debate.

In conclusion, 

The lack-theist in trying to avoid making a claim and removing any burden of proof,  inadvertently makes every proposition they hold, equally a psychological state. This removes such individuals from any discussion as they have nothing whatsoever to say, as brain states are inherently indifferent, akin to a stone.

To avoid becoming irrelevant to any meaningful conversation,  they must be willing to make claims that can be subject to scrutiny. 



References 

1. https://micahministries.blogspot.com/2025/05/can-non-resistant-non-belief-be.html
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/