Philosophy Now Forum

Notvacka wrote:

evangelicalhumanist wrote:So, I'll tell you what. When you give a single, comprehensive definition for what you mean when you say "God," I will tell you what my actual belief (rather than lack of belief) in that entity is. Until then, I'm left with having to say I hold no belief concerning things I've not seen or felt, and which nobody has adequately described."

I'll give this a shot. There is no reason to describe or even mention God at all. The main issue here is whether the universe was created by somebody or not. If you believe that it wasn't created by anybody, then you are an atheist. If you believe that it was created by somebody, then you are a theist and must define and describe who the creator you believe in is.

And for me, to suppose that there can exist a "somebody/creator" that is itself creatorless, seems to mean that the universe itself (or at least the most basic "stuff" of it) might just as easily exist creatorless. And that, by the way, seems easier to me. This "somebody/creator" seems arbitrarily complex already, where the universe-stuff can become complex on its own over time through a few really quite basic characteristics of its compostion. So, no, I don't require a creator, and therefore have no need to define it. Which is a good thing, since most who do, must then go on and try to figure out what their creator's impact is upon them now, and how to behave accordingly -- a complete impossibility, in my view, as is demonstrated through the myriad of answers that humans have given to that question.

Please help me out here. How does arguing about this or that belief accomplish anything favorable?
Is philosophy a contest or a quest for truth and understanding? Could it be possible that any attempt to determine if one belief is more favorable, accurate or valid than another prevent one for questioning the source of belief? Is it really necessary to believe in anything? Is it possible for man to function in the absence of belief?

Surely these questions pertain to Epistemology, the theory of knowledge far more than which belief is right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. Of course I could be wrong.

Your perceptual training results in your belief-system which then also starts to act as your guide.

zimmer80203` wrote:Please help me out here. How does arguing about this or that belief accomplish anything favorable?

Personally I don't really have a problem with people believing in fanciful woo, if they get a lift out of it. It's when they start using this crap to justify murdering gays, or forbidding surgical procedures, or stealing other people's land, this is when I turn spoil-sport.
This fuckin god is a fairy-tale, OK?
But here we are all mildly philosophising, and no-one's using 'faith' to justify atrocities; so the debate is a bit pontless. But in that sense, philosophising in general is just a kind of sedentary hill-walking.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:

Notvacka wrote:There is no reason to describe or even mention God at all. The main issue here is whether the universe was created by somebody or not. If you believe that it wasn't created by anybody, then you are an atheist. If you believe that it was created by somebody, then you are a theist and must define and describe who the creator you believe in is.

And for me, to suppose that there can exist a "somebody/creator" that is itself creatorless, seems to mean that the universe itself (or at least the most basic "stuff" of it) might just as easily exist creatorless. And that, by the way, seems easier to me. This "somebody/creator" seems arbitrarily complex already, where the universe-stuff can become complex on its own over time through a few really quite basic characteristics of its compostion. So, no, I don't require a creator, and therefore have no need to define it. Which is a good thing, since most who do, must then go on and try to figure out what their creator's impact is upon them now, and how to behave accordingly -- a complete impossibility, in my view, as is demonstrated through the myriad of answers that humans have given to that question.

Yes. Based upon all the hard work done by scientists through history, atheism is the easy way out nowadays, whereas once upon a time, theism was the easy way out.

And yours are perfectly reasonable arguments for choosing to believe that the universe exists without a creator, perhaps more reasonable than my arguments for believing the opposite.

Notvacka wrote:Yes. Based upon all the hard work done by scientists through history, atheism is the easy way out nowadays, whereas once upon a time, theism was the easy way out.

And yours are perfectly reasonable arguments for choosing to believe that the universe exists without a creator, perhaps more reasonable than my arguments for believing the opposite.

Replace the somewhat pejorative 'easy way out' with the more neutral 'simplest assumption' and I think we might have an agreement!

Thundril wrote:

Notvacka wrote:Yes. Based upon all the hard work done by scientists through history, atheism is the easy way out nowadays, whereas once upon a time, theism was the easy way out.

And yours are perfectly reasonable arguments for choosing to believe that the universe exists without a creator, perhaps more reasonable than my arguments for believing the opposite.

Replace the somewhat pejorative 'easy way out' with the more neutral 'simplest assumption' and I think we might have an agreement!

William of Ockham to the rescue again!

Thundril wrote:Replace the somewhat pejorative 'easy way out' with the more neutral 'simplest assumption' and I think we might have an agreement!

Gladly.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:William of Ockham to the rescue again!

The simplest assumption is the neat and easy way. But sometimes you find that the razor just don't cut it. I use a shaver myself, most of the time.

By the way, does this mean that you agree that a lack of belief is a kind of belief after all? You don't have to, if you don't want to, but it would be nice if we could be true agnostics together, as "soft atheists" and "soft theists".

After a mere 233 posts! Pretty good going!

Notvacka wrote:By the way, does this mean that you agree that a lack of belief is a kind of belief after all?

What kind of drugs are you on Notvacka?

Cross-posted.
Personally, I don't think a lack of belief is a belief. It's just the absence of an unnecesary assumption!

Notvacka wrote:

evangelicalhumanist wrote:By the way, does this mean that you agree that a lack of belief is a kind of belief after all? You don't have to, if you don't want to, but it would be nice if we could be true agnostics together, as "soft atheists" and "soft theists".

The question is too broad, and there's no clear answer. I frankly believe there's a continuum from belief (all humans believe all sorts of things are true) to disbelief (all humans believe all sorts of things are not true). In the middle of that continuum is skepticism. And skepticism is not a matter of belief, but a matter of non-acceptance without some basis. I don't consider that to be belief.

I have said before that I cannot say definitively that there is not something that might be called "God," though I do not think so myself. I do actively believe that the notion of the Christian God, who will pack Hell top-full with people who never heard of Jesus, or who did hear of Jesus and considered it all nonsense, is itself nonsense. That's a belief, yes.

evangelicalhumanist wrote:non-acceptance without some basis

A belief that acceptance must have some basis.

A belief that the human mind is capable of establishing whether there is a basis or not.

A belief that our well documented ability to usefully analyze a great number of smaller questions equals an ability to usefully analyze a question of ultimate scale.

A belief that is more accurately labeled faith, as there is no evidence to support it.

Typist wrote:

evangelicalhumanist wrote:non-acceptance without some basis

A belief that acceptance must have some basis.

A belief that the human mind is capable of establishing whether there is a basis or not.

A belief that our well documented ability to usefully analyze a great number of smaller questions equals an ability to usefully analyze a question of ultimate scale.

A belief that is more accurately labeled faith, as there is no evidence to support it.

Is it important to you, for some reason, that everybody admit to "belief?" Will it improve the world in some way? Is post-belief skepticism somehow painful for you, or hurtful to the world?

Well, it is true that the human brain is itself a "belief engine." We believe before we reason, because that was important to survival, and came about because our brains are preoccupied with two processes: patternicity and agenticity -- we find meaningful patterns in all data (meaningful or meaningless) and we imagine intention and agency in inanimate objects and chance occurrences. We believe before we reason ("the rustle in the bush could be a lion, therefore I believe it's a lion, therefore run away!), and once beliefs are formed, we look for confirmation and justification, rather than inquire about their reasonableness. Running away from the "lion" didn't hurt us. Not running might have, if it had indeed been a lion.

I am a skeptic not because I don't want to believe. I'm a skeptic because I want to know. Take that where you will, but you must at least, I think, allow that yes it's possible that my brain is as partial to belief as anyone's, but that I -- perhaps more than some few others -- challenge my own beliefs. And that may well mean that what you are calling "beliefs" aren't quite so strong as to deserve that name at all...or that at least I may be a little justified in thinking of them as less than "faith."