Redefining "Godless"

A Story by Chris T.

A rough essay that will delve into the definition of "godless" and make a case for why one of the definitions is outdated.

The term godless has two definitions, commonly accepted across several dictionaries with maybe slightly varied wording. One defines it as “having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic”. This definition logically makes sense upon breaking the word down into the root and suffix, and there is no reason to question it. The other definition is “wicked; evil; sinful”. This definition raises numerous red flags, and as a culture, society, and language, there needs to be a reassessment regarding this term and the belief one who is “godless” is also “wicked or sinful”.

There exists a conflict of semantics immediately upon viewing this definition. One who is godless is sinful, yet is sin not a creation of a god? How can someone possess this trait if they do not have a deity? The archaism of this definition shows upon deeper scrutiny, and we begin to realize this was a vulgarity during time periods of heavy Christian influence in the English language. It does not hold up in modern times where atheism and agnosticism are more wide-spread and acceptable. The term sinful should be stricken from the second definition based on this contradiction, and we are soon left with “wicked; evil”. These terms are nearly interchangeable, so we will condense this further until we are left with the term “wicked” as a possible definition for godless. Again there exists a horrible misconception originating in a medieval time period, one that is easily dispelled.

Americans most likely think of one thing when the word “wicked” is spoken aloud- the musical about witches. While this may be somewhat comical, it speaks volumes about the relationship between “wicked” and “godless”. Speculative reasoning can lead us to a possible root of this definition: medieval witches, “wicked” in nature, were often regarded as godless individuals (if one demands proof in this claim, one simply must refer to the countless burnings of Europeans throughout the first millennia by Christians). It is easy to understand why mischievous individuals were regarded as godless when they did not conform to the rigid social and ethical structure put in place by the powerful Christian churches during these time periods. Individuals who did not believe, or even practice their faith to an adequate level for the theistic leaders, could have undermined their authority, and were most likely viewed as threats. Marking them as godless witches, heathens, and heretics instilled fear into the already fearful European culture, and protected the churches power, even if it was only temporary. Realistically, it is entirely speculative as to whether these troublesome individuals were godless or wicked at all, but the simple fact this discussion is based solely on medieval practices should lead us to conclude it is outdated and further evidence for why this definition of “godless” does not belong in the dictionary anymore.

The definition of a godless individual as “wicked, evil”, while medieval in origin, still carries some weight in the modern world of theism, and nowhere is this more evident than fundamentalists, evangelicals, and extremists. Their foundation for marking godless individuals as evil is their own rigid ethical and social structure, based yet again on an ancient text. They fear the increased acceptance of secular thought is a threat to their beliefs, and ultimately their control over their respective societies. Refer to Christian anti-abortion policies based on their scripture, or depictions of the prophet Mohammed in secular cartoons, or Mormon polygamy practices leading to judicial proceedings. These examples show an increase in secularism in developed worlds, and lead one to understand why theists may feel threatened by the fact reason is beginning to prevail over superstition. Still, the terms “wicked” and “evil” are harsh adjectives typically reserved for sociopaths, psychopaths, dictators, and the like. It is foolish to also use the term for one who prefers secularism or atheism to a belief in a god. There exists a term for individuals who have strong ethics and humanitarian practices- secular humanists. These individuals have no belief in a deity, yet they dedicate their lives to the betterment of humanity. Thus, it seems these godless individuals are not “wicked; evil” in any sense, and should instead be defined as “righteous”. Perhaps the second definition should be updated for the modern times by restating it as “righteous; reasonable”, but that will be an argument for a later date.

At this point, a simplistic and basic case for the reassessment of the definition of godless has been made. The godless individual, while lacking belief in a deity, is neither “wicked”, “sinful”, or “evil”. This medieval scare tactic to mark a secular person as immoral does not carry any weight in modern times, and the records should be changed to reflect it. While the English language and dictionary are not easily changed, we as an educated society should reconsider our use of the word going forward, and slowly begin to redevelop the meaning to more accurately portray the “godless” as they are: someone lacking belief in gods and deities, and nothing more.