Subscribe
I’m a bit of a definition junkie. I think it comes from studying philosophy. It seems that most of the big questions are difficult to answer because the terms involved turn out to be so ill-defined. Thus much of the efforts in philosophy is not really aimed at answering the big questions, but precisely defining the words and concepts in the question. If that is achieved the answer usually falls right out.
So I’ve recently been thinking about the term “Godless” – often used as a derogatory term for agnostics and atheists. Literally it means “without god” but carries with it a very negative connotation. It suggests non-believers lack something or are missing something desirable. Think of the term ‘penniless’ for comparison.
That doesn’t accurately describe an atheist’s feeling on the matter at all. We do not feel like we are lacking anything for we don’t desire a god at all (such would be pointless as they are almost certainly fiction). I wanted a better term and found it in an unlikely place.
It turns out, couples who do not want children are in a similar situation. They are often described as being ‘childless’ though they don’t feel they are lacking anything. Thus they’ve adopted the term ‘childfree‘. Similarly, I’ve been using the term ‘godfree’.
Strictly speaking, ‘Godless’ and ‘godfree’ mean the same thing: “without god(s)”; though the capital ‘G’ implies monotheism and the lowercase is exclusive of polytheistic deities as well. Yet they have different connotations. Being something-less means one is without something desired. Being something-free means one is without something undesired. People who do not want caffeine in their soda will drink ‘caffeine-free’ soda, those who want children but are unable to have them are ‘childless’. Atheists, by and large, do not want any gods and do not have any. Thus the term ‘godfree’ is more appropriate.
It has occurred to me that precisely defining these terms in this way has a very interesting consequence. To understand it, you’ll have to adopt my point of view for a moment. Go ahead, it won’t hurt… There! A little uncomfortable, I’m sure, but you won’t have to wear it long. Now notice that there are no gods. Good. What’s that mean for religious people? They are without any gods for none exist but they desire a god (or gods). Which term, ‘Godless’ or ‘godfree’ is more appropriate? Using the definitions described above, you’ve guessed it….
…Religious people are the Godless ones! 
Thanks for reading whether you’re godfree or Godless.
Hmm. Not bad. Wait, would that be badfree or badless?
Thanks Scott. It is without bad and does not desire to have bad. Thus it is badfree!
Sid perhaps you could go a little further and coin a word which is the opposite of apostate.That is a term with a negative connotation for someone who is so virually infected with the idea of god that everything they do from the moment they wake up till they go to sleep is in accordance with some “holy” book.
The analogy with a computer virus and this meme is quite apt from obsessive compulsive behavior to trying to infect others and if that fails killing them.
I don;t know if a word for these people exists which captures their dementia and single minded obsession to make us see the world through their eyes.However I think one should
Sid,
I’m taking a risk to start a discussion with you, but here goes…
I get your point, but as a fellow atheist I see things a bit differently. You imply “godfree” is a better term, but I think “godfree” implies the existance of god/gods and you are just choosing to be without. Your example of “caffeine-free” is what is sticking in my mind…caffeine exists, you are just choosing to go without it. In my mind, god or gods do not exist, so there is no choice. I’m not choosing to “go without” god, there isn’t one (or any) so I am godless…without god.
Just thought I’d share, for once!
Great comment, diskostarr. You’re actually taking the next step that philosophers do when discussing a topic. One defines the terms involved with some precision and draws conclusions. Another comes along, finds a problem with one or more of the definitions and refutes the conclusion drawn by the first.
Our definitions are the same except you swap out ‘desire’ for ‘choose’. In which case, since there are no gods, it would be impossible to choose to be without any gods, one simply is without any. Given that I don’t accept free-will as a real phenomenon, I don’t believe that anyone really chooses anything at all, which is why I used ‘desire’. Thus my definition is consistent with my world view.
However, if one does believe we make choices, which definition is more appropriate? I don’t know. Try as I might, I cannot come up with a criteria with which to discriminate between the two. Hopefully one of my readers will come up with something.
You got me thinking, diskostarr. Thanks again for the comment.
Hello Sawaz,
The childfree movement has come up with some terms for their counterparts. The common term for people who have children of course is ‘parents’. They use this term for people who have kids and do a good job raising them. For those who reproduce irresponsibly, they’ve come up with a derogatory term: ‘breeders’. So they’ll distinguish and say things like “Oh, they’re cool people. They’re parents not breeders.”
I would once again follow their lead and distinguish between responsible religious people and irresponsible ones. I know, I know. Some atheists don’t believe there are any responsible believers. I am not of that opinion. The existing term ‘believer’ works fine for the responsible ones. As for the derogatory version, if I’m not mistaken, ‘deluded’ is often used as an adjective to describe them so, “the delusional”? I’m sure there’s something better.
Hello diskostarr I like your style you have shown in a compact argument that incorporating the word god into any compound word instantly legitimatizes the concept of god and as such negates any word which is meant to de-legitimatize him. The word becomes it’s own anti word.
Sid it seems to me that a more fruitful approach is to define god out of existence perhaps by portraying god as a concept much like a proper class whose qualities cannot be gathered together into a set.
A listing of all the proper classes which we call god’s attributes should show the contradictions in a an all powerful being
I suppose the first is that with the exception of a few no one has ever said they even saw him and the information he supposedly imparted was all of the simple and useless variety rather than difficult and useful which a real god would say.
Telling people what to wear and what to eat is simple and useless and any playwrite could come up with that.
Curing cancer and giving us a unified field theory is something god could do but somehow he never got around to that.
Of course we could ask why does’nt he come down at the half time at the super bowl so we can all have look at him and not just appear to people in the middle of nowhere.The same can be said for flying saucers why do they just go after hillbillies? What is wrong with the rest of us?
How about the fixation some religions have for taking a knife to children’s genitals.You just have to know something has gone wrong there
No doubt between all of us we can compile a list of contradictions and outright nonsense uttered by those who say they have talked to god and maybe someone will read it and say you know those people are right
I can say that your thoughts about Godless and Godfree is not denuded of clear logic! To cut a long stroy short there is a lot to think over here
I agree wth diskostarr that godfree implies a god. And since godless does carry a negative connotation, I would suggest a term like mythfree or mythless. I prefer mythless just because I like the sound of it better.
Guys, this is hilarious. I feel like I’m back in philosophy 131. Godless (oops,godless, captilized only for sentence sake, of course) or godfree…let’s see here. What if we are really like the on the matrix, and you guys are sitting here at your computers thinking you are figuring out the existence of a god (or God for Christians, Muslims, etc) and really, it the machine making you think you are typing…when in reality, computers are running you and your thoughts. How do we know that THIS is not the case? Do we sit here and argue that we are computer-run or do we claim we are computer-free, or computer-less? I think you are all trying to deny in your hearts the very existence of the one thing you fear most – God. He’s still waiting for you. All who call on the name of Jesus will be saved. Guys, God is persistently waiting on you. There’s still time! My prayers are for you.
Hello Kinkinthewheel,
I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I was hoping some of the tongue-in-cheek humor got through.
I like your computer analogy. There are actually very serious arguments for the proposition that we are living in a computer simulation (not really The Matrix, but similar idea). here’s an example. Just as you did, the author “suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions…” You’d likely enjoy the read.
Please don’t make assumptions about my emotional state. One cannot fear what one does not believe in. To me, your sentence is equivalent to, “I think you are all trying to deny in your hearts the very existence of the one thing you fear most – Vampires.”
Sid that was an interesting article you referred to I wonder if we really are a simulations and if we reach some sort of post human development will we start our own simulation and thus begin a nested sequence of simulations of which our creators may be a part of.When we become post human enough will we be able to tell if we are being simulated and if not then it implies that there is a super simulator who no one can reach and why bother simulating us anyway when they would know there is going to be so much suffering?It seems a little sadistic.Perhaps occams razor about the simplest explanation being the best really is the best and there is no simulation going on nor are we the dreams of gods.Also why is there a little smiley face in the bottom left hand corner over in the textured area of this page?
Hello Fellow Simulant known as Sawaz,
It was a thought-provoking article to say the least. It’s not the first time I’ve heard the idea, but it’s the best written that I’ve seen.
The parallels with religion are numerous. What get’s me is that the philosophical justification for believing in the simulators is stronger then that for gods. The assumptions – intelligent species are likely to reach a post-human phase and they are likely to simulate their ancestry – are both simpler and fewer than the assumptions of religion.
I’m hoping to make the time to write a full post on the article.
Sid I am looking forward to your thoughts on the subject of us being a simulation.Here are some ideas which I think have some relevance.The first is if we are a simulation then of necessity there are some shortcuts employed to simulate the “real” world of our simulators and hence as in chaos theory if there is even a small rounding error the results will diverge from reality so we are not even a simulation only an approximation and after a few billion years probably not a good one as to the real world.
The second point is that the universe exists (I think)and in order to calculate the universe including it’s black holes it would take a computer as least as complex as the universe.
Haha! Excellent post. I might get some “godfree” bumper stickers made.
Sid it seems to me that a more fruitful approach is to define god out of existence perhaps by portraying god as a concept much like a proper class whose qualities cannot be gathered together into a set.