Atheism is not a default position

[Ouroboros]

My point in regard to the double negatives and so on is sincere. I do understand that you are applying it in order to describe different degrees of certainty - but I don't think it does that very well.

All that happens in practice when we add to many 'don't disbelieve in no-God' kind of redundancies is not a clear idea of different levels of certainty - just an increasingly difficult to read sentence.

Let me rephrase things then to see if I can make myself clearer.

Let's change "I believe God exists" to "I believe proposition X is true where X is 'God exists'".

By adding "not" and change true to false, we get four different scenarios:

1) I believe proposition X is true
2) I believe proposition X is false
3) I don't believe proposition X is true
4) I don't believe proposition X is false

Now, if X represents "God exists", then supposedly strong atheism fits 2) and3), and they're considered similar but equal

The same goes for 1 and 4, simply because let's change true and false to V. V can be true or false. That simplifies the list to:

i) I believe proposition X is V (where V is true or false)
ii) I don't believe proposition X is V (where V is true or false)

If X is "God exists" and V is true for i) and false for ii), is the same condition or relationship as if V is false for i) and true for ii).

In other words, implicit theism is just as different from explicit theism as implicit atheism is from explicit atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

This is why it is not worth discussing things with you. You do not argue properly, you jump around from one thing to another, arguing fallaciously and, indeed, often, dishonestly, without any real regard for the proper construction of a position or even honestly addressing the discussion. You asked for an example of your contemptuous attitude to religion and I gave you one example. And it is an example - you contemptuously dismissed the classical theist position as referring to a non-existent. If this is just a brief answer, it is intellectually negligible through its briefness. It is nonsense, without a lot of argumentation to support it. My original point obviously wasn't based upon this example. I used it, if you follow the discussion, as an illustration. This is yet another illustration of your trolling, sophistry, and dishonesty. You don't bother to keep up with the discussion because you are only interested in flinging whatever piece of obscurantism or nonsense strikes you at the time. I have learnt, again, it just isn't worth discussing things with the likes of you, farewell.

Mate you,are standing on some imaginary moral high ground flinging a lot of insults complaining about being insulted. You call me a troll, liar etc etc etc - but have not actually even tried to make any sort of argument, or participate on the topic - or even support any of your ridiculous and shamefully dishonest accusations.

You have made a number of comments on this thread, not a single one of which even engages on the topic, all of which breach forum rules by flinging insults like a schoolboy and you have had neother the grace nor the wit to even support any of your accusations with a reasoned argument.

You are making a fool of yourself Jeremy, I suggest you stop.

You Jeremy are trolling me and this thread, a fact that is patently obvious to anybody who reads it. Why not just stop?

 

[Bunyip]

Let me rephrase things then to see if I can make myself clearer.

Let's change "I believe God exists" to "I believe proposition X is true where X is 'God exists'".

Wow! So you substitute a simple, easy to understand proposition for one that I am not even sure of the meaning of? Why do that? Now I don't know what the proposition means.

By adding "not" and change true to false, we get four different scenarios:

1) I believe proposition X is true
2) I believe proposition X is false
3) I don't believe proposition X is true
4) I don't believe proposition X is false

Now, if X represents "God exists", then supposedly strong atheism fits 2) and3), and they're considered similar but equal

The same goes for 1 and 4, simply because let's change true and false to V. V can be true or false. That simplifies the list to:

i) I believe proposition X is V (where V is true or false)
ii) I don't believe proposition X is V (where V is true or false)

If X is "God exists" and V is true for i) and false for ii), is the same condition or relationship as if V is false for i) and true for ii).

In other words, implicit theism is just as different from explicit theism as implicit atheism is from explicit atheism.

I'm sorry, you lost me. My apologies.

The first proposition is binary - two possible states, the second renders four possible states. So doesn't that make the first proposition simpler and clearer?

 

[Curious George]

Human beings are quite capable of holding contradictory beliefs
.

Careful, I said this once and had to explain it to people for about 10 pages.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wow! So you substitute a simple, easy to understand proposition for one that I am not even sure of the meaning of? Why do that? Now I don't know what the proposition means. I'm sorry, you lost me. My apologies.

It's like algebra. Substitute a proposition to a variable.

The first proposition is binary - two possible states, the second renders four possible states. So doesn't that make the first proposition simpler and clearer?

The proposition X has only two states, true or false, but adding the claim of "I believe" v "I don't believe" you have four. By substituting the true/false with a variable as well, then you have reduced it to two again.

 

[Curious George]

I understand, but the interesting question is on what basis one could make a claim that the concept is meaningless. Usually, people who argue along those lines are not talking about gods in general, because we have references to gods that go back to the very earliest records of human history. Religious belief has been ingrained in the fabric of human society forever, so the claim that the "god" concept is meaningless seems utterly absurd on the face of it. And atheism entails rejection of belief in all of those putative god entities, not just the various varieties of the Abrahamic God, which itself originally derived from a blend of the head of the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, "El", and the lesser god "Yahweh". That is, the Jewish religion actually started out as henotheistic, but evolved into a monotheistic religion, especially under the influence of the Persian Achaemenids, who may also have introduced the taboo against idolatry that is so characteristic of modern Abrahamic religions. Herodotus mentioned that the Achaemenids never depicted their gods with statues, although the practice of idolatry did start up again under Artaxerxes II.

Usually, the idea that the "god" concept is meaningless is rooted in arguments over the nature of a monotheistic god, and that means an Abrahamic "God" in our culture. There have been arguments about the contradictory properties attributed to this idealized God that actually predate Christianity, but we know them in terms of arguments over the so-called "omnimax" God, a being with the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. In short, it is a being that is imagined to be perfect in every respect--the ultimate Platonic concept. One of the best examples of arguments against the Christian ideal of God can be found in a 2005 collection of philosophical essays called The Impossibility of God. So one tack that noncognitivists take is to argue that the concept ultimately collapses logically and cannot have a coherent meaning or reference. Hence, it is meaningless to assert or deny the existence of something that could never exist in the first place. I find that position ironic, because one could only sustain it if, in fact, there was enough meaning associated with the concept to make the argument that it was self-contradictory. Human beings are quite capable of holding contradictory beliefs, so claiming that a word is ultimately incoherent is not the same thing as claiming that it has no meaning.

I have not found that assertions that god is not able to be defined tends towards one of two reasons. Neither of these reasons are because of the monotheistic god.

The first is that there are too many definitions of god and since many of these definitions contradict each other there is no set of characteristics beyond the label.

The second tends t focus on the ability to abstract god. Since god can be abstracted almost infinitely until we are talking about something out there which people spiritually experience, defining a god in such a way that is meaningful is impossible. Because any attempt to do so can be met with a further abstraction that evades the definition.

I tend to think we have to draw the line somewhere. This of course means some people's concepts of God's i will not see as a god.

Neither of these routes relies on a self contradictory definition. Just people asserting that until a god is described one cannot engage. I can understand a person who feels this way, I just disagree.

 

[Copernicus]

Human beings are quite capable of holding contradictory beliefs

Careful, I said this once and had to explain it to people for about 10 pages.

But contradiction is a design feature of human cognition, not a bug in the software. Survival means that we need to be able to change our minds quickly, which means we need to be able to see the merits of both sides of a contradiction. When you observe a typical optical illusion, your mind flips between more than one model of what the incoming data represents, depending on how your top level consciousness chooses to foreground data in the visual input signal.

 

[Curious George]

But contradiction is a design feature of human cognition, not a bug in the software. Survival means that we need to be able to change our minds quickly, which means we need to be able to see the merits of both sides of a contradiction. When you observe a typical optical illusion, your mind flips between more than one model of what the incoming data represents, depending on how your top level consciousness chooses to foreground data in the visual input signal.

Lol, they would just say you are not holding contradictory opinions simultaneously, rather you are going back and forth. I still say it is possible to believe two contradictory positions simultaneously. But alas, it does not matter.

I agree. It is possible to believe a contradiction. However, most discussion of the definition of god does not seem to rely on this but rather the competing definitions that supposedly inhibit one from creating a set. Again, I disagree but that seems some people's opinions. Others focus on abstraction.

You should ask @Shad . I believe he is a noncognitivist.

 

[Copernicus]

I have not found that assertions that god is not able to be defined tends towards one of two reasons. Neither of these reasons are because of the monotheistic god.

The first is that there are too many definitions of god and since many of these definitions contradict each other there is no set of characteristics beyond the label.

That's a granularity issue, but it exists with virtually all names for things, not just gods. For example, there are a lot of different types of chairs, yet we only have trouble with the label when the properties shift outside of a conventional range. So there are stools that you wouldn't also call by the name "chair", but there are also a lot of chairs that you wouldn't call by the name "stool". And then there are things that you might use either label for. All gods tend to share a range of core properties--volition, intelligence, memory, planning, power over some aspect of physical reality, social status, susceptibility to human influence, etc. All of these parameters are usually there to some degree.

The second tends t focus on the ability to abstract god. Since god can be abstracted almost infinitely until we are talking about something out there which people spiritually experience, defining a god in such a way that is meaningful is impossible. Because any attempt to do so can be met with a further abstraction that evades the definition.

Yes, but I think the key word here is "evade". In my experience, people who fall back on the ineffability defense are essentially admitting that they literally don't know what they are talking about. And then they engage in behavior such as prayer, which suggests that the deity is a more anthropomorphic entity than they wished to admit to themselves or others.

I tend to think we have to draw the line somewhere. This of course means some people's concepts of God's i will not see as a god.

Neither of these routes relies on a self contradictory definition. Just people asserting that until a god is described one cannot engage. I can understand a person who feels this way, I just disagree.

Word meanings are not easy to describe, so you can seldom determine what a person means by "god" until you have had an opportunity to observe their actual behavior towards the deity. Quite often, people offer sincere definitions (or claims of ineffability), only to say things later or behave in such a way that suggests they really have a more complex view of their deity's nature. It is better to ask questions about how the person behaves towards the putative deity. Does he or she pray to it? Love it? Converse with it? Interact with it in any way? Does the deity have an attitude of interest or disinterest? Is it aware of human beings? If not, what are its thoughts? On what grounds does it qualify for the label "god"? Does it have volition? The ability to manipulate physical reality?

 

[Curious George]

That's a granularity issue, but it exists with virtually all names for things, not just gods. For example, there are a lot of different types of chairs, yet we only have trouble with the label when the properties shift outside of a conventional range. So there are stools that you wouldn't also call by the name "chair", but there are also a lot of chairs that you wouldn't call by the name "stool". And then there are things that you might use either label for. All gods tend to share a range of core properties--volition, intelligence, memory, planning, power over some aspect of physical reality, social status, susceptibility to human influence, etc. All of these parameters are usually there to some degree.


Yes, but I think the key word here is "evade". In my experience, people who fall back on the ineffability defense are essentially admitting that they literally don't know what they are talking about. And then they engage in behavior such as prayer, which suggests that the deity is a more anthropomorphic entity than they wished to admit to themselves or others.


Word meanings are not easy to describe, so you can seldom determine what a person means by "god" until you have had an opportunity to observe their actual behavior towards the deity. Quite often, people offer sincere definitions (or claims of ineffability), only to say things later or behave in such a way that suggests they really have a more complex view of their deity's nature. It is better to ask questions about how the person behaves towards the putative deity. Does he or she pray to it? Love it? Converse with it? Interact with it in any way? Does the deity have an attitude of interest or disinterest? Is it aware of human beings? If not, what are its thoughts? On what grounds does it qualify for the label "god"?

That is interesting. I don't know that it occurred to me to extrapolate definition from how people act even if those definitions contradict what people say they believe. I will have to marinate on such a process.

 

[Copernicus]

That is interesting. I don't know that it occurred to me to extrapolate definition from how people act even if those definitions contradict what people say they believe. I will have to marinate on such a process.

People are most often consciously unaware of their linguistic behavior. Henry Sweet, the model for "Professor Higgins" in Pymalion, used to chastise self-proclaimed prescriptive grammarians for setting up rules of proper English by following them around to their public lectures and recording all the instances where they themselves violated their own rules of grammar.

 

[Curious George]

People are most often consciously unaware of their linguistic behavior. Henry Sweet, the model for "Professor Higgins" in Pymalion, used to chastise self-proclaimed prescriptive grammarians for setting up rules of proper English by following them around to their public lectures and recording all the instances where they themselves violated their own rules of grammar.

That us hilarious.

 

[Shad]

I have addresses this a number of times. Do you understand n the point about there being no 'correct' definition of 'atheism'?

I am attacking a flawed definition. It does not matter what the correct definition is when the flaw is in the logic.

I do not think babies have philosophical views.

Then refrain from making such statements as I have linked.

Wow! You still don't get it. No mate, defeating a definition is a waste of time - you misunderstand how language works. As I said, defeating a definition is like defeating the use of the term 'fishing rod' to describe a fishing rod.

If the definition has a failure in logic in order to claim X holds a position, or lacks, then the argument is undermined completely. More so you are ignoring part of your own objection which is language. You attempt to mix definition and coherence of meaning of a word based solely on the context of the one making the claim. Ouroboros made this objection, which I cited, already. Only this is taken one step further by removing the second person and just assuming a position for them based on the one making the claims lack of date and/or capability to gather date. Thus the argument switches from deductive to inductive. This is then used as a basis to infer a logical deduction when it is not. However no one bothers to include the language context nor the thoughts of subject at all. These are dismissed completely as if of no concern.

What do you mean 'should be'? Maybe they should, but they aren't - people drive changes in word usage and dictionaries can not stop them.

Thus the difference between informal language and formal language. However if the topic is grounded in a word which has a philosophical context, formal language, then people are obligated in using this context not their personal subjective one. Thus is exposed to my scrutiny and found wanting.

Language is not dictated by anyone - nobody can enforce any specific definition as the 'correct one'

Education in specific fields in which words have contextual definition based on a consensus of peers, people are obligated to use follow this consensus. Otherwise it become the typical anti-evolution phrase, "It's just a theory" followed by the refutation of "scientific context". Which is all I am asking people to do. I find it amusing that many people would leap at the "theory" example yet dance around my point by sticking with their subjective definition in this case. In my view both example show how people are invested in an ideology thus need the bandwagon to grow larger.

.What do you even mean? The idea is described by the definition, not based on it. You are attacking the DESCRIPTION, not the idea.

I am attacking a probable solution to the question in the OP. This solution is based definition of a word alone which is illogical and an inaccurate description of the idea. I have no need to attack the idea if said idea is misrepresented to begin with, Again based on a definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Implicit Theism", by Eric Luis Uhlmann (Northwestern U), T. Andrew Poehlman (Southern Methodist U), and John A. Bargh (Yale)
http://www.socialjudgments.com/docs/Final Theism Chapter.pdf

These guys are making the argument that children are born "implicit theists" by default. I only skimmed through it, but they really have put in quite a bit of support from other research to make this claim. Do I agree with them? I don't know, but one thing is for certain, I'm not the first one to think of this.

Just a fun read for anyone interested. (It's an excerpt from some book they wrote. Don't know much about it, it was just a fun find.)

 

[outhouse]

I am attacking a flawed definition. It does not matter what the correct definition is when the flaw is in the logic.

Attack away brother.

We could just say babies are not theist, theism is a learned trait. No baby believes in god and they hold no religious beliefs.


The name atheist just bothers people, hell I don't even like it, and that title doesn't change what a baby is or is not.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's it right there in full.


People get so hung up on the name atheism, they want to take the implicit part out of context. A baby doesn't need a label, we know they are not theist and that they don't believe in god. But its deeper then that.

Hang on. The article says "Implicit Theist" not "Implicit A-Theist". They've done research showing that babies have an implicit theism.

Here is the kicker and why I think its important to use said label.

My child is 9 she has never believed in god, and she rejects the god concept and says daddy there's no man up in the clouds see! I say she has been an atheist her whole life born that way.

Yes as she got older she rejected claims made by friends and other family, my point is, I cannot say she turned into an atheist at some point because she has never believed in god.

Sure. I've met people who were "implicit atheists" their whole life. But the article is about research showing the opposite, that babies are born implicit theists.

Its all about context. Im my opinion she was born an implicit atheist, and with rejection is now an explicit atheist.

There is factually no error in any word I wrote, and ill be hard pressed to let someone else tell me how I should define my child when the definition is spelled out very clear.

The article says kids are born implicit theists, and they have research backing it up. Should we believe research and science, or should we dump science in this specific case only because we must, unconditionally, only accept research supporting atheism?

Is there any research showing that babies are born implicit atheists?

 

[Pudding]

Let me rephrase things then to see if I can make myself clearer.

Let's change "I believe God exists" to "I believe proposition X is true where X is 'God exists'".

By adding "not" and change true to false, we get four different scenarios:

1) I believe proposition X is true

This is theism.

2) I believe proposition X is false

This is strong atheism.

3) I don't believe proposition X is true

In the situation of weak atheism, the person can also neither believe proposition X is false.
He can simply don't know the real answer whether proposition X is true or not.

(A) Thus he don't believe proposition X is true until he got reliable evidence which this evidence prove proposition X is true.

(B) And he neither believe proposition X is false until he got reliable evidence which this evidence prove proposition X is false.

(A) and (B) is not mutually exclusive.
Don't believe X is true =/= believe X is false.

He only believe proposition X is false when he get reliable evidence which this evidence prove proposition X is false.

(a) Without convincing evidence which prove X is true, then he say: i don't believe X is true.
(b) Without convincing evidence which prove X is false, then he say: i neither believe X is false.

If a person have situation (a) and (b) present in him at the same time, then he say: i don't believe X is true, i neither believe X is false, it's because i don't know whether X is true or false. Still, i'll not believe X is true if i got no convincing evidence to prove X is true. And if i got no convincing evidence to prove X is false, it doesn't automatically means X is true, in order for me to say X is true it got to have convincing evidence to prove it's actually true first.

I hope what i said made sense, it have became a little confusing to me with the word "believe". If anyone find any error please feel free to point it out.

4) I don't believe proposition X is false

Don't believe X is false =/= believe X is true.

Don't believe X is false can be because the person got no convincing evidence to prove X is false.
But for the person to believe X is true, for him it got to have convincing evidence to prove X is true first.

Without evidence to prove X is false =/= with evidence to prove X is true.

Without evidence to prove X is false =/= X have already been proven true.

Without evidence to prove X is false can be the possible situation that the evidence is pending to be found.

The evidence to prove X is false, is pending to be found =/= X have already been proven true.

In order to say X is true it got to have convincing evidence to prove it's actually true first.

Also i'm not sure if this question is related to the things i've been said above, this question ---> "can we prove the existence of negative/non-existence doesn't exist in all situation?" .

Without evidence to prove negative/non-existence doesn't exist =/= negative/non-existence have already been proven exist.

Now, if X represents "God exists", then supposedly strong atheism fits 2) and3), and they're considered similar but equal

The same goes for 1 and 4, simply because let's change true and false to V. V can be true or false. That simplifies the list to:

i) I believe proposition X is V (where V is true or false)
ii) I don't believe proposition X is V (where V is true or false)

If X is "God exists" and V is true for i) and false for ii), is the same condition or relationship as if V is false for i) and true for ii).

In other words, implicit theism is just as different from explicit theism as implicit atheism is from explicit atheism.

I've already explain in the above why 1 =/= 4 and 2 =/= 3.

 

[outhouse]

Hang on. The article says "Implicit Theist" not "Implicit A-Theist

Thank you I cannot read LOl

My glasses are distance not up close sorry brother.


I stand corrected and deleted that post.


Ive read that rhetoric before, nothing is credible in it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you I cannot read LOl

My glasses are distance not up close sorry brother.

I stand corrected and deleted that post.

I'm dependent on glasses too. Very annoying.

Ive read that rhetoric before, nothing is credible in it.

It's not rhetoric. It's research. One of them is John A. Bargh, works at Yale University, where he formed the Automaticity in Cognition, Motivation, and Evaluation Laboratory. He's more of a specialist than you or I can ever be.

This is his description of himself "I was born in Champaign and graduated from the home-town University of Illinois in 1977. From there it was on to graduate school in social psychology at the University of Michigan, where my advisor was Robert Zajonc. I received my PhD in 1981 and that fall moved to NYU as an assistant professor. After 22 years at NYU, I moved to Yale in 2003. My dissertation received the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP) Dissertation Award in 1982, and in 1989 I received the American Psychological Association (APA) Early Career Award for contributions to psychology. In 1990 Peter Gollwitzer and I received the Annual Research Prize from the Max Planck Society of Germany. In 2001 I received a Guggenheim Fellowship, and also that year was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. In 2007 I received the Donald T. Campbell Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology for distinguished contributions to social psychology, and later that year received the Scientific Impact Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology.

My lines of research all focus on unconscious mechanisms that underlie social perception, evaluation and preferences, and motivation and goal pursuit in realistic and complex social environments. That each of these basic psychological phenomena occur without the person's intention and awareness, yet have such strong effects on the person's decisions and behavior, has considerable implications for philosophical matters such as free will, and the nature and purpose of consciousness itself."

I think that would qualify him for having somewhat good insights in these things, and not just rambling rhetorics.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've already explain in the above why 1 =/= 4 and 2 =/= 3.

Good to hear.

Which means that "implicit theism" is a valid position, just as much as "implicit atheism". Babies are born just as much implicit atheism as they are implicit theism. Both positions are simultaneous true (since babies don't believe anything.)