Atheism: A belief?

[Thief]

And you say I assume too much!

My belief is not an assumption.
(cause and effect.)

Or perhaps you have made an honest reading of my other postings?
and you think you have objection still?

Such is atheism.
No way confirm a belief...so you don't.

Too bad.

 

[Wombat]

I submit to you that "faith" is not what most atheists, and no few theists, think of it as being. It is pointless to think of "faith" as subscribing to a proposition without sufficient evidence, because there is no objective standard of sufficiency. I find it much more helpful to look at it from a functional point of view, i.e., how does it work? From this perspective, "faith" consists of exercising trust in someone or something. Simply getting out of bed in the morning requires an exercise of trust -- that the floor will be there when you stand up, that your legs won't break beneath you when you put your weight on them, that there's a point to getting out of bed, etc. These are exercises of trust that you find convenient to make, but they aren't forced upon you by reality.

Every action and inaction constitutes an act of trust. The man who prays to God exercises trust in his existence, his nature, etc.; and the man who says that there is no God exercises trust that no God exists, going about his day without acknowledging him or regarding the idea of him as relevant. This is the common belief of atheism: the act of trust in the non-existence of God. Both the weak atheist ("I don't believe there is") and the strong atheist ("I believe there isn't") make this act of trust.

Hope this helps.

Yea...I like it.
Just wanted to throw in that I believe these "acts of trust" and "exercising trust in someone or something" are based on a range of rational/concious and emotional/subconcious calculations of 'probability'- "What is the probability the plane will crash, What is the probability my partner is faithful....What is the probability God does/does not exist".
Yes, it is like a jury and like a scientist....it is also like a Mug Punter...We follow the Form Guide, watch the track and weather...calculate the probabilities...place our bets and trust/have faith we will pick a winner.

Liked your post.

 

[Copernicus]

Every action and inaction constitutes an act of trust. The man who prays to God exercises trust in his existence, his nature, etc.; and the man who says that there is no God exercises trust that no God exists, going about his day without acknowledging him or regarding the idea of him as relevant. This is the common belief of atheism: the act of trust in the non-existence of God. Both the weak atheist ("I don't believe there is") and the strong atheist ("I believe there isn't") make this act of trust.

Tom, while there are a lot of good things in your post, I would respond that there are criteria of sufficiency for evidence, and there are types of knowledge that are not just based on trust. For example, we know our bodily sensations directly. We use the evidence of those sensations to build a model of the world that we can put our trust in, and we continuously renew that trust. There are times when all of us have come to "doubt our senses", but those times are usually rare. What makes beliefs trustworthy is the type of evidence that we bring to bear in support of them.

Religious faith and trust in world models based on everyday experience are very different things. It is difficult and expensive to maintain religious faith. You must work hard at it by engaging in rituals that include prayer, sacrifice, and obedience. It does not get corroborated by everyday experience, and it depends heavily on special pleading. There are no experiments or concrete experiences to prove it, although people constantly search for them. Scientists build up trust in their theories, but they do so in a way that can be constantly measured against ongoing experience. Religious faith is just the opposite--a denial that the trust can be tested or verified.

 

[That Dude]

I agree, discussions about atheism are as pointless as discussions of abigfootism, and atheism is almost as meaningless a label as ageocentrism.

That is not to say the word "atheism" can not be defined ("without theism"). Only that the word can only be a meaningful distinction as long as the majority of humans subscribe to theism. If 90% of us believed in fairies, for example, afairyism would mean something.

Every atheist I've talked with who has read Dawkins claims that, Richard Dawkins "understands them".
If there is no belief then there is "nothing" to "understand".

The idea that people can be unified under the belief that logic and reason should remain your primary focus, goes back more then 2000 years when Gautama Buddha taught people to ignore traditions.

 

[Tom Terrific]

Tom, while there are a lot of good things in your post...

Thank you for your kind remarks.

I don't want to debate or argue. It is my experience that these approaches to understanding, and even consensus, are limited and are often counter-productive in this area. My responses are simply my thoughts on your objections.

I would respond that there are criteria of sufficiency for evidence, and there are types of knowledge that are not just based on trust. For example, we know our bodily sensations directly.

I don't think rational consciousness knows anything directly. Perception is not sensation, and perception is how rational consciousness functions. There is always a distance between the perceiver and what is perceived; and, because rational consciousness requires this separation to function, it cannot quantify this distance. As far as rational consciousness is concerned, its measure is infinite; and that means you cannot determine the relative reliability of any two competing criteria objectively. Trust is an inescapable necessity for every action; and the inability to objectively quantify the aforementioned distance means that, rationally speaking, the degrees of trust required for taking any of various alternatives also cannot be quantified or compared objectively. Of course, we judge or feel some things to be more or less trustworthy than others; but this is a purely subjective determination.

This is even true of the standards of inquiry that form the basis for empirical method. They may seem more objectively reliable, but that's only because we like them and we're comfortable with them.

Religious faith and trust in world models based on everyday experience are very different things.

For the reasons stated, I think any difference you perceive will be a difference of degree rather than a difference in kind, and that the degree of this difference will be based on subjective criteria.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think rational consciousness knows anything directly. Perception is not sensation, and perception is how rational consciousness functions...

I was careful to use the expression "bodily sensations" rather than "perception", because we often include models of reality under the rubric of "perception". We directly experience sensations, and that "sensorium" is a bedrock of cognitive self-awareness. If you put glasses on someone that make everything appear upside-down, everything will appear rightside-up after a period of time, because the perceiver comes to interpret the same sensations (in this case visual cues) differently.

There is always a distance between the perceiver and what is perceived; and, because rational consciousness requires this separation to function, it cannot quantify this distance. As far as rational consciousness is concerned, its measure is infinite; and that means you cannot determine the relative reliability of any two competing criteria objectively. Trust is an inescapable necessity for every action; and the inability to objectively quantify the aforementioned distance means that, rationally speaking, the degrees of trust required for taking any of various alternatives also cannot be quantified or compared objectively. Of course, we judge or feel some things to be more or less trustworthy than others; but this is a purely subjective determination.

I submit that the basis for our judgments is a kind of measurement. There are many ways to "measure" things, and just because we operate intuitively, that does not mean that the intuitions are somehow impervious to objective investigation. Psychologists have devised very clever methods of measurement for cognitive functions, and I think that we should give them their due.

This is even true of the standards of inquiry that form the basis for empirical method. They may seem more objectively reliable, but that's only because we like them and we're comfortable with them.

I disagree. It is because those methods have led us to make much more successful predictions about future events than other methods. Religion has nothing like the track record of science for producing good results. Because of science, we can now perform "miracles", some of which were dreamed of in the ancient past and many of which were not.

 

[Orias]

Millions of Buddhists would disagree with that. "Samsara" is the teaching that one is naturally reborn in an unending natural cycle, with no God involved at all. It is a rational enough idea born from the insight that mind is not a thing but a flow (the etymology of "samsara" is "to flow on.")

Could this "flow" be a Universe?

 

[Tom Terrific]

I disagree.

Okay.

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure that that is possible or desirable. What I think is important is coming to terms with the beliefs that you do have. It is a core observation of dharmic religions that reality is ephemeral and changing. ----

Thanks Copernicus. I wrote something in another thread that has similar theme.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2393027-post24.html

I also note that Hinduism does not hold that Truth is ephemeral and changing.

 

[Frank Merton]

Could this "flow" be a Universe?

I can tell you my opinion, which is, I don't know but I doubt it.

I can also tell you in very simplified form what the traditional Hindu/Buddhist view is, which is that we are each individual flows. The difference is that the Hindu sees the rebirth cycle as a form of afterlife; the Buddhist as a trap to be escaped by seeking Enlightenment.

To me the greatest objection to the idea that we, as individuals, survive into the next rebirth is the observation that our personalities are largely a part of the fact that we lay down and subsequently utilize memories that are coded in physical brain, and hence destroyed at death. (That this is the case is demonstrated by the effects of brain memory-destroying diseases such as Alzheimer's on personality).

 

[Frank Merton]

I don't think rational consciousness knows anything directly. Perception is not sensation, and perception is how rational consciousness functions. There is always a distance between the perceiver and what is perceived; and, because rational consciousness requires this separation to function, it cannot quantify this distance. As far as rational consciousness is concerned, its measure is infinite; and that means you cannot determine the relative reliability of any two competing criteria objectively. Trust is an inescapable necessity for every action; and the inability to objectively quantify the aforementioned distance means that, rationally speaking, the degrees of trust required for taking any of various alternatives also cannot be quantified or compared objectively. Of course, we judge or feel some things to be more or less trustworthy than others; but this is a purely subjective determination.

This is even true of the standards of inquiry that form the basis for empirical method. They may seem more objectively reliable, but that's only because we like them and we're comfortable with them.

For the reasons stated, I think any difference you perceive will be a difference of degree rather than a difference in kind, and that the degree of this difference will be based on subjective criteria.

Is it really that bad? If I understood you, you seem to be saying we cannot know anything without "trust" (code for "faith"??), and if we cannot know, we certainly cannot understand.

I think we can trust that there exists something we might call "objective reality." That most of what our senses tell us about it is illusion is well demonstrated, but illusions do not come out of the vapor (we call things that come out of the vapor "delusions"). Given patience and work, scientists and others can often tease out realities behind the illusions -- e.g. we perceive a "blue" sky, the reality has to do with differential diffraction of light.

 

[Magic Man]

I endorse this sentiment, although I do not think that you are following it objectively in this particular case. We do not base the label "atheist" on whether someone lacks a belief in gods. Rather we base it on whether they reject belief in gods.

Look at it from a logical perspective. If atheism were equivalent to lack of belief, then it would be entirely consistent to label someone an atheist who lacked belief in the statement "No gods exist." That is, the following statements would be logically consistent for the "atheist" X:

1) X does not believe that God exists.
2) X does not believe that God does not exist.

However, I doubt very much that anyone would reasonably hold that (2) describes the mental state of any atheist. Now, that said, I do not doubt that some, if not most, atheists in this thread will remain unreasonable about it.

You've just restated what we've been saying and then claimed that it's unreasonable. That's not a very good argument. Yes, some atheists lack the belief "No gods exist", and no, it's not unreasonable to claim they are atheists, considering they fit the description of an atheist.

 

[Orias]

I can tell you my opinion, which is, I don't know but I doubt it.

I can also tell you in very simplified form what the traditional Hindu/Buddhist view is, which is that we are each individual flows. The difference is that the Hindu sees the rebirth cycle as a form of afterlife; the Buddhist as a trap to be escaped by seeking Enlightenment.

To me the greatest objection to the idea that we, as individuals, survive into the next rebirth is the observation that our personalities are largely a part of the fact that we lay down and subsequently utilize memories that are coded in physical brain, and hence destroyed at death. (That this is the case is demonstrated by the effects of brain memory-destroying diseases such as Alzheimer's on personality).

I see.

So it seems to me the flow of the Universe allows the Universe of our Mind to flow as well

Somewhere along the lines, I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

 

[Magic Man]

So, I didn't read through the last 10 pages, but it seems as though they're pretty much like the first 60, with a few people trying to explain the very, very simple idea that anyone who lacks belief in gods is an atheist, and others desperately trying to complicate the matter in order to assert that atheism is a belief. So, I'll leave it at this:

An atheist is anyone who doesn't hold the belief "God exists". That's all there is to it.

 

[Orias]

the very, very simple idea that anyone who lacks belief in gods is an atheist,

So would I be an atheist if I lacked certain belief in certain Gods, but held belief in different ones?

and others desperately trying to complicate the matter in order to assert that atheism is a belief. So, I'll leave it at this:

It seems to me the only one complicating things is those who go out of their way to speciously defend atheism with their own belief as to what it is.

An atheist is anyone who doesn't hold the belief "God exists". That's all there is to it.

:drums:

 

[Frank Merton]

I see.

So it seems to me the flow of the Universe allows the Universe of our Mind to flow as well

Somewhere along the lines, I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

Descartes used that argument to assert the existence of a soul or "self." I don't know that it works as well if one asserts that there is no self, but only process, or flow.

As I grow older I become more persuaded that the old Indian subcontinent ideas have it hands down over European and Middle Eastern ideas, and only the rise of modern science can do better. That said, however, modern science remains influenced by its European origins, and so continues to dismiss many aspects of our existence that run counter to Christian thinking, such as rebirth, the process nature of mind, the relevance of sentience as opposed to consciousness, and others.

 

[Magic Man]

So would I be an atheist if I lacked certain belief in certain Gods, but held belief in different ones?

Obviously not. Then everyone would be an atheist. Again, this is very simple. In that case you wouldn't answer no to the question "Do you believe in God or a god?". Don't try to make it any more complicated than it is.

It seems to me the only one complicating things is those who go out of their way to speciously defend atheism with their own belief as to what it is.



:drums:

Interesting. I never thought of what you've been saying as defending atheism. Then again, I wouldn't call what I've been doing "defending atheism" either. The ones who are complicating things are the ones trying to argue against the simple fact that anyone who holds no belief in gods is an atheist.

 

[Orias]

Descartes used that argument to assert the existence of a soul or "self." I don't know that it works as well if one asserts that there is no self, but only process, or flow.

It's not necessarily that there is no "Self", just the label "self" projects a personalized image onto one's person. This can really be taken into anu assertion however.

As I grow older I become more persuaded that the old Indian subcontinent ideas have it hands down over European and Middle Eastern ideas, and only the rise of modern science can do better. That said, however, modern science remains influenced by its European origins, and so continues to dismiss many aspects of our existence that run counter to Christian thinking, such as rebirth, the process nature of mind, the relevance of sentience as opposed to consciousness, and others.

Which seemingly confuses me.

Obviously not. Then everyone would be an atheist. Again, this is very simple. In that case you wouldn't answer no to the question "Do you believe in God or a god?". Don't try to make it any more complicated than it is.

Then what am I?

Interesting. I never thought of what you've been saying as defending atheism. Then again, I wouldn't call what I've been doing "defending atheism" either. The ones who are complicating things are the ones trying to argue against the simple fact that anyone who holds no belief in gods is an atheist.

I completely agree.

I was never in disagreeance with what atheism was, simply that the self projected image of atheism promotes specious belief, and not a straight foward, concrete manner.

I'm saying that atheism is a belief, because for me personally it is easier to defend. On the axiom that the world is built off of axioms of course

 

[Frank Merton]

It's not necessarily that there is no "Self", just the label "self" projects a personalized image onto one's person. This can really be taken into anu assertion however.

If there is a "self," where is it? The pituitary? The brain? The concept is best abandoned.

Which seemingly confuses me.

I was rambling a bit. Basically I think that the expertise brought to us by modern science is our best source of understanding, except that we have to remember that it originated in a Christian milieu, and retains some Christian concepts (this is especially important in the softer sciences like psychology and anthropology).

One example is the resistance to the idea that animals are sentient. On its surface this is an outrageous idea, yet many behavioral specialists seem to operate on the assumption that only people are sentient. (Distinguish alive from sentient from self-aware from conscious).

 

[Orias]

If there is a "self," where is it? The pituitary? The brain? The concept is best abandoned.

I disagree

Such an argument could apply to all, "If the sun exists, where is it?"

The concept isn't "strong" and it isn't "weak", it just is.

I was rambling a bit. Basically I think that the expertise brought to us by modern science is our best source of understanding, except that we have to remember that it originated in a Christian milieu, and retains some Christian concepts (this is especially important in the softer sciences like psychology and anthropology).

I agree completely.

And I would like to add, that any habitual bias does not present a credible source for "understanding".

One example is the resistance to the idea that animals are sentient. On its surface this is an outrageous idea, yet many behavioral specialists seem to operate on the assumption that only people are sentient. (Distinguish alive from sentient from self-aware from conscious).

I find it funny that people that expertise in an area, often lack the ability to critisize themselves

For instance, a behavioral specialists (my step mother) that has behavior issues. It's not that she is socially dysfunctional, just that she has her random sweeps of psychotic breakdowns. Is that a behavior issue? I'd say so, why can't she help herself? Because she doesn't view herself in such a manner


People resort to special pleading, in it's most oblivious forms.