Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

[evangelicalhumanist]

I’ve been beaten with the idea that, if theism is a belief, then atheism must also be a belief so often (and most recently, of course, by Typist on this forum), that I thought it time to begin an in-depth exploration of the topic.

Let me begin by giving my own perspective on the idea of “belief.” A belief is something that informs our thoughts and our behaviours. From an old Star Trek episode: “as you believe, so shall you do.” Those who sincerely believe some fact, some idea, some proposition, usually do act upon it, or at the very least have their own behaviours affected by the belief.

But can we really say, in the same sort of way, that a lack of some particular belief informs our thoughts and behaviours in the same way? Let’s take a few simple examples:

• A belief that God requires attendance at mass, or you’ll go to Hell, is likely to lead to one going to mass. On the other hand, lacking that belief does not mean either that you will or will not attend mass. You’ll do so based on some other factors – do you like the service, do you want the company, does it help your focus on your religious duty, does it provide spiritual comfort?
• The belief that mushrooms may all be poison is likely to prevent one from eating mushrooms. But not believing it will have no effect whatever on whether one eats mushrooms. Rather, taste or family history or aesthetic concerns are far more likely to determine whether one eats those wonderful fruits of the horse-poop and rotting forest vegetation!

The atheist – in my view – is not “informed” by a lack of belief in god. There’s nothing about such a notion that tells the atheist anything at all about how to live, or why – whether it’s worth it or futile, what he must do or not do. Rather, a whole host of other things inform the atheist. Things like:

• The recognition that he is a human with needs that may require other humans
• The recognition that other humans having been previously spurned or harmed are less likely to be useful
• The thought that he might impact the future (a future he will not see) in the same sort of way that his life has been impacted by historical persons who never contemplated his existence
• The recognition of a multitude of observable (or tractable) facts about the reality in which he finds himself

In my firm view, because the idea of “god” plays no part whatever in how the atheist lives his life, then atheism is itself not a form of belief.

For example on that last point: Not believing in a punishing ("go to Hell, do not pass Go!") sort of God does not inform my life at all – though it does, perhaps, mean that I don't have to suffer some of the angst of the person who believes it. But it also doesn't tell me a damned thing about what I should do, how I ought to behave, what I should understand as my reason for existence. That "lack of belief" is as barren as barren can be, and therefore the very antithesis – as I said at the beginning – of what belief is about.

[Typist]

Oh geez, you're DETERMINED to be a goofy fundamentalist.

Here's my reply as usual.

Atheists may feel that a lack of scientific evidence is authoritative in regards to this question. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that human reason is capable of analyzing this question and coming to a useful answer. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that gods are an invention of the human mind. This is a belief. And so on...

Further, it's entirely fair to say these are faith based beliefs, as there is no hard evidence to prove any of them. All we have to do here is apply the same standard we apply to theism to atheism as well. Strongly held beliefs which can not be proven by science are faith based beliefs.

PS: Just in case it's not already overwhelmingly obvious, your post above is part of your atheist belief system.

[Arising_uk]

And here's ours.

Atheists may feel that a lack of scientific evidence is authoritative in regards to this question. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that human reason is capable of analyzing this question and coming to a useful answer. This is a belief. Atheists may feel that gods are an invention of the human mind. This is a belief. And so on...

Further, it's entirely fair to say these are faith based beliefs, as there is no hard evidence to prove any of them. All we have to do here is apply the same standard we apply to theism to atheism as well. Strongly held beliefs which can not be proven by science are faith based beliefs.

Science cannot disprove the existence of 'god/s' never could, never will. Its that the theist can't show us one not that science says there isn't one, as science does not concern itself with such issues.

Now my opinion is that any atheist worth his salt would, if a 'god' manifested itself to them, say that they now believed in it but they'd still not be kissing its ring.

[Typist]

Science cannot disprove the existence of 'god/s' never could, never will. Its that the theist can't show us one not that science says there isn't one, as science does not concern itself with such issues.

Ah, the old shift the burden of evidence game.

Now I remember what this "we have no beliefs" business is really about. My bad for forgetting.

You don't want to declare your beliefs, because then you'd have to defend them.

And you want to be on the offensive, playing the role of the great debunkers!!

Personal identity manufacturing, driven by the divisive nature of thought.

[Thundril]

How do you see the distinction between passively 'not believing that there is a god' and actively 'believing that there isn't one?' Could both mental states be equally called atheism?
To lay my cards on the table, here; I don't believe there is a god. I don't claim to 'know' that there are no gods, but I personally feel very, very, very certain that they are fictions only. And I really don't mind if theists want to call my lack of belief a belief.
The thing is, I don't believe that most modern educated theists actually have faith.
I'm sure earlier cultures will have regarded their myths as no different in kind from other tales of more recent 'events'. But that could just mean they had no separate concepts of 'ancient fictional story' and 'historic fact'. So I can see how they could have really believed all sorts of things.
But in more recent times, I don't see how it's possible for anyone who has studied the matter to literally believe the god-stories.
I rather suspect the 'theist' state of mind is a chronic form of 'suspension of disbelief'. They want to believe, (Like 'Spooky' Mulder?) I suspect. I know this is only a suspicion, but I honestly can't imagine how an intelligent person could believe in 'god'.
Of course, the problem is, just like we can't 'prove' that there isn't a god (at least I can't) they can't 'prove' (even to themselves) that their faith isn't a well-dressed longing for something to be true.

[Arising_uk]

[Ah, the old shift the burden of evidence game.

...

Personal identity manufacturing, driven by the divisive nature of thought.

This'll be your ideology would it? Sure you're not being fooled into thinking divisively? As its only you that thinks science can prove or disprove such a 'thing' as 'god/s'. What it can do is give better explanations for how things work than 'god/s do/did it' and this does tend to undercut the theists and deists claims for their 'evidence' of their 'god/s' existence.

[Typist]

Hopeless.

Completely hopeless.

But, ok, ok, I agree that the Virgin Mary really was a virgin etc etc.

Honestly, talking to you guys on these kinds of topics is EXACTLY like talking to Jehovahs Witnesses. Only a fool would do such a thing!

Uh oh...

[Arising_uk]

Funny you should bring the witnesses up as it gives me a chance to wave my penis about. As I can proudly claim to have 'converted' one of their acolytes away from their belief when one their true believers and a budding chella made the error of knocking upon a philosophers door.

Think this'd happen with your 'aphilosophy'?

[blackbox]

"if theism is a belief, then atheism must also be a belief"...

Who would be so stupid as to suggest that?

[Typist]

"if theism is a belief, then atheism must also be a belief"... Who would be so stupid as to suggest that?

Michael Antony is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. He is writing a
book on how to approach the question of whether there is a divine
reality, and what it might be like.

http://philosophynow.org/issue78/Wheres_The_Evidence

[evangelicalhumanist]

"if theism is a belief, then atheism must also be a belief"... Who would be so stupid as to suggest that?

Michael Antony is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. He is writing a
book on how to approach the question of whether there is a divine
reality, and what it might be like.

http://philosophynow.org/issue78/Wheres_The_Evidence

I'm sure he's very smart. However, it hardly needs pointing out that his article means precisely one thing -- that it is just as unreasonable to disbelieve absolutely any claim, made by absolutely anyone, for which evidence is not available.

For me, the real question is upon what basis does anyone make such a claim? In the case of God, it is very probable (since we agree that no evidence is available) that the first human who though of it puzzled over something he couldn't understand and couldn't think of any explanation except a fanciful god. If the only possible answer is "I couldn't think of anything else," then it would seem that the moment somebody does think of something else, even though it is completely and utterly contradictory to the former, both propositions must be considered equally worthy. That sort of thinking gets to be awfully silly after a while.

[Thundril]

For me, the real question is upon what basis does anyone make such a claim? In the case of God, it is very probable (since we agree that no evidence is available) that the first human who though of it puzzled over something he couldn't understand and couldn't think of any explanation except a fanciful god. If the only possible answer is "I couldn't think of anything else," then it would seem that the moment somebody does think of something else, even though it is completely and utterly contradictory to the former, both propositions must be considered equally worthy. That sort of thinking gets to be awfully silly after a while.

We humans, and our pre-hominid ancestors most probably, discovered a very great evolutionary advantage in reading the body-language, eye-glances etc of our cospecifics and to a lesser extent the body language of potential predators. We also learned to imitate our elders to a much more sophisticated degree than most other species do. And by that route, to communicate abstract ideas, eventually.
I think it was through this route that we developed our tendency to anthropomorphise just about everything: We think the stars are watching us, the warm morning sun is being kind to us, that sea is angry, this breeze is calm. I don't see that anybody had to 'think' anything, to grow the cultural notion that the forest, the skies, even the mountains, are conscious like us. It's hard-wired into the structure of our brains. It's an evolutionary trick.
This is just my not-terribly-well-informed guess. But if there's any truth in it, that would make the idea of gods as old as our species itself, just about.
The idea of the one-and-only god, who's the boss of absolutely everything whatsoever, probably couldn't have been thought of before there were large political units, like towns, maybe, with patriarchs in them, on which to model the idea..

[Typist]

However, it hardly needs pointing out that his article means precisely one thing -- that it is just as unreasonable to disbelieve absolutely any claim, made by absolutely anyone, for which evidence is not available.

Isn't this argument by exaggeration?

It's common atheist dogma to compare god claims to pink unicorn etc, but the fact is that discussion of pink unicorns hasn't been the biggest culture event in human history, underway in every time and place etc.

It seems if someone is going to proclaim reason to be their flag, they should be more precise about it.

For me, the real question is upon what basis does anyone make such a claim?

You always apply this to theists, but never to yourself. It's just yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty that infects internet atheists.

Why do people claim they know whether there is a god or not is the better question. Theists claim to know, atheists claim to know, based on what?

[Thundril]

However, it hardly needs pointing out that his article means precisely one thing -- that it is just as unreasonable to disbelieve absolutely any claim, made by absolutely anyone, for which evidence is not available.

Isn't this argument by exaggeration?

It's common atheist dogma to compare god claims to pink unicorn etc, but the fact is that discussion of pink unicorns hasn't been the biggest culture event in human history, underway in every time and place etc.

It seems if someone is going to proclaim reason to be their flag, they should be more precise about it.

For me, the real question is upon what basis does anyone make such a claim?

You always apply this to theists, but never to yourself. It's just yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty that infects internet atheists.

Why do people claim they know whether there is a god or not is the better question. Theists claim to know, atheists claim to know, based on what?

Good question, Typist. I posted this last night, a little further up the page;

How do you see the distinction between passively 'not believing that there is a god' and actively 'believing that there isn't one?' Could both mental states be equally called atheism?
To lay my cards on the table, here; I don't believe there is a god. I don't claim to 'know' that there are no gods, but I personally feel very, very, very certain that they are fictions only. And I really don't mind if theists want to call my lack of belief a belief.
The thing is, I don't believe that most modern educated theists actually have faith.
I'm sure earlier cultures will have regarded their myths as no different in kind from other tales of more recent 'events'. But that could just mean they had no separate concepts of 'ancient fictional story' and 'historic fact'. So I can see how they could have really believed all sorts of things.
But in more recent times, I don't see how it's possible for anyone who has studied the matter to literally believe the god-stories.
I rather suspect the 'theist' state of mind is a chronic form of 'suspension of disbelief'. They want to believe, (Like 'Spooky' Mulder?) I suspect. I know this is only a suspicion, but I honestly can't imagine how an intelligent person could believe in 'god'.
Of course, the problem is, just like we can't 'prove' that there isn't a god (at least I can't) they can't 'prove' (even to themselves) that their faith isn't a well-dressed longing for something to be true.

Perhaps you missed it. Would you like to address it now?
And, could you try not to speak of all atheists as if we were a single animal?
I know in this quoted piece I have talked about 'modern educated theists' in that way, but I actuall think it's not helpful and will try to stop if you will.

[evangelicalhumanist]

You always apply this to theists, but never to yourself. It's just yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty that infects internet atheists.

Why do people claim they know whether there is a god or not is the better question. Theists claim to know, atheists claim to know, based on what?

You're doing it again. I don't claim to know there is no god. I do state that with no reason to suppose there is one, the question has no valid answer. But that leads to the next step: believing in gods leads to taking positive steps with respect to that belief. Not believing in gods does not lead to anything except an effort to find other ways of understanding our situation.

Lots of people suppose that belief in God makes them "be good," and that therefore atheism must inevitably lead to the opposite. And yet, in the U.S. at least, the ratio of athiest-to-theist prisoners is actually smaller than in the general population. The religious affiliation of prisoners compared to the general population is (per Pew Forum):

Religion - Prison % (Gen Pop %)
Catholic - 39.2% (23.9%)
Protestant - 35.0% (51.3%)
Muslim - 7.3% (0.6%)
American Indian 3.% (0.3%)
Jewish - 1.8% (1.7%)
Buddhist - 1.2% (0.7%)
Jehovah Witness - 0.9% (0.7%)
Orthodox 0.5% (0.6%)
Mormon - 0.4% (1.7%)
Atheist - 0.2% (1.6%)
Hindu - 0.2% (0.4%)

Proportionally, at least according to that, the atheists rate best, hands down.

I remind you that belief in gods led directly to the sacrifice of humans for the sole purpose of pleasing those gods for our benefit. What can you think of that a non-belief in gods has led to? (And before you mention the millions of deaths under Stalin and Mao, let me point out that they were acting out of a political conviction, not a non-religious one. Once we humans are convinced of something, neither belief in god nor non-belief in god prevents us from killing each other with great robustness. Read any history of the Tudors, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Aztecs if you are doubtful.)

Where is the Graveyard of Dead Gods?