"Lack of belief"

[Falvlun]

Wouldn't (something akin to) consciousness fit this definition? Has mastery over aspects of nature and/or human interests.

I do not think so. First, consciousness is not an entity, at least, not to our knowledge. And secondly, I don't think it can be said that humans have mastery over nature in the way that gods are conceived to have. Humans have long been able to tame nature and shape it to our wills. But most humans are never considered to be gods. The level of control is different, and I think the word "mastery" conveys that. Humans may have some level of control but do we really have mastery?

The supernatural part is debatable, but leads to the question of what would be a viable example of phenomenon existing in the universe that is supernatural? Like, once we find that in the universe, aren't we going to do everything in our power to explain how it got into our universe and is therefore natural to our universe (so not supernatural)?

I'm not joking when I say science itself is plausibly supernatural.

"Supernatural" is a tricky word. I like it for a couple of reasons though. Its direct translation "above nature" is pretty much precisely what I'm going for. Gods are conceived as being above nature, as its masters. Or, for the pan(en)theists and pagans, gods are basically "nature plus". Nature plus something more.

I also like it for its usual connotations of something beyond our normal understanding of nature, or something that defies (our understanding of) natural laws.

As you note, if gods are shown to exist, then that means they are a natural part of nature, and therefore not "supernatural". I think that's a fun argument, but not one that really effects our understanding of the meaning of "supernatural".

 

[Falvlun]

Nah.....lack of belief is much more akin to strong atheism because of the practical side, ie, no religion guides us.

But, according to the lack of beliefers, atheism says nothing about any other possible belief. It only states that this person does not believe that gods exist. That does not preclude religion or religious guidance.

Weak atheists have one other requirement in addition to the "lack belief in the existence of God" one. They must also lack the belief that "gods do not exist", otherwise they would be strong atheists.

Thus, based on this logic, they have just as much in common with a theist as they do a strong atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

If we are in the universe, and we have consciousness (including awareness that there is a universe), doesn't this necessary mean that the universe has some degree of consciousness?

If we discovered a nano-particle that had consciousness, but turned out only 1 teeny tiny portion of that particle had it, would we then conclude that the entire particle is without consciousness, or stick to the assertion that that one of the properties of the nanoparticle is that it has demonstrative consciousness?

All rhetorical questions as I think the answers are self evident.
(So does the universe)

There is no overarching, unifying consciousness, which is more what I am going for.

Properties of components do not always translate as properties of the whole, either. (My blood cells are red, but I am not.)

 

[Revoltingest]

But, according to the lack of beliefers, atheism says nothing about any other possible belief. It only states that this person does not believe that gods exist. That does not preclude religion or religious guidance.

This is correct.
But any such beliefs are independent of atheism.
Practically speaking, every atheist I know IRL finds all religious belief bogus.

Weak atheists have one other requirement in addition to the "lack belief in the existence of God" one. They must also lack the belief that "gods do not exist", otherwise they would be strong atheists.

Correcto!

Thus, based on this logic, they have just as much in common with a theist as they do a strong atheist.

In the sense that each believes something about the supernatural to be true, yes.
But the strong atheist is characterized by believing a single thing, ie, there are no gods.
The typical religious adherent believes that thousands of things from a sacred book are true.
This requires faith on steroids.
So there are orders of magnitude of difference between strong atheists & the faithful.
And there is no practical difference between strong & weak atheists...who only differ on a singular minor philosophical point.

 

[Acim]

I do not think so. First, consciousness is not an entity, at least, not to our knowledge.

I will argue consciousness is an entity. Let me know when you are ready to discuss this.

And secondly, I don't think it can be said that humans have mastery over nature in the way that gods are conceived to have. Humans have long been able to tame nature and shape it to our wills. But most humans are never considered to be gods. The level of control is different, and I think the word "mastery" conveys that. Humans may have some level of control but do we really have mastery?

I'm more prepared to debate this than the first point regarding consciousness.

Your original assertion: god(s): n A supernatural entity with mastery over some aspect of nature or human interests.

And now you are elevating mastery to something more than what this assertion entails. It states "some aspect of nature or human interests." I see it as you are now saying mastering means absolute and complete control over all facets in a way that matches perfection by all observable accounts. Yeah, I realize you aren't explicitly stating this, but not sure why you are different level of control for mastery when the assertion says some aspect of nature. If I can do gardening, for instance, that would be mastery over some aspect of nature. Then it just goes back to the 'supernatural entity' portion of the assertion. I'm saying consciousness is the supernatural entity, residing in us, as us, as manifested by the universe. Though being manifested by the universe doesn't make it 'supernatural.'

But, for me, the discussion wouldn't stop at that point. I actually see it just getting started. Willing to debate this, but soundbite teaser would be that because of human consciousness, we actually draw distinctions (routinely, consistently) between "nature" and "man made" as if what is man made is not natural. And if not natural, then perhaps supernatural?

"Supernatural" is a tricky word. I like it for a couple of reasons though. Its direct translation "above nature" is pretty much precisely what I'm going for. Gods are conceived as being above nature, as its masters. Or, for the pan(en)theists and pagans, gods are basically "nature plus". Nature plus something more.

Fits in with what I'm getting at in the above assertion (teaser).

I also like it for its usual connotations of something beyond our normal understanding of nature, or something that defies (our understanding of) natural laws.

I honestly believe there will never be anything that defies our understanding of natural laws. We'll just adapt our understandings to it, and claim it as natural. Literally, if Creator God were present among us, regardless of that presentation, it would be explained by natural laws. Might take us awhile to provide full explanation on our own, or who knows perhaps Creator God would offer up perfect explanation that no scientist disputes upon peer review. Either way, I really do see it as whatever we come up with as plausibly supernatural would eventually be seen as "natural." I actually cannot think of any exceptions to this. I can conceive of things that right now if they were to occur, and are hypothetical in conception, we might currently have no way of understanding how that could occur. But if it DID, we would possibly (I would say surely) be able to explain it eventually. Here in the information age, I reckon it would take no more than a decade for some sources to offer detailed explanation on exactly what and how it occurred.

And yet, I do pause on this adaptation talk because we barely are able to stay consistent with the idea that what is man-made is natural. I think the technical minded amongst us do perfectly understand that all man-made items (without exception) are natural. But if I had a dollar for all the things claimed as unnatural because they are man-made, I'd be able to purchase all things on this planet and probably have enough leftover to buy the moon, and Venus, regardless of the asking price. (Yeah, hyperbole, but strikes me as fairly accurate.)

As you note, if gods are shown to exist, then that means they are a natural part of nature, and therefore not "supernatural". I think that's a fun argument, but not one that really effects our understanding of the meaning of "supernatural".

Agreed. I can't honestly think of any examples of something that would be a viable supernatural occurrence entity given the rigid definitions of nature / natural - well, other than whatever it is humans are up to (with their consciousness).

 

[Acim]

There is no overarching, unifying consciousness, which is more what I am going for.

There is clearly an overarching, unifying consciousness. It is understood when "we" speak about "us."
It's also experiential, but how that works exactly, is challenging to explain. Not impossible, but for sure disputable, as even I may dispute it. Though having experienced it at the level of Knowledge, I find it impossible to deny, thus why I am writing a post to refute this notion of 'no overarching, unifying consciousness.' I would state that without it, there would be no possibility for individual consciousness. The unifying consciousness is literally existence itself.

Properties of components do not always translate as properties of the whole, either. (My blood cells are red, but I am not.)

With consciousness, it does translate as property of the whole. But it's obviously working backwards from the premise (the overarching consciousness that is existence itself).

Ultimately, all this could come down to opinion or perspective, but is (philosophically, theologically) no different than saying reality / existence comes down to opinion or perspective. Hence why all these debates are something I'm not shy about discussing. I find it just as easy to challenge a person on their notion of reality / existence as an atheist may find it easy to challenge a theist on their notion of god(s).

 

[Willamena]

Isn't the idea that babies are atheists the assertion that the default position of atheism is "no belief?"

I see you telling what the default of something is not, but not what it is. As the default position of atheism is pertinent to implicit atheism, I find it matters to this discussion. As I just wrote a post refuting the Wikipedia version of Implicit Atheism, I'm up for exploring the understanding for what it is.

A "default" is what continues (along a same path or direction) when faced with alternatives. Babies are not, "by default, absent of all belief," especially if they have no beliefs. They are not representatives of the default of adult's beliefs, either.

A "default" position is not pertinent to any atheisms: people can be implicitly atheist without it. Where we commonly find implicit atheism is where a second party has judged atheism on behalf of another because of circumstance. It is the consequence of circumstance that suggests their atheism.

 

[Acim]

A "default" is what continues (along a same path or direction) when faced with alternatives. Babies are not, "by default, absent of all belief," especially if they have no beliefs. They are not representatives of the default of adult's beliefs, either.

A "default" position is not pertinent to any atheisms: people can be implicitly atheist without it. Where we commonly find implicit atheism is where a second party has judged atheism on behalf of another because of circumstance. It is the consequence of circumstance that suggests their atheism.

Are you presenting disagreement / argument with what I've stated in the discussion? Or with those who are certain babies are implicit atheists?

 

[Willamena]

Are you presenting disagreement / argument with what I've stated in the discussion? Or with those who are certain babies are implicit atheists?

For the most part, I am agreeing with you and disagreeing with them, but where people go off half-cocked about an alleged "default" of belief, I will always disagree.

Beliefs have no fixed defaults.

 

[Falvlun]

This is correct.
But any such beliefs are independent of atheism.
Practically speaking, every atheist I know IRL finds all religious belief bogus.

Correcto!

In the sense that each believes something about the supernatural to be true, yes.
But the strong atheist is characterized by believing a single thing, ie, there are no gods.
The typical religious adherent believes that thousands of things from a sacred book are true.
This requires faith on steroids.
So there are orders of magnitude of difference between strong atheists & the faithful.
And there is no practical difference between strong & weak atheists...who only differ on a singular minor philosophical point.

While I agree with you that there is no practical difference, the problem is that my argument is addressing the specific argument made by those supporting the "lack of belief" definition, namely that the only thing that makes you an atheist is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. No other considerations are necessary or should be included. This is essentially the cornerstone of their argument. If they are going to insist that nothing else matters, then why should that not go both ways?

 

[Revoltingest]

While I agree with you that there is no practical difference, the problem is that my argument is addressing the specific argument made by those supporting the "lack of belief" definition, namely that the only thing that makes you an atheist is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. No other considerations are necessary or should be included. This is essentially the cornerstone of their argument. If they are going to insist that nothing else matters, then why should that not go both ways?

I don't understand this.

 

[Willamena]

Implicit atheism is circumstantial. Like in a court of law, where one may be found guilty by declaring it, or by having it suggested by circumstantial evidence: in explicit atheism a person can say, "No," to belief in god or gods; in implicit atheism the circumstance has figuratively said, "No," for them. In both, the atheism is the same, it is the " 'No,' to belief in god or gods."

People make too much else of it.

 

[Acim]

Implicit atheism is circumstantial. Like in a court of law, where one may be found guilty by declaring it, or by having it suggested by circumstantial evidence: in explicit atheism a person can say, "No," to belief in god or gods; in implicit atheism the circumstance has figuratively said, "No," for them. In both, the atheism is the same, it is the " 'No,' to belief in god or gods."

People make too much else of it.

I think the reason people make more of it is because of what is added to the "no." If it were strictly a position that is merely described by 'lack of belief' (for instance), then it would be fine. But because it entails a long standing philosophical argument, then more is added (seemingly) to the position, such as "because there is no evidence." That's a huge addition. Either disown that as part of atheism, or realize that is being added to what it means to be atheist and thus an argument/challenge has been put forth (to show the evidence).

IMO, the simplistic 'lack of belief' thing could work with lots of other things. I could say, I lack a belief in global warming. Another person could say, but what about this that and the other thing (regarding evidence) and if I'm sticking to the simplistic, I could just say, I lack a belief, nothing more needs to be said. Nothing more needs to be done by me, for my position is clear. You believe in it, you address it, don't ask me to change because of your belief. I lack in that belief, not up to me to appease your worldview. But then, it does become a situation where lawfully I better strongly consider the belief and my role in it, or somehow I am guilty of whatever (not acting appropriately). Anyway, I slightly digress, but not really. The lack of belief in God(s), I do see as being similar. If my God is only found in a place I attend every Sunday, then no big deal if you agree or not. But if my God is existence itself, then perhaps it matters a bit what role / position you decide to take in regards to that. (Fortunately for the rest of You, it doesn't really matter what position you claim to take in relation to my views of God. Still going to treat you as God's Children / my brothers and sisters.)

 

[Willamena]

If my God is only found in a place I attend every Sunday, then no big deal if you agree or not. But if my God is existence itself, then perhaps it matters a bit what role / position you decide to take in regards to that.

I quite get that, and the argument that the child may be theist in having a relationship to god. For me, atheism and theism are very much judgements. Relationship without that judgement needs no name.

 

[Kartari]

With respect to the debate between Willamena, Falvlun, Revoltingest, Acim, et al...

The basic point here is that any and all given theistic positions require the making of at least one assertion that one or more god concepts exist. Whereas it does not necessarily require even one assertion to disbelieve in any and all god concepts (i.e. weak atheism requires no assertions). Weak atheism is therefore the default position since it requires no assertions of theistic belief; adopting a position other than weak atheism is to make at least one assertion about a god or gods. The imagined position of infants notwithstanding.

 

[Willamena]

With respect to the debate between Willamena, Falvlun, Revoltingest, Acim, et al...

The basic point here is that any and all given theistic positions require the making of at least one assertion that one or more god concepts exist. Whereas it does not necessarily require even one assertion to disbelieve in any and all god concepts (i.e. weak atheism requires no assertions). Weak atheism is therefore the default position since it requires no assertions of theistic belief; adopting a position other than weak atheism is to make at least one assertion about a god or gods. The imagined position of infants notwithstanding.

Is "god" nothing more than a concept, then? Does disbelief have no connotation of credulity? There is much to disagree with, here.

Hence, the thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

With respect to the debate between Willamena, Falvlun, Revoltingest, Acim, et al...
The basic point here is that any and all given theistic positions require the making of at least one assertion that one or more god concepts exist. Whereas it does not necessarily require even one assertion to disbelieve in any and all god concepts (i.e. weak atheism requires no assertions). Weak atheism is therefore the default position since it requires no assertions of theistic belief; adopting a position other than weak atheism is to make at least one assertion about a god or gods. The imagined position of infants notwithstanding.

"Weak Atheism" is weak in reasoning as the name suggests. Right?
Regards

 

[Kartari]

Hi Willamena,

Is "god" nothing more than a concept, then?

So long as we have no evidence for the existence of any actual god(s) beyond the confines of the human imagination, it seems clear to me that the answer to your question appears to be yes.

Does disbelief have no connotation of credulity?

It is my position that, with respect to the many notions of gods (a concept without a coherent definition btw), disbelief is the only reasonably credible option until (a) a suitable definition is provided and (b) evidence for the existence of such a defined being is provided. And the belief in gods entirely remains a matter of faith in that which cannot be clearly explained or demonstrated.

There is much to disagree with, here.

Hence, the thread.

Of course, there is always disagreement when it comes to religious debates.

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

"Weak Atheism" is weak in reasoning as the name suggests. Right?
Regards

Ironically, your statement here is what appears to be a case of weak reasoning.

Sorry, but can you explain what you mean by this in another way? It actually seems to be a bit of an insult as written... though I'm sure that's not what you intended.

 

[Augustus]

Because some combinations are more likely than others given what we know about the brain and we have no evidence that babies do believe in the existence of god(s) when they are born.

Only if you have a clear belief regarding the likelihood of god's existence.