"Lack of belief"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hrmmm.

I don't like it but I think I'll accept it. It does seem to me, though, that if you are speaking of a strong atheist, the immediate argument is "well how do you know that gods don't exist". I guess that's why I've assumed that strong = gnostic.

FWIW, I hate the term "gnostic atheist". Gnosticism is already its own thing; trying to co-opt the word and apply it to atheism or theism in general just confuses things.

It's not like "gnostic" ever just meant "theist who thinks he knows for sure".

Anyhow, this is a tangent, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it is a position. It is a belief. It's the belief that the case for X has not been made.

... which is different from believing that X is false.

It's possible to hold the position "I think your argument for X is faulty, so I won't accept it. Since I have nothing else to go on, I won't accept your claim that X is true, but I won't assert that X is false, either."

The person holding this position lacks belief on claim X (while potentially holding lots of beliefs on related issues).

 

[Augustus]

Rejecting the belief that gods exist doesn't mean accepting the belief that gods don't exist. I can just reject that belief too. I can say I believe neither.

You can if you want. It's still a belief though.

No, it isn't. "You haven't made your case for X" is not a position on the truth or falsehood of X.

It is a position that X is unproven/unkown/etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can if you want. It's still a belief though.

But not a belief on X

It is a position that X is unproven/unkown/etc.

No, it isn't. As I pointed out to Falvlun, I can recognize a bad argument as bad even if it's arguing for a claim I accept. The mere act of rejecting an argument implies nothing about the rejector's position on the claim being argued.

 

[ArtieE]

You can if you want. It's still a belief though.

The definition of belief is "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof." Since I haven't accepted that gods exist or that gods don't exist I don't have those beliefs. Not having those beliefs isn't a belief.

 

[Augustus]

No, it isn't. As I pointed out to Falvlun, I can recognize a bad argument as bad even if it's arguing for a claim I accept. The mere act of rejecting an argument implies nothing about the rejector's position on the claim being argued.

If you understood the proposition, you hold a belief about it. I believe that is a cognitive impossibility, as the Cartesian view that you subscribe to is not scientifically possible.

The definition of belief is "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof." Since I haven't accepted that gods exist or that gods don't exist I don't have those beliefs. Not having those beliefs isn't a belief.

A definition of belief, not 'the' definition of belief.

The dictionary doesn't negate philosophy, psychology, etc. though.

 

[Willamena]

Hrmmm.

I don't like it but I think I'll accept it. It does seem to me, though, that if you are speaking of a strong atheist, the immediate argument is "well how do you know that gods don't exist". I guess that's why I've assumed that strong = gnostic.

If you're speaking to a strong atheist, she would just tell you the reasons that lead her to conclusion, nothing more.

 

[Willamena]

But it is a position. It is a belief. It's the belief that the case for X has not been made.

Then it's not a belief about gods.

 

[Willamena]

That isn't really a good analogy. We don't expect someone who likes dogs in general to like every single dog.

And if you did claime to like every single dog, I'd want to know how you managed to come to that conclusion without having met every single dog.

It's a fine analogy: neither do we expect someone who disbelieves in gods in general to know every single god.

 

[Willamena]

The mere act of rejecting an argument implies nothing about the rejector's position on the claim being argued.

I don't believe that there is an Eiffel Tower in London, because I reject false statements.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you understood the proposition, you hold a belief about it. I believe that is a cognitive impossibility, as the Cartesian view that you subscribe to is not scientifically possible.

So you think that when a person hears a claim that they understand, the necessarily either believe that it's false or that it's true? This is nonsense.

 

[Milton Platt]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

Atheism is not an ideology. It is a lack of belief in a single proposition.
You are free to describe yourself in any manner you wish, but you are not free to redefine words.
Lack of belief in a godless world equals belief in a world containing a god. You are just playing with words, not i troducing a concept.

 

[Willamena]

So you think that when a person hears a claim that they understand, the necessarily either believe that it's false or that it's true? This is nonsense.

Rather, in understanding and agreeing they have accepted it. In understanding and differing, they reject it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rather, in understanding and agreeing they have accepted it. In understanding and differing, they reject it.

Again: rejecting an argument and rejecting the conclusion being argued are two different things.

 

[Willamena]

Again: rejecting an argument and rejecting the conclusion being argued are two different things.

My point was that belief was misrepresented as a tautology.

 

[ArtieE]

Lack of belief in a godless world equals belief in a world containing a god.

No it doesn't. You can have a lack of belief in a godless world and a lack of belief in a world containing a god. You can just feel you don't have enough evidence to believe neither and sit on the fence.

 

[Augustus]

So you think that when a person hears a claim that they understand, the necessarily either believe that it's false or that it's true? This is nonsense.

Good grief.

You still don't get it after all this time? This is what I was referring to when you were busy making snide remarks and facepalms about other people not getting the point. You keep missing the point as this statement unequivocally demonstrates. More than one person has explained this to you before, but you either don't read it, don't understand it. The last post you replied to that contains the answer to this question was only a few pages ago. I'm pretty sure there is more than one post on the same page which answers it but were met with snide remarks only.

Try reading this You can't not believe everything you read

It is a peer-reviewed scientific article, so perhaps you will pay more attention and be more open minded regarding it. I can't be bothered any more.

[The Cartesian view states that] First people comprehend a message, and then later they may accept it.
Understanding and believing are today taken to be the separate and sequential operations that
Descartes(1644/1984) described.

However, Descartes's (1644/1984) contemporary, Benedict Spinoza (1677/1982) , did not
accept this doctrine, and he argued that understanding and believing are merely two
words for the same mental operation. Spinoza suggested that people believe every
assertion they understand but quickly "unbelieve" those assertions that are found to be at
odds with other established facts. For Spinoza, "mere understanding" was a psychological
fiction–a non sequitur that grew out of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of
mental representation (see Gilbert, 1993 ). The details surrounding this misunderstanding
are somewhat afield of the present concerns, but Spinoza's bottom line is not: According
to Spinoza, the act of understanding is the act of believing. As such, people are incapable
of withholding their acceptance of that which they understand. They may indeed change
their minds after accepting the assertions they comprehend, but they cannot stop their
minds from being changed by contact with those assertions.

Acceptance, then, may be a passive and inevitable act, whereas rejection may be an
active operation that undoes the initial passive acceptance. The most basic prediction of
this model is that when some event prevents a person from "undoing" his or her initial
acceptance, then he or she should continue to believe the assertion, even when it is
patently false. For example, if a person is told that lead pencils are a health hazard, he or
she must immediately believe that assertion and only then may take active measures to
unbelieve it. These active measures require cognitive work (i.e., the search for or
generation of contravening evidence), and if some event impairs the person's ability to
perform such work, then the person should continue to believe in the danger of lead
pencils until such time as the cognitive work can be done. The Cartesian hypothesis, on
the other hand, makes no such prediction. That hypothesis suggests that both acceptance
and rejection of an assertion are the results of cognitive work that follows comprehension
of the assertion. As such, interruption should make both of these options impossible and
thus leave the person in a state of nonbelief rather than one of belief or disbelief

 

[ArtieE]

For example, if a person is told that lead pencils are a health hazard, he or
she must immediately believe that assertion and only then may take active measures to
unbelieve it. These active measures require cognitive work.

Could you elaborate on this? Suppose I am told by one person that lead pencils are a health hazard, and then five seconds later is told by a different person that lead pencils are not a health hazard am I supposed to

1. Believe both at the same time?
2. Believe one of them is right and believe the other is wrong?
3. Not believe any of them until I have learned enough about it to believe one of them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good grief.

You still don't get it after all this time? This is what I was referring to when you were busy making snide remarks and facepalms about other people not getting the point. You keep missing the point as this statement unequivocally demonstrates. More than one person has explained this to you before, but you either don't read it, don't understand it. The last post you replied to that contains the answer to this question was only a few pages ago. I'm pretty sure there is more than one post on the same page which answers it but were met with snide remarks only.

Try reading this You can't not believe everything you read

It is a peer-reviewed scientific article, so perhaps you will pay more attention and be more open minded regarding it. I can't be bothered any more.

I understand your claim; I just disagree with it. I think you're reading WAY too much into one bit of pop psychology.

 

[Willamena]

No it doesn't. You can have a lack of belief in a godless world and a lack of belief in a world containing a god. You can just feel you don't have enough evidence to believe neither and sit on the fence.

Either.