Atheism is not a default position

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Religion is natural, sure.

It does in no way follow that atheism is not the default.

It does if one uses "natural" in the cognitive, evolutionary, or similar sense. Of course, "natural" is misleading. But in the sciences concerned, one might describe "religion" as "natural" to/for humans as is the tendency to form social or familial bonds. That is the sense that evolutionary psychologists, neuroscientists, and so forth intend by "religion is natural."

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, that is a remarkably footnoted explanation and that weakens the merit of the argument quite a lot, but I suppose it is fair enough.

It does basically argue that the default is impossible to know because we are so consistently pushed away from it, by my reading.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This sentence makes no sense.

My sentences do. All I require is the (obvious) admission that what I believe isn't necessarily true. Only an idiot would assert that whatever they believe is necessarily true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My sentences do.

Actually, I was addressing this singular sentence: "However, I only assert that I BELIEVE this claim, and to the extent that I assert it is true I merely do so as a shorthand for "I believe it can be true and that I believe it to be true", not that "I believe it to be a fact" (where "fact" means by definition true)."

All I require is the (obvious) admission that what I believe isn't necessarily true.

"Necessarily" or not, you are still asserting that you accept it as true. You are asserting its truth.

Only an idiot would assert that whatever they believe is necessarily true.

Belief literally means "a position you hold to be true".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"Necessarily" or not, you are still asserting that you accept it as true.

Logically necessarily false. Again, I'll use my go-to example:
Clark Klent is Superman
Louis Lane works with Clark Kent
Louis Lane believes she works with Superman

Logically, the conclusion doesn't follow because mental state predicates don't follow the rules of propositional or predicate logic. One is perfectly capable of a belief that is absolutely sound given one's premises yet is false because given x=y, belief that some property P is true of x s.t. P(x) doesn't entail P(y).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, that is a remarkably footnoted explanation

It's my attempt at a concise summary. Admittedly, any such effort on my part is bound to be poor. However, it's the scientific consensus nonetheless.

It does basically argue that the default is impossible to know because we are so consistently pushed away from it, by my reading.

How many sciences do you hold argue that their fundamental goal is non-scientific? How many sciences do you hold concern fields that you argue are non-scientific? Because your perspective is.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's my attempt at a concise summary. Admittedly, any such effort on my part is bound to be poor. However, it's the scientific consensus nonetheless.

If you mean that it is not currently understood that a scientific knowledge of the default stance regarding theism and atheism can be attained, then sure.

How many sciences do you hold argue that their fundamental goal is non-scientific? How many sciences do you hold concern fields that you argue are non-scientific? Because your perspective is.

Isn't that a non-sequitur?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you mean that it is not currently understood that a scientific knowledge of the default stance regarding theism and atheism can be attained, then sure.

I don't. I mean that the consensus among scientists is that "religion" is the default. I will provide you with references if you wish (although I have found that this generally has 0 effect upon the non-scientists).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Logically necessarily false. Again, I'll use my go-to example:
Clark Klent is Superman
Louis Lane works with Clark Kent
Louis Lane believes she works with Superman

Logically, the conclusion doesn't follow because mental state predicates don't follow the rules of propositional or predicate logic. One is perfectly capable of a belief that is absolutely sound given one's premises yet is false because given x=y, belief that some property P is true of x s.t. P(x) doesn't entail P(y).

So what does "believe" mean to you if it doesn't mean "acceptance that a given proposition is true"? This has nothing to do with whether or not a claim is ACTUALLY true, it is only to do with whether or not a claim is ACCEPTED as true, and ACCEPTING a claim as true is no different to asserting it is true. You seem to be very confused on this issue, and I think you've obfuscating it to a degree.

 

[Thief]

You can believe....when you have strong suspicions.
proving is not required.

 

[dust1n]

Of course atheism isn't a default position. A default position would be one with little to no thinking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The consensus position in evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related fields is that religion is "natural" while atheism is not.

Meaning it has independently developed in the majority of humans over time? Sure. So does default mean the most commonly/naturally reached position, or does it mean the starting position? I don't generally bother with these threads, since I honestly think they can't see the woods for the trees, but it would seem a clear definition of intent with regards to 'default' is needed in relation to the OP.

 

[lovemuffin]

It seems to me that in defining "default" both starting points and the observations which they lead to are worthwhile and not even really in conflict:

From a purely logical, a priori perspective, atheism appears as a "logical default".
In context with anthropology and human evolution, religiosity is a "human default".

It seems like normally the question arises in the context of arguing about burdens of proof, in which case it would seem that as long as proof is taken to mean a demonstration of rational evidence, then the logical default is the more important, but in some ways I think an awareness of the anthropological basis of religiosity still says something interesting about our tendency to categorize humanity as a "rational animal", but it's a very different point of view than the one which begins with a question about burdens of proof. The question about which point of view is more "important" is not really a question of logic exactly. It's philosophical

 

[leibowde84]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Default: Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.

Thing about this: belief isn't an act. It's not something we do, and especially not something we choose to do. It's a description of the world, nothing more, nothing less.

Take the world.

The world is the case.

If we wish to examine truth or untruth, belief or doubt, certainty or uncertainty about the world, then we must hold the world distinct from those things we wish to examine. Hence, we will refer to it, and all its parts, as "the case."

The world is the case, and of the case things may be true or false, hence they may be believed or doubted, with degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

If I say, "I believe George went to the store," that lends it uncertainty. It says that because of insufficient knowledge there may some amount of doubt about George's activities, but still I have a degree of certainty about it. Similarly, to say, "I don't believe George went to the store," is to assert its uncertainty. Belief is the case described in such a way as to hold a degree of certainty.

If I say "George went to the store," then asserting the truth of that lends it a face that says there is no doubt, no uncertainty about George's journey. Truth is the case described as apart from me, apart from the certainty a consciousness might know.

That's because a consciousness is distinct from the world it knows.

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing. The world is the case.

Both asserting a degree of certainty to the world and describing it as apart from me, apart from any degrees of certainty, are things we do. They are dong something, not nothing. Where the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing, asserting belief and truth--and their counterparts disbelief and falsehood--about what is the case are doing something.

In discussion, we do not fail to do something about the world.

I get your point, but I disagree about one aspect of it. When you say "default", that should be the positioin that one enters the world in as a baby (initially), before we are led to a certain world view by our parents, friends, churches, siblings, etc. I would assume that, because an infant wouldn't be able to contemplate the existence of God, that they would, most definitely, "lack" or be "without" a belief in the existence of God, as they wouldn't have had the opportunity to explore this. Thus, would, according to the way that the term is defined, be rightly considered an "atheist" or "without" "theism".

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't. I mean that the consensus among scientists is that "religion" is the default. I will provide you with references if you wish (although I have found that this generally has 0 effect upon the non-scientists).

I don't think you will even find a scientifically-agreed meaning for "default" in this subject, frankly.

 

[jojom]

I think the OP is greatly overselling and overcomplicating the argument.

To be frank, I can't make heads or tails of it beyond the first sentence, which is just not at all convincing on its own.

It seems clear to me that atheism is indeed the default, simply because there is no standard for its alternatives.

The following, from the American Atheist web site, is kind of an eye-opener for me. It addresses the question: What is Atheism? It answers:

"No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves"
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

And all the time I've been under the impression it is a disbelief in god(s). So, to repeat.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.​

 

[Willamena]

You're correct. Atheism is the belief that god does not exist. However, your following statement is truly awry:


belief
[bih-leef]
noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.

believe [believed]
[bih-leev]
verb (used without object), believed, believing.
1.to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

verb (used with object), believed, believing.
2.to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

Notice that "believe" ("believed") is a verb, a word expressing an action, state, or a relation between two things, and in this case, an action.

Belief is, indeed, used as a verb, but when it describes a state or relation it's used a noun (he had a belief). The world is all that is the case, so belief is also used as an adjective when it qualifies any particular noun as having the appearance of being the case (it is believed).

What it comes down to is that belief is the product of an act. In coming to the belief X isn't Y we did something; our brain went through some kind of processing machinations. Sorry, but you've made a major blunder here.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

OR not believed.

I covered that with the bits of the world that may be false or uncertain. We tend not to believe that the Eiffel Tower is in England if we know it to be in France, although it’s possible someone could have moved it.

Not at all. George may really have went to the store, but having not seen him do it, but only hearing about it, you aren't ready to claim knowledge of it, just belief. The uncertainty isn't in the fact of the matter but in how you apprehend it.

NO, it only identifies YOUR uncertainty.

Personal certainty. Not the fact of George's action.

No doubt or uncertainty in YOUR mind. I may have very good reason not to believe you, even if George did go to the store. Perhaps you're compulsive liar.

If I am the one identifying uncertainty, then it's the case that I have identified uncertainty. I've no argument with that. But that's apart from the argument that I made, which was, as any good argument should be, objective. Making it personal adds nothing to the argument, and as you demonstrate, even weakens it if it leaves room for doubt about my honesty or genuineness. So the objective argument is the more useful.

I would say, "FACT is the case. . . ."

Certainty is not a matter of knowing a fact, which would be knowledge, but the state of being free from doubt or reservation; being confident, sure.

Facts are the true case, yes. Certainty contrasts with uncertainty, yes. The world is the case because the world is irrefutable.

So consciousness isn't part of the world? Or, are you saying that one cannot know he is conscious?

We hold consciousness to be distinct from the world in order to discuss epistemic topics. It’s necessary to do that in order to make the argument about belief in terms of uncertainty, or knowledge in terms of truth. I am making the case for that belief is not an actual act we do in the world, but is supplied at the stage where we describe the world. Belief is the descriptor that lends certainty/uncertainty about what we are describing (regardless of which individual describes it). Similarly, knowledge is the descriptor that lends truth/falsehood.

Excuse me! If I don't believe anything about god then it's the world? This isn't making any sense at all.

Care to rephrase, because again, this isn't making any sense at all.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

I do apologize if my spelling broke down at the end—it was late when I wrote, and I was tired. By the way, my post is not many arguments, but just one argument. I’ll try again.

We assign bits and pieces of the world—that is the fundamental of language. We give them a sign, a shape, a meaning, a word. The world, as it is understood, is understood like that, in language. There is no part of the world that we describe that is not understood in this way, including relations and abstracts like truth/falsehood, certainty, uncertainty, belief, and doubt. Belief describes a state of investment in the truth or certainty of things. “Belief” isn’t something being done in this case, description is (verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc).

“Default” means “the option that obtains if we do nothing,” which of course necessitates that there be options. The options in this case are descriptive: god is real, god may be real, god is not real, god may not be real, god is a misfired neuron mistaken for someone’s best friend, whatever. These are the options about god as it may be, as a part of the world.

But for some people it opens the door for the question of whether “doing nothing” in regards to belief is one of those options. I don’t think it is, I don’t think that’s a valid interpretation of the meaning of “default.” Refraining from having an option is not one of the options, and it certainly is nothing that can “attain” (“not an option” is just that, not an option). Each moment of our conscious lives is participation in the world, the constant assigning and describing of what’s going on around us.

 

[Willamena]

I'd normally understand atheism in a different way (as in, someone who believes/assumes that there are no gods), but okay, let's take your definition for the purpose of this thread, Willamena.

But I don't get it either how it then wouldn't be the default. We can hardly do nothing about the world, but we can theoretically do nothing about religion.
It's difficult to imagine how someone could reach that default state of doing/thinking nothing about the topic of religion, at least in this society, but let's assume someone is growing up in a society were he or she is never confronted with that topic at all. He or she would also not be old enough to have come up with such a concept by him/herself. He or she then would be in the situation to have "no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god", namely be an atheist in your definition. So, for this person atheism certainly would be the default.
So I don't understand how you come to your conclusion.

"Doing nothing" is no kind of default, not for anything. The default is an option that would attain if we did nothing, i.e. it's one of the options.

If we have options like god A, god perhaps B, and god not C, then the default is one of the options, the one that would attain or come about if we don't interfere.

In terms of belief in "god," it's not automatically the case that, with no interference, people would fail to get to know "god." In fact, it can be argued that the world does get by without any interference on the part of free agents (i.e. those who argue for Determinism), and some did get to know "god."

And, no, I don't believe that ignorance equates to atheism.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.​

And in that sense it is not a default of belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And in that sense it is not a default of belief.

It does make it the logically default position on the subject matter of a specific belief.