What Do the Inquisition and Modern Science have in Common?

[LuisDantas]

Kind of a peripheral issue, Luis.

The main issue here (at least, the main point that I brought up) is that there is a difference between a passive lack of belief and an active negation. A passive lack requires no justification. An active negation is just like any other belief--the believer must find it justified, at least by their own subjective standards of justification.

It seems to me that without evidence the difference is nearly meaningless. Perhaps fully arbitrary, even.

 

[technomage]

It seems to me that without evidence the difference is nearly meaningless. Perhaps fully arbitrary, even.

No difference between the absence of belief, and the presence of belief?

If you have a moment, an explanation would be welcome.

 

[LuisDantas]

No difference between the absence of belief, and the presence of belief?

If you have a moment, an explanation would be welcome.

Denying the existence of something (such as a god) that leaves no discernible evidence of its existence is not too different from simply not believing that it exists.

It may well be argued that it is not different at all.

Any needs for justification will be a direct result and must be weighted against whatever evidence for (or against) that existence one happens to find.

And since evidence for God is nearly all emotional or at least very personal and subjective, it is exceedingly easy to legitimaly disregard.

By contrast, belief in the inexistence of God can be evidenced by various, fairly objective means, such as the existence of so much conflict among his believers and the abundance of unfairness and imperfection in existence.

Therefore, despite popular perceptions, it is theism, not atheism, that really needs any justification at all. The difference between active and passive atheism is arguably non-existent, and definitely does not need much justification, if any.

 

[technomage]

Denying the existence of something (such as a god) that leaves no discernible evidence of its existence is not too different from simply not believing that it exists.

It may well be argued that it is not different at all.

Any needs for justification will be a direct result and must be weighted against whatever evidence for (or against) that existence one happens to find.

And since evidence for God is nearly all emotional or at least very personal and subjective, it is exceedingly easy to legitimaly disregard.

By contrast, belief in the inexistence of God can be evidenced by various, fairly objective means, such as the existence of so much conflict among his believers and the abundance of unfairness and imperfection in existence.

Therefore, despite popular perceptions, it is theism, not atheism, that really needs any justification at all. The difference between active and passive atheism is arguably non-existent, and definitely does not need much justification, if any.

Thanks for the explanation. I can respect your views, even if I can't agree with them.

 

[LuisDantas]

So how do you disagree?