Well, it is a sort of semantic game but I think it is the believer who makes it that way, by calling “disbelief” a belief. — DingoJones

From what I’ve so far read, I align myself with @Rank Amateur. In attempts to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle:

In one’s lack of belief concerning a given belief X:

A: Is one unaware of X as a stipulated belief of what is true? If yes, then no cognition of X occurs, as with the infant. If no:

B: Is one uncertain of whether or not belief X presents what is in fact true? Then one is agnostic about the truth-value of X.

Or

C: Is one certain that belief X is false? Then one holds a positive belief that belief X is false.

Where X signifies deity/deities, A is irrelevant to issues of belief, B defines agnosticism, and C defines atheism.

Other than the additional possibility of theism, what other possibilities are there? Else, how are the three offered possibilities wrong?

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence.

The thing is that with respect to whether atheism obtains or not, where/how the lack of belief arrives is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

Ok, so if one's atheism arises from the use of tarot cards, that's just as valid as any other method, and the difference between one chosen authority and another is irrelevant. There's no need to examine and question any particular chosen authority, because they are all equally valid, and how one arises at one's views, on any subject, is irrelevant.

Agree completely - furthermore the entire reason for this semantic difference is purely tactical. Which is fine, if your objective is to win an argument - useless if your objective is some exchange of reasonable ideas in an honest search for a truth. — Rank Amateur

Yes, that's it. Some of our younger atheist friends (and many leading atheist spokesmen too) don't understand the difference between reason and ideology. The primary goal of the ideologist, whether religious, atheist or other, is to win. Reason doesn't care who wins.

I think atheists have, in theory, a valid methodology in reason. The problem is often that, 1) they don't understand what reason is, or 2) they want to wave the reason flag without actually doing reason.

If one follows the trail of reason on these subjects, one doesn't wind up being a member of either the theist or atheist camp. One doesn't even wind up being a regular agnostic, because agnostics typically recognize the theist vs. atheist paradigm as being the valid question they are trying to answer.

On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance.

Once the fact of our ignorance is seen and accepted, the next step on the path of reason is to ask what constructive use can be made of this abundant asset.

Discussions on philosophy forums almost never get that far, as the vast majority of users are still trapped inside the theist vs. atheist contest, still entangled in fantasy knowings of various flavors.

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence. — karl stone

Except for the blind faith in science itself.

However I believe the statement " there is no God" is also a positive assertion, that also has a burden of proof. — Rank Amateur

The problem you are up against is that many, perhaps most, atheists don't realize that they are making a positive assertion. This seems especially true of the more adamant atheists.

This is actually quite interesting, and should be even more so to a person of religious faith such as yourself. The reason so many atheists don't realize they are making a positive assertion is that they take the qualifications of human reason for any and all subjects to be an obvious given which requires no inspection or challenge. That is...

They are people of faith. Or rather, people of blind faith, people of faith who don't realize that they are people of faith.

Naturally, such an insight can be highly offensive to any atheist who has written 10,000 forum posts regarding how silly/bad/stupid etc faith is.

The problem with this approach is that you seem to be using reason to determine that those who take the application of reason for granted have a blind faith. Maybe they don't have a blind faith because maybe your application of human reason to this problem was inappropriate. It is only your blind faith which makes it seem so.

Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? — DingoJones

It's always an active act, unless the person has never heard of whatever is being examined. So, a baby's lack of belief in God is not an active act. Once they've heard of the God idea, whether they choose to believe or not, that's an active act, based on reference to some chosen authority.

The reason you don't believe in God is that you've examined God claims using your chosen authority, human reason, and by that process have concluded that sufficient evidence is lacking. The validity of your conclusion depends entirely on whether human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful answers on this set of questions, just as the validity of theist conclusions typically depends on whether their chosen holy book is so qualified.

If you wish for anyone else to accept your conclusions, you bear the exact same burden as the theist, you have to prove the qualifications of your chosen authority. And just like the theist, you will be unable to do so. And thus we arrive at what unites all of us on questions of this scale, our ignorance.

If we are operating from the unexamined assumption that the point of such inquiries should be to find an answer, (an assumption shared by almost all theists and atheists) then discovering our ignorance can be seen as a bad thing, an unwelcome defeat.

But we don't have to blindly accept the assumption that the most useful goal for such an enterprise must be to find "The Answer". We don't have to blindly accept that assumption just because almost everyone else does. We can question that assumption. We can explore alternatives. We can do philosophy.

- I am not sure that is it Jake - I think it is tactic. And I think that was Russels objective. And the purpose is, there is a do loop in the argument if it is not there. IMO he did like the fact that by the application of reason alone the Atheist position was and is no more valid than the theist position. He was looking for a superior atheist position - and his solution was to relieve the atheist from any responsibility of supporting their position and solely basing their position that there is no god until the theist can support their argument to their satisfaction. It is an attempt to move the "there is no god" belief to the status quo - the given - until proved otherwise.

the millions how follow - just repeat

The problem with this approach is that you seem to be using reason to determine that those who take the application of reason for granted have a blind faith. — Ciaran

Yes, this is a common and understandable misunderstanding, which I should work harder to clear up.

We can use reason to discover reason's limits. As example, we can examine the evidence of our lives using reason, and discover that we can't fall in love using only reason. We used reason to conduct that analysis, and in doing so discovered a limitation of reason.

Reason has been proven useful for very many things on human scale, way too many to begin to list. But no one has proven that human reason is also qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.

The very same situation exists for holy books. Holy books have provided meaning and comfort to billions of people over thousands of years. But we can't leap blindly from the impressive success to the assumption that therefore holy books are also qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions, right?

If members would simply apply the very same methodology to atheism that they apply to theism (ie. intellectual honesty) they will soon discover that no one can prove the qualifications of their chosen authority, and thus the entire God debate merry-go-round comes screeching to a halt.

And that is where a more interesting inquiry might begin.

I am not sure that is it Jake - I think it is tactic. And I think that was Russels objective. And the purpose is, there is a do loop in the argument if it is not there. IMO he did like the fact that by the application of reason alone the Atheist position was and is no more valid than the theist position. He was looking for a superior atheist position - and his solution was to relieve the atheist from any responsibility of supporting their position and solely basing their position that there is no god until the theist can support their argument to their satisfaction. It is an attempt to move the "there is no god" belief to the status quo - the given - until proved otherwise. — Rank Amateur

I agree with all of this, but...

It varies. Some atheists are indeed using this dodge as a deliberate debate tactic, that's true. But, imho, most atheists simply don't understand that they too are people of faith, and are arguing sincerely from that misunderstanding.

And so I should probably lighten up and stop kicking their ass.

My lame excuse is that I've been discussing this almost daily for 20 years, and conversations like this almost never make it past this point, and riding the same old merry-go-round over and over and over again does try my admittedly limited patience. Which is entirely my problem. I'll try to keep that in mind.

My lame excuse is that I've been discussing this almost daily for 20 years, and conversations like this almost never make it past this point, and riding the same old merry-go-round over and over and over again does try my admittedly limited patience. Which is entirely my problem. I'll try to keep that in mind — Jake

agree with all - and my interest in this debate is more about the is belief in anything an active act - than in any kind of theist - non theist debate. There is nothing I have to add to that issue - read, think, make your own mind up - is where that has been for as long as I can remember.

My only other concern on this issue is that each side respect as reasonable the other sides position.

But I completely agree that both science and reason - have been elevated to a religion based on faith by many - and many of those are completely blind to this.

and my interest in this debate is more about the is belief in anything an active act - than in any kind of theist - non theist debate. — Rank Amateur

I understand, and respect your style here. But, should it ever interest you, you should feel free to make the Catholic case, imho. We all know you're not an annoying evangelist, and it's possible to make the Catholic case without being one, as you already know. We're all making our cases, you should feel free to do the same.

But I completely agree that both science and reason - have been elevated to a religion based on faith by many - and many of those are completely blind to this. — Rank Amateur

What's interesting and useful about this reality is that it can help illustrate to non-theists how religious faith may come to be. When those adamantly against religious faith do so using a faith of their own, that tells us that faith is part of the human condition, not just the religious condition.

Personally, I have a strong (and sometime loud) faith that nobody knows the answers to any of this, and there's no way to prove that either. But that doesn't stop me from believing in my own perspective. We're all in pretty much the same boat, and the great divides so often proposed are largely a fantasy.

I disagree with your first sentence. Not believing in something is not a truth claim. — DingoJones

I think it is. Refusing to reach a conclusion, perhaps because of insufficient evidence, is not a truth claim. Reaching a conclusion is a truth claim. And proclaiming that something is, or is not, is a truth claim. How could it be otherwise?

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence. — karl stone

Exactly. :up: Science (and the logic that underlies it) demands that we not reach a conclusion if the evidence is less than conclusive. We must suspend judgement (i.e. actively avoid drawing any conclusions) until such time as there is sufficient evidence available to justify a conclusion.

On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance. — Jake

:up: On many (most? all?) subjects, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance.

:smile:

On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance. — Jake

You asked for my Catholic cut - here it is on this - said much better than I could.

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

― Thomas Merton

On many (most? all?) subjects, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance. — Pattern-chaser

Well, there are many, many subjects where we have exhaustive data. As example, reason has proven itself the best methodology for building bridges, beyond any doubt. This is true of very many things at human scale.

But, being qualified for many things does not automatically equal being qualified for everything. This is the unwarranted leap that many of us are making.

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” — Merton

Good quote, thanks. I'd like to learn more about Merton should you ever wish to so instruct us.

From the Fundamentalist Agnostic :smile: perspective faith is an unnecessary step if we decline the very widely held assumption shared by theists and atheists alike that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, a knowing. As philosophers we might observe how rarely this assumption is questioned.

Science allows only naturalistic explanations which excludes traditional definition of God (as supernatural). I see a problem though: what about a naturalistic, non-supernatural God? Science seems to tar this with the same brush as a supernatural God.

The atheist cosmologists have created what might well be a gigantic fairy tale - Eternal Inflation and its multiple universes all with different configurations; just to get around the need for God. Seems to me they are jumping through hoops just to avoid God. Not very objective or scientific IMO.

I would be happy to. He is an interesting, flawed, and complicated man. Very much the type of person one should look to to understand Catholicism. To me, along with Fr. Merton, mother Theresa who often struggled with her faith, Dorothy day, and one fictional character- the whiskey priest in Graeme green's the power and the glory are great insights into real world Catholicism

if we decline the very widely held assumption shared by theists and atheists alike that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, a knowing. — Jake

I like this issue. We might talk of a blind faith in that very project that rarely sees itself. Your idea here is similar (not the same thing) to Stirner's notion of 'the sacred,' which is something like a most general name of the project of finding/imposing trans-personal knowledge. Can this structure ever be dodged? Or is it just softened as it becomes aware of itself?

Your view also reminds me of negative theology in the revelation of the possibility of a not-knowing and a not-needing-to-know. In some ways the unveiling of this possibility is arguably a sharing of knowledge. The difference might live in the emotional tone of the presentation. A project that is invisible to itself as presupposition will perhaps tend to be more shrill. Those who resist the project are proclaimed fools. Reason is one and universal, the holy ghost itself for the woke. But when 'reason' is appealed to as a kind of fixed object that doesn't divide and interrogate itself, is this still reason, or an idol named 'reason'?

*edit: I mention 'theology' because one could think of 'god' as the open space in which one can debate whether or not there is a god, god as possibility itself, god as a questioning, etc.

I would be happy to. He is an interesting, flawed, and complicated man. Very much the type of person one should look to to understand Catholicism. — Rank Amateur

Ok, take us there, as your time permits. A Merton thread, or general Catholic thread perhaps? Not sure how it should be organized given the enormity of the subject.

Hi Sign,

Your view also reminds me of negative theology in the revelation of the possibility of a not-knowing and a not-needing-to-know. — sign

For starters, it would satisfy me just that we question whether a search for answers (regarding the largest of questions) should automatically be assumed to be the best way to proceed.

But when 'reason' is appealed to as a kind of fixed object that doesn't divide and interrogate itself, is this still reason, or an idol named 'reason'? — sign

Yes, you get it. If reason is assumed to be a "one true way" in every circumstance it's on the edge of becoming a kind of religion.

For starters, it would satisfy me just that we question whether a search for answers (regarding the largest of questions) should automatically be assumed to be the best way to proceed. — Jake

I relate to that. Illuminate the issue! Use a torch to show the the darkness (darkness as possibility?) Some assume thinking is about the destruction of questions. But what if the cutting edge of reason is in the asking? In the annihilation of answers with question marks?

Yes, you get it. If reason is assumed to be a "one true way" in every circumstance it's on the edge of becoming a kind of religion. — Jake

Indeed. And especially if one stops at the emotionally charged word 'reason.' Is reason ever done reasoning about the nature of reason? 'Reason is one and universal.' Is reason one and universal? This is what we need of reason to make sense of our imposing visions of the real on one another. Is reason not already divine or appealed to as a divinity then? Reason determines the real, makes it determinate, brings it consciousness without distortion. That seems to be the idea. Is this why 'the real is rational and the rational is real'?

The name for 'that which is binding' (abstract authority) changes, but perhaps the appeal to that which binds (behind its changing names) is constant. Aren't arguments largely about the name of that-which-binds? From or in the name of that-which-binds? Appeals to reason in its infinite ambiguity seem to imagine reason as a heavenly machine the true thinker incarnates (which isn't to say they are wrong or right).

I embrace the goal of being reasonable, being rational. What does it mean to embrace this goal? What comes to my mind is something like the attempt to 'incarnate' universal reason. That reason is universal and binding for all suggests that it is inherently social. It is the name of an authority and a value, among other things, it seems. So being reasonable seems like an attempt to meet others 'in' reason and the revelations of reason.

Is this not the emotional charge of the idea of science? IMV, the OP clearly demonstrates a religious feeling toward the word 'science.' I read the anti-theism as a form of iconoclasm. Since scientific rationality is the true 'god' (a distributed 'holy ghost'), traditional theism is an enemy faith that apparently denies or resists the universality or incarnation of reason. 'God' is understood as a hidden entity subverting the mastery of reason as an alien, unjustified authority. But 'godless' man-as-rational-community who has come to full self-possession only grants authority through reason. The unreasonable is unreal.

===
Induction is as automatic as digestion. Patterns are experienced and projected on the future. Yesterday's 'how' shall be tomorrow's, a faith in our blood invisible to logic. Is science a system of concepts, algorithms, and a thin philosophy that only concepts and algorithms that lead to repeatable, witness-independent results are to count? What can 'god' be for science if not some concept associated with algorithms and repeatable, public results? Is this then not the god of the science-as-philosophy party? And what are the results that really count? Are these not finally feats of technology, overwhelming doubts about the philosophy of science in utility and as superior weapon? Science seduces with convenient and amusing gadgets and threatens with weapons that cannot be defended against by the pre-scientific. I am myself seduced and threatened by science, not against it just because I try to see its foundation. Is it the result of an embodied dialectic, where desire and fear are primary?

But is there not also along with the seduction of convenience and spectacle the old religious seduction? If only the 'superstitious' and the other philosophers who understand reason differently will see 'my' light which is the true light, I can tell the truth about reason. I can finally decide the real in the name of reason, creating the real with my voice (not I, but universal reason through me.) In the beginning was the (rational-scientific) word. But am I happy without the recognition by others of the reason that speaks through me? No. (Or why do I appear here?) So I am directed outward toward the recognition of 'my' reason by a reason also outside me. Can science address such things and replace philosophy, a philosophy that might be eerily adjacent to religion?

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence.
— karl stone

Exactly. :up: Science (and the logic that underlies it) demands that we not reach a conclusion if the evidence is less than conclusive. We must suspend judgement (i.e. actively avoid drawing any conclusions) until such time as there is sufficient evidence available to justify a conclusion. — Pattern-chaser

That's correct. So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist. Theism and atheism are both unjustified conclusions. It's an argument that might work with some atheists; because they will recognize the limits rational argument places upon what they can and cannot claim to know.

But there's other atheists who insist atheism is not a belief; while effectively maintaining a belief that God does not exist. Similarly, theists refuse to recognize the epistemological principle. They would say - 'My faith is not based on evidence' and 'What kind of faith would it be if it required proof'? You cannot rationally argue someone out of an irrational position in which they are emotionally invested. And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.

So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist. — karl stone

Nitpicking, I know, as I agree with nearly all you say. :smile: But I think it's OK to say "I believe that God exists", as long as I don't go to the next step and assert that God exists. But this does depend on how we define "believe", and then proceeds to get even more confused as we delve deeper. :wink:

[ Edited to add: Of course, if I did say "I believe that God exists", and I do, I should be clearly aware that I am working outside logic, based on faith, and probably little else. I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief. None at all. And I'm happy with that. But it does need saying explicitly, so I'm going to say it again: I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief because there is no such justification.]

So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist.
— karl stone

Nitpicking, I know, as I agree with nearly all you say. :smile: But I think it's OK to say "I believe that God exists", as long as I don't go to the next step and assert that God exists. But this does depend on how we define "believe", and then proceeds to get even more confused as we delve deeper. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

It depends on how we define knowledge. If we define knowledge as true justified belief - as I have say, in the existence of Australia, then saying "I believe God exists" is a claim to knowledge. If I were to say, 'I believe Australia exists' I'm saying Australia exists - though I've never actually seen it. I'm not making a statement about my beliefs, but about what exists. In short, I don't think you can make that distinction - because belief has to claim something in the world is real.

[ Edited to add: Of course, if I did say "I believe that God exists", and I do, I should be clearly aware that I am working outside logic, based on faith, and probably little else. I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief. None at all. And I'm happy with that. But it does need saying explicitly, so I'm going to say it again: I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief because there is no such justification.] — Pattern-chaser

Why do you believe? Why not just hope God exists? If you admit there's no rational justification for your belief, are you not really hoping that God exists, and yet construing that hope as belief? In doing so, you make a claim to knowledge - and existence, whether you intend it or not. Unless you would put your belief in God in the same category as the caricature of a patient in an insane asylum who believe's he's Napoleon. His belief is about his beliefs.

One can believe something to be true, and act accordingly based on either fact, reason or faith.

It is not a fact that God is
It is reasonable to believe in an "un-created creator" or a "necessary being" and if one wishes one
can call that being God

However the Christian God of the bible, or pick your other "god" is a belief of faith