Is it possible to lack belief?

JustSomeGuy

I was posting about this in another discussion but it was somewhat off-topic, so I figured I'd make a new discussion about it. The question in full is:

Is it possible to lack belief on any issue that you are aware of (meaning you possess knowledge/experience/information about the issue)?

Obviously if you aren't aware of something--possess no information about it--you can lack belief. But it seems to me that belief is something our brains do automatically. In reality, we have no say in what we believe. We cannot choose to believe in a deity or not to believe in a deity, any more than we can choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. Both are results of various factors that we have little to no control over, and which ultimately result in the "decision" being made for us.

In the case of belief, our brains make the call based on the information and experience we possess, as well as our own faculties for reason. To give an example: imagine you are an ape sitting in the jungle eating a piece of fruit. In that moment, you do not believe there are any predators nearby. You do not and cannot know there are no predators nearby, but evolution has shaped your brain in such a way to force you to take a stance on uncertain issues because it is necessary for you to function. If you never settled on the belief that no predators are nearby, you would never be able to relax and eat, and you would starve to death. So, applying your knowledge and past experience to your current situation (you don't see any predators, you don't hear any predators, you are in a location where you haven't seen any predators before,, etc.), your brain has decided that there are no predators nearby. Then, you hear a noise from a bush a few yards away from you. This is new information, and it causes your brain to reevaluate the situation. Based on your knowledge and past experience, when you hear a noise similar to the one you've heard, it is very likely that a predator is nearby. After this reevaluation by your brain using this new data, your brain decides to believe that there is a predator nearby, and so you react accordingly, stop eating, and run away. Nowhere in that scenario did you actually make a decision to believe there is a predator nearby or not. You may or may not make the decision on what to do based on that belief, what your actions will be as a result of the belief, but that gets into the free will/determinism debate. The point here is that you did not choose to believe that there was or was not a predator, your brain made the call based on the information and experience you had in the moment. Think of it as if your brain is a computer running a certain program with certain parameters (your faculties for reasoning combined with your past experience) and certain inputs (information about your current situation/environment) will automatically produce certain results (your belief) like a math equation. There are clearly many variables in this equation, but the point remains that it is all an automatic process which you have no control over.

You cannot choose to believe in God anymore than you can choose not to. People may claim to have made a choice in leaving the church or joining the church, but the reality is that they had no part in it; something about their equation changed, either variables in the equation or the equation itself. They either received new information/experiences, or their faculties for reasoning changed.

If you believe in God, could you choose not to? If you do not believe in God, could you choose to believe?

This discussion began in regards to theistic belief, but it seems to me it applies to belief in general.

Thoughts?

CasKev

It's like you say, our level of belief in any particular idea is determined by our biology, and our environmental feedback to date. You can want to believe something, because you think it would benefit you, but for an actual change in level of belief to occur, you need to experience something (or the lack thereof).

For example, my current level of belief in some sort of intelligent design of the universe is about a 9.5 out of 10. My current level of belief in a God similar to that depicted in the Bible is about a 0.1 out of 10. While I may want to believe, or hope that there is a Bible-like God, my actual level of belief will only change if I receive new information. Note that this new information can be passive in nature - for example, the more time that passes without evidence of a Bible-like God, the lower my level of belief will likely become, even if no one comes along with an argument against its existence.

JustSomeGuy

↪CasKev

I just realized that in my original post I never really came back to the actual question of whether it is possible to lack belief. So, yes, belief isn't something you can choose or have control over. But my point was meant to be that not only do our brains choose for us what we believe, but they can't help but choose when faced with any choice. That's the real issue I wanted to discuss. It follows from this that claiming atheism is a "lack of belief" is nonsense. Atheism means that you have knowledge/experience/information about the issue of the existence of a deity, and based on all of that plus your own faculties for reason your brain has made the decision that a deity does not exist.

When you have a yes or no question, there is no middle ground. "Do you believe in a deity?" is a yes or no question. This isn't an attempt to discredit the position of atheism, only to assert that atheists in general are misrepresenting their actual position in a way that is nonsensical. You cannot simply lack belief unless you have no information. If you have information, your brain has made a decision about what it believes. This could even be an evolutionary adaptation, because like I said in my example it has historically been necessary for us to decide one way or another when we have insufficient evidence to be certain. This is something we have needed to do to survive, and so it is an automatic process.

I'll allow that in some cases it's possible that you may not be conscious of your belief, but it seems to me that simply lacking a belief isn't actually possible.

SonJnana

It is possible to lack a belief. If you look at a jar with gumballs, do you believe that there is an even amount of gumballs in that jar? Probably not, rightfully so. That doesn't mean you believe that there is not an even number (and therefore there is an odd number). You lack the belief that there is an even number and lack the belief that there is an odd number because you have no evidence for either way.

If someone tells you there is an even number, you'd ask them how they determined that. If someone tells you there is an odd number, you'd ask them how they determined that.

Atheism as defined in dictionaries is a lack of belief. If it's in the dictionary and people want to use a word the way it's defined in the dictionary, I think that should be respected. If someone says they are atheist, just ask them what they mean by that so you can understand their position. As long as they tell you they lack a belief then what's the issue? They've clarified for you and you can continue conversation from there.

JustSomeGuy

If it's in the dictionary and people want to use a word the way it's defined in the dictionary, I think that should be respected — SonJnana

What? That's missing the whole point of philosophy. I'm really surprised you're so dismissive about this on a philosophy forum. What would this website be for if we just said that everything is exactly as it is defined in our dictionaries and everyone is correct in their beliefs and views, and we should not question any of it because it should be respected? Philosophy wouldn't even exist.

If you look at a jar with gumballs, do you believe that there is an even amount of gumballs in that jar? Probably not, rightfully so. That doesn't mean you believe that there is not an even number (and therefore there is an odd number). You lack the belief that there is an even number and lack the belief that there is an odd number because you have no evidence for either way. — SonJnana

Well, firstly, it's not true that you have no evidence. You have your own visual evidence--you see the jar and the gumballs in front of you. You also have your past experience--maybe you have seen gumballs in a container before and there was an even number of them--that would influence your reasoning, even if only a little. If somebody put a gun to your head and said "you have one second to tell me if you think there are an even or odd number of gumballs in this container or I will kill you", are you saying you would die? Now obviously you're going to say "well if you were forced like that you'd just pick one randomly", but it isn't completely random--as I said it's based on various things about you and your knowledge and experience and reasoning. More importantly, though, what I'm saying is that this is essentially how our brains work anyway. You don't need a literal gun to your head. If you have any amount of information about topic, your brain decides what your beliefs are about said topic because it has been necessary for it to do so in the past to ensure our survival. Remaining undecided would get you killed.

So, if somebody says they lack a belief one way or the other on the topic of the existence of a deity, they aren't being truthful--maybe just with you, or maybe even with themselves. We all have plenty of information and experience related to this topic since it's the single most popular and historically important issue in the world. You look at the information and experience you have--either consciously or unconsciously--and apply your own faculties of reason to it, and your brain decides automatically what it believes based on the information it has. It cannot be undecided. Our brains do not operate in such a way to allow that. Whether you want to admit it or not, you have a belief one way or the other. That belief may change often, but at any given moment you either believe that a deity does exist or that it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

Noble Dust

The point here is that you did not choose to believe that there was or was not a predator, your brain made the call — JustSomeGuy

Who exactly is the “you” who has a brain here? The way you’re wording your argument sounds more like an argument against the idea that it’s not possible to lack belief, rather than an argument for it. If belief is just responses in the brain, and yet, a “you” exists outside this brain, then why does the “you” not have a role in belief?

But I agree that belief is innate; belief is the foundation on which knowledge of any kind is built. Belief underpins rationality itself; belief and intuition, for instance, are linked. Any rational argument has a basis in intuitive belief.

JustSomeGuy

The way you’re wording your argument sounds more like an argument against the idea that it’s not possible to lack belief, rather than an argument for it. — Noble Dust

I really don't see why you'd say that.

If belief is just responses in the brain, and yet, a “you” exists outside this brain, then why does the “you” not have a role in belief? — Noble Dust

That's basically the whole underlying point. If there is a "you" apart from your brain, it doesn't have a role in belief because your brain is what decides your beliefs, like a computer making a calculation. I only use this language because this is the way people generally view themselves. But this argument has nothing to do with whether there is a "consciousness" apart from your physical brain--it works either way and makes no comment on that issue. The point is that your brain itself comes to conclusions about what you are going to believe based on various factors, and nowhere is there a "choice" made. It's all based on a sort of formula, which varies both from person to person, and even within a person from moment to moment.

Obviously this ties in heavily to the free will vs. determinism debate, but I was trying to avoid that and just focus on this one specific topic.

Noble Dust

But this argument has nothing to do with whether there is a "consciousness" apart from your physical brain--it works either way and makes no comment on that issue. — JustSomeGuy

It’s an assumption in your argument, and it influences your argument. For instance, if conciousness exists outside of the brain, then the brain is just the hardware, while conciousness is the software, so assigning belief purely to the brain would be wrong in that case.

JustSomeGuy

if conciousness exists outside of the brain, then the brain is just the hardware, while conciousness is the software, so assigning belief purely to the brain would be wrong in that case. — Noble Dust

The whole hardware/software comparison is just one idea about the relationship between an immaterial mind or soul and the physical brain, it isn't the only way of looking at it. The idea that there is a "you" that is immaterial and separate but connected to your physical brain does not in itself imply that it would have a role in belief. You're making a lot of assumptions about both what the relationship between "mind" and brain would be, as well as the very nature of the immaterial mind or soul itself. This is why, as I said, my argument made no comment on that issue. If you want to make an argument for a specific version of an immaterial consciousness that influences belief, you are free to do so, and sure, that kind of consciousness would be incompatible with what I'm saying. But my argument assumes the entire process taking place in the physical brain, which I think is a fair assumption since it agrees with the evidence we have.

SonJnana

What? That's missing the whole point of philosophy. I'm really surprised you're so dismissive about this on a philosophy forum. What would this website be for if we just said that everything is exactly as it is defined in our dictionaries and everyone is correct in their beliefs and views, and we should not question any of it because it should be respected? Philosophy wouldn't even exist. — JustSomeGuy

Words are defined differently in philosophical arguments all the time. When someone makes a proof and uses a word that is ambiguous, people generally will ask "how do you define [the word]". I think the atheist is only at fault if they are purposely trying to deceive you knowing that you think it will mean something different that what they mean. The atheist may not even realize that you are viewing the word differently. That's why it's important for both parties to clear up any misunderstanding they think may happen. For the sake of argument in philosophy, people are allowed to redefine words as long as they are clear. So the only thing I get from this is that there should be more awareness about the misunderstanding of the word atheist so that whenever the word atheist is used it is defined more clearly because it is a word that is ambiguous.

Well, firstly, it's not true that you have no evidence. You have your own visual evidence--you see the jar and the gumballs in front of you. — JustSomeGuy

That is evidence that there are gumballs in front of me. That is not evidence that supports either claims of there being an even amount or an odd amount.

You also have your past experience--maybe you have seen gumballs in a container before and there was an even number of them--that would influence your reasoning, even if only a little. — JustSomeGuy

That's clearly not sufficient evidence to rationalize a belief that in this jar this an even amount. Are you saying I should be more set on believing that in this jar it's even because I remember counting a jar in 5th grade that had an even amount? On top of that, it's also possible that you have never known how many gumballs were in a jar ever in your life. So yes it is possible to have no evidence that supports either claim.

Our brains do not operate in such a way to allow that. Whether you want to admit it or not, you have a belief one way or the other. That belief may change often, but at any given moment you either believe that a deity does exist or that it doesn't — JustSomeGuy

You might have a subconscious irrational prejudice to varying degrees either way sure, but the expression of that only tells you that if you had to pick even or odd, you think there's a very very very slight chance that it is more likely that there is even than odd. So if there is a gun to your head you'll be more inclined to pick even although you're not aware why. But even saying that you consciously rationally believe something is more likely than other options does not mean that you believe that option is true.

If there is someone convicted and some evidence showed up to support that the criminal did it, that does not mean that I believe the criminal did it. That only means I believe that it is more likely. That does not mean I believe that it is true.

Believing something is more likely to be true does not mean believing it to be true.

Noble Dust

The whole hardware/software comparison is just one idea about the relationship between an immaterial mind or soul and the physical brain, it isn't the only way of looking at it. — JustSomeGuy

So?

You're making a lot of assumptions about both what the relationship between "mind" and brain would be, as well as the very nature of the immaterial mind or soul itself. — JustSomeGuy

No, I made one, that consciousness would be the software.

. If you want to make an argument for a specific version of an immaterial consciousness that influences belief, you are free to do so, and sure, that kind of consciousness would be incompatible with what I'm saying. — JustSomeGuy

My issue is that if belief is only situated in the physical brain, it’s essentially instinct; your example of the ape is essentially a discription of instinct. Human belief is more complex. I can, for instance hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time; my beliefs are effected by reasoning, emotion, intuition, experience, all the while being the basis upon which all of thos faculties act.

But my argument assumes the entire process taking place in the physical brain, which I think is a fair assumption since it agrees with the evidence we have. — JustSomeGuy

What kind of evidence?

Noble Dust

↪SonJnana

It’s not an issue of whether we have a belief within every possible, ridiculous hypothetical scenario, it’s an issue of whether belief is foundational to knowledge.

JustSomeGuy

That is evidence that there are gumballs in front of me. That is not evidence that supports either claims of there being an even amount or an odd amount — SonJnana

That's clearly not sufficient evidence to rationalize a belief that in this jar this an even amount. Are you saying I should be more set on believing that in this jar it's even because I remember counting a jar in 5th grade that had an even amount? — SonJnana

You don't seem to understand the topic. I'm saying that our brains function automatically in such a way to make these judgement calls based on whatever evidence we have, good or bad, along with other various factors. The fact that it is not sufficient evidence is exactly the point. Our brains have historically needed to make decisions even when the evidence is insufficient for certainty to ensure our survival, and so that is how they still function today.

I'll put it as concisely as I can:

When you have insufficient evidence to be certain of something, your brain is designed by nature to make a judgement call anyway.

So, there is insufficient evidence to say for certain whether there is an even or odd number of gumballs in the container, so your brain uses all of the information that it has, good or bad, in order to make a judgement call.

You might have a subconscious irrational prejudice to varying degrees either way sure, but the expression of that only tells you that if you had to pick even or odd, you think there's a very very very slight chance that it is more likely that there is even than odd — SonJnana

Exactly. So you think that it is even. It doesn't matter how certain you are, it doesn't matter how likely you think it is, that is the decision your brain has made, so that is what you believe.

You're still trying to apply rationality to this, which again is missing the point. This isn't about consciously rationalizing. This is about an automatic process in your brain to deal with a lack of sufficient information to consciously rationalize.

If there is someone convicted and some evidence showed up to support that the criminal did it, that does not mean that I believe the criminal did it. That only means I believe that it is more likely. That does not mean I believe that it is true. — SonJnana

You're misrepresenting belief. In that scenario, you do believe that the criminal did it, but you are very open to the possibility that you are wrong. The same way, if a person believes that a deity does not exist, but is open to the possibility of a deity existing, they do not lack belief. They simply hold a belief while being open to other possibilities.

My issue is that if belief is only situated in the physical brain, it’s essentially instinct — Noble Dust

Ah, I see, so you're beginning from the assumption that belief is not a product of the physical brain. And your only argument for this is that if this were the case, belief would essentially be instinct? The problem is that you're making these objections based on what you already believe the concepts of "belief" and "instinct" are. So while I'm arguing for what I think belief is, you're essentially just saying that you disagree because what I'm saying belief is isn't compatible with what you think belief is. Saying that an argument is wrong because there are other opinions isn't a valid objection. You need to critique my argument, not just say it's wrong because it's different from your preconceived idea of what belief is.

my beliefs are affected by reasoning, emotion, intuition, experience, all the while being the basis upon which all of thos faculties act. — Noble Dust

That's basically just re-wording what I have already said. These beliefs are based on a variety of factors. It doesn't disagree at all with my point.

SonJnana

↪Noble Dust

I am saying that it doesn't matter if I have some irrational prejudice that inclines me towards believing that it is slightly more likely that A is true and B is not. In fact, it doesn't even matter if I have a conscious rational inclination to believe that A is true and B is not.

If there are 5 red balls and 4 red balls in a bag, I may believe that it is more likely to be red so I have an inclination towards guessing red if I am forced to, but that does not mean that I believe red will be picked.

JustSomeGuy

If there are 5 red balls and 4 red balls in a bag, I may believe that it is more likely to be red so I have an inclination towards guessing red if I am forced to, but that does not mean that I believe red will be picked. — SonJnana

But that's exactly what it means. It means you believe red will be picked, but you also realize red may not be picked. I don't see why that's difficult to comprehend.

JustSomeGuy

↪SonJnana

You can hold beliefs with varying convictions. It isn't all or nothing. Most people who believe in a god or believe that there is no god are still open (to varying degrees) to the possibility that their belief is incorrect. Not being open to any possibilities other than what you believe is what is truly irrational. You're talking about certainty. This has never been a conversation about certainty--quite the opposite, in fact.

Noble Dust

↪JustSomeGuy

I was bringing up an assumption in your argument, that’s all. I agree with the result at least. :-d

JustSomeGuy

I was bringing up an assumption in your argument, that’s all — Noble Dust

I know that's what you were initially doing, but that issue was settled in my first response to you. You went on to make other claims beyond that, though. I was just engaging you. But if you want to drop it that's fine.

Out of curiosity, though, do you believe that there is a mind separate from the physical brain? You've been arguing as though you do, but I know you could just be playing Devil's Advocate.

Noble Dust

Out of curiosity, though, do you believe that there is a mind separate from the physical brain? You've been arguing as though you do, but I know you could just be playing Devil's Advocate. — JustSomeGuy

I dunno, I thought that was off topic and not related to your argument. :P

SonJnana

You can hold beliefs with varying convictions. It isn't all or nothing. Most people who believe in a god or believe that there is no god are still open (to varying degrees) to the possibility that their belief is incorrect. Not being open to any possibilities other than what you believe is what is truly irrational. You're talking about certainty. This has never been a conversation about certainty--quite the opposite, in fact. — JustSomeGuy

So what if people have a very very slight subconscious irrational prejudice (that they may not even be aware of) towards something? Yeah you're right it is a belief if you are talking about some sort of absolute belief. But then we might as well say nobody knows that there is a chair in front of them because they can't be certain that Satan isn't tricking them into believing that. Yet we don't, we say we know there is a chair in front of them because it is practical. This is how statements about practical knowledge are used.

When people use the word knowledge it is assumed that it is practical knowledge not absolute knowledge. If someone says they lack belief in god it's because what they are saying they are using in terms of practical belief. They might have some sort of irrational prejudice (that they may not even be aware of) towards believing that god exists or not but so what? That's not the same as asserting that god exists or does not exist.

I am perfectly fine with saying I lack belief in god (practical belief) and yet acknowledging that I may have some unconscious irrational prejudice towards believing that god exists or does not exist. When people ask me if I believe or not, they're asking about the former not the latter. If I assert god exists I have to defend it. If I acknowledge that I have an irrational subconscious prejudice, I do not have to defend that.

If you want to go into absolutes you can go on ahead and be solipsistic.

JustSomeGuy

a very very slight subconscious irrational prejudice — SonJnana

By using this phrase it shows you're still missing the point.

But then we might as well say nobody knows that there is a chair in front of them because they can't be certain that Satan is tricking them into believing that. Yet we don't, we say there is a chair in front of them because it is practical. — SonJnana

Exactly! It is true that we can't be certain that there is a chair in front of us, but in order for us to function in the world our brain needs to make these judgement calls, and it does so no matter the amount of information--what constitutes sufficient information for certainty isn't some kind of universal law or objective rule.

Belief and knowledge are just terms we created to describe different levels of certainty. They aren't clear-cut or absolute, but in general "knowledge" means something you are certain of and "belief" means something you are not certain of. All I've ever been arguing is that it is impossible to lack belief because of the way our brains work. You seem to be arguing that irrational beliefs aren't actually beliefs, which is ridiculous.

My point still stands that claiming you lack belief is nonsense. Nothing you have sad has been contrary to that.

If you want to go into absolutes you can go on ahead and be solipsistic. — SonJnana

So because I don't see things from your point of view and wanted to look at things in a more absolute and detailed manner you're going to be passive aggressive towards me? That's not a productive attitude.

I dunno, I thought that was off topic and not related to your argument. :P — Noble Dust

It doesn't necessarily influence my argument, but it's definitely related. I was more just interested in hearing your opinion, though. I like talking to people about what they believe when it comes to metaphysical stuff like this. It's always fun to hear other perspectives.

SonJnana

↪JustSomeGuy

Okay how about this then. It is true that I do believe (in terms of absolute belief) that god does not exist because of some irrational subconscious prejudice. I acknowledge this. Yet through my conscious reasoning I cannot rationalize an argument that god exists or does not exists. Therefore I will not claim that it is rational to believe god exists or claim that it is rational to believe god does not exist.

Yet I still lack the belief that god exists therefore I am an atheist. Through conscious reasoning I say that the most rational position is to simply lack belief in both. Yet I am physically incapable of absolutely lacking belief in both. However since I acknowledge that it is just an irrational subconscious prejudice, I do not have to defend that. If someone on the other hand claims that it is rational to believe god exists or rational to believe that god does not exist, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why it is rational.

Are you going to make every person who claims that they are atheist say this? Because that was actually kind of tough lol.

So because I don't see things from your point of view and wanted to look at things in a more absolute and detailed manner you're going to be passive aggressive towards me? That's not a productive attitude. — JustSomeGuy

I apologize I should not have stated it that way.

Noble Dust

↪JustSomeGuy

I believe mind is not the same as matter. I’m not a materialist. What exactly the distinction is between the two is not so clear. I tend to think of being as what generates matter, while conciousness arises from matter, but is impregnated, if you will, by being (that which generated matter). I’m reading an intro to the Kabbalah currently, and the parallels between Ein Sof and Brahman, and various Christian mystic concepts of “the ground of being” and that sort of thing are pretty fascinating. One philosopher who synthesized some of those concepts is Nikolai Berdyaev; his concept of primordial freedom is similar. So, with those concepts in mind, I’m saying Being generates matter, and consciousness arises from matter as an evolution of Being.

JustSomeGuy

irrational subconscious prejudice — SonJnana

That's not an accurate description of what's going on, though.
It's not irrational because, as I said before, we need our brains to make these decisions in order to function in the world.
It's not necessarily subconscious. It could be, I'm sure, but it doesn't have to be.
It's not a prejudice, because prejudice is defined as a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". These beliefs are based on both reason and experience.

Through conscious reasoning I say that the most rational position is to simply lack belief in both. — SonJnana

Is it, though? Is it not more rational to settle one way or the other so you can move on with life and not need to devote any more time to contemplating this issue? I'm talking about in terms of your brain, the way your brain is designed to function. It would be irrational for your brain to leave an issue undecided. It's like if you put an equation into a calculator and instead of giving you an answer it told you it was going to wait for more information.

Are you going to make every person who claims that they are atheist say this? — SonJnana

That was never my implication. Only that claiming to lack belief is nonsense. Atheism means the belief that a deity does not exist. This does not imply certainty--on the contrary, it implies uncertainty. What's wrong with that? Why do so many atheists insist that atheism mean a lack of belief? I understand that they are trying to avoid the burden of proof, but they are doing so by making a nonsensical claim. You can believe something without needing to prove it to others. You can believe something without making an argument for it. Simply being an atheist does not invite people to demand you prove your position, any more than simply being a theist. Only if you assert that your position is correct must you provide an argument as proof. And saying that you believe something is not the same as claiming that your belief is correct.

I apologize I should not have stated it that way. — SonJnana

No worries, I know it's often not easy to convey tone through text.

JustSomeGuy

↪Noble Dust

That is pretty fascinating, thanks for sharing.

SonJnana

That's not an accurate description of what's going on, though.
It's not irrational because, as I said before, we need our brains to make these decisions in order to function in the world.
It's not necessarily subconscious. It could be, I'm sure, but it doesn't have to be.
It's not a prejudice, because prejudice is defined as a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". These beliefs are based on both reason and experience. — JustSomeGuy

We'll just call it subconscious then.

Is it not more rational to settle one way or the other so you can move on with life and not need to devote any more time to contemplating this issue? — JustSomeGuy

It could be rational. I can still move on with life and not decide which one is true and never come back to this issue rather than devoting more time to contemplating this issue. It would be irrational to consciously take a position when I can't consciously come up with a rational argument. Unless of course you have nothing to lose and you're just guessing. But that's the position people generally take when they say they I believe this is more likely. And when they say they believe that something is true it's because they generally mean they think that it is consciously rationally justifiable unless stated otherwise. If you ask them why they believe something is true and they say they can't come up with a consciously rational argument then that's all there is to it.

That was never my implication. Only that claiming to lack belief is nonsense. Atheism means the belief that a deity does not exist. — JustSomeGuy

I don't really care about labels. As long as there is understanding on a position that's all that matters. I think that most people who say they are atheistic in the sense that they lack a belief in god would pretty much take the position that I have been describing about myself. In that there is no burden of proof. As long as you understand their position, I don't think you have to get all technical about absolute belief and such.

Cavacava

↪JustSomeGuy

Is it possible to lack belief on any issue that you are aware of (meaning you possess knowledge/experience/information about the issue)?

I think knowledge without belief is not possible. I also think we are unaware of some of our beliefs. The communities where we live are constructed of laws, practices/customs/normative beliefs as well as ideology. These laws, practices and beliefs describe the idiomatic character of a culture or a community.

An individuals actions at some consequential level are grounded in these inescapable cultural norms (or beliefs) which affect each one in the community to some extent, even if the individual is unaware of its direct effects on their actions.

JustSomeGuy

I can still move on with life and not decide which one is true and never come back to this issue — SonJnana

You're still equating belief with knowledge. It's not about deciding which one is true, it's about deciding which one you believe is true. And the only way you can move on with life is because your brain has made a decision on what it believes, allowing it to move on. What I'm saying is our brains aren't capable of leaving anything unanswered like that, that's not how they function.

I don't really care about labels. — SonJnana

This was never about labels, it's about analyzing the claims made by a certain group of people to see if they make sense. What I have been attempting to demonstrate is that the claim that atheism is a lack of belief is nonsense. The irony of it is that in an attempt to be more rational, these people have actually made a claim that is less rational.

But I'll say it again: beliefs don't require proof. You only bear the burden of proof if you are claiming your belief is correct or true or fact. As I said, being a theist or an atheist does not, in itself, require proof, because it is simply a position of belief. Many people may think that when a person states their belief, that person is required to prove that belief is true. Those people are mistaken. If I say I believe in a deity, there is no requirement for me to prove my belief is true. But if I say that a deity does exist, that requires proof. It may be a subtle difference, but it's a very important one.

I don't think you have to get all technical about absolute belief and such. — SonJnana

You keep saying things like this and it's really making me wonder what you're doing on a philosophy forum. That's not meant to be insulting or anything, it's just that getting "all technical" is precisely what philosophy is about.

Also I'm not sure if I have said this yet, but I just want to be clear that none of this has been attempting to argue for theism or against atheism. The only thing I was addressing was the claim that one can lack belief when it comes to this issue. I don't call myself a theist or an atheist because I find there's far too much baggage that comes with both terms.

Rich

Is it possible to lack belief on any issue that you are aware of (meaning you possess knowledge/experience/information about the issue)? — JustSomeGuy

We are our minds, and our minds explore and learn things and from these explorations we create beliefs which we share with each other. If there is lots of agreement, we might call these beliefs facts and when we form facts which we believe in very intensely it becomes dogma. Beliefs, both personal and public, are constantly evolving and changing. It's healthy to allow for flexibility in beliefs and with life in general. Flexibility promotes flow and flow is the key to a healthy mind, body, and spirit.

_db

↪JustSomeGuy

So I think there's two questions in your OP:

1.) whether we can freely choose what to believe in, and
2.) whether living without beliefs in relation to something else is possible.

With respect to 1.), I think you are right in that we don't (usually/ever) actually choose what to believe. I think we might even be able to get away with discarding the notion of belief entirely in many cases. In normal life, we "choose" to act based on whatever seems appropriate. It is pre-theoretical navigation, whereas beliefs are theoretical, abstract, and more importantly political.

But I think the argument that we don't choose what we believe is just another aspect of a deterministic argument. We don't choose what we believe, we don't choose what we desire, we don't choose what we ultimately do, because the deus ex machina of libertarian free will is incoherent.

With respect to 2.), this was a part of my recent discussion of agnosticism. If we're agnostics about, say, the existence of God, I think we actually end up "living" in a see-saw between atheism and theism, one moment theoretically considering theism but pragmatically navigating as an atheist, and the next moment the inverse. We have to make some commitment, even if it's temporary, or we're paralyzed by being unsure.

Rich

But I think the argument that we don't choose what we believe — darthbarracuda

We don't choose what we believe, we form beliefs. We form beliefs by engaging and experimenting. The experiments themselves are partially choice, since they are constrained.

Is it possible to lack belief?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions