Theism Vs Atheism

[Silver Bullet]

Silver Bullet,

You recall our discussion about 'lack of belief' atheism? You're in luck. We happen to have one on the board now. This is from the thread "A New and Highly Disappointed Member."

Precisely. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Specifically a lack of belief in a theistic God, plain and simple.

And you thought I was pulling your leg.

Ha!

I admit that it took a little bit of time for your point to sink in with me. I am still somewhat disturbed by it. I think that 'atheists' may just be skeptics, but in one of your prior posts to me, you seemed to kibosh that idea and I'm not sure I understand why.

I think the 'lack of belief' idea is just an acknowledgement that the particular 'atheist' has not been swayed enough to believe. They would say "I don't believe in God", rather than "I believe that God doesn't exist", though I think that they actually mean the latter. How strongly they believe the latter can vary of course.

SB

 

[Guest]

I don't understand why you think that exploring your reasons and/or evidences for belief would not be beneficial.

It seems you are still confusing why I believe and why others should believe. When I discuss my reasons for believe, I refer to the psychology of belief. I do not believe in the Christian faith simply because I found a set of arguments to be convincing. And frankly, I do not believe we come to most of our beliefs in this manner. Further, the psychology of belief is highly complex. It is something which I have yet to even begin to grasp. Thus, for me to expound on why I think I believe something would be uninformed and foolish.

The other side of the coin are those reasons which can be presented for others to become convinced of the Christian faith. These would include things like the traditional arguments for God, the resurrection of Christ, and so on. To be honest, I am familiar with many of these, but poorly versed in them. Thus, it would be unhelpful for me present them. I would do more injustice to mind which have developed and refined these arguments, and it is best left to those much better versed in them than myself.

So, with both cases, I do not see how such a presentation would benefit myself other than to reinforce my uninformed state or benefit you by presenting a less than decent case. If you are still interested in the latter of these, I can only recommend sources.

What is the common framework you are referring to? What do you mean by that?

You and I share different assumptions about the world, knowledge, and so on. These are a boundary which I am incapable of overcoming.

 

[Guest]

I admit that it took a little bit of time for your point to sink in with me. I am still somewhat disturbed by it. I think that 'atheists' may just be skeptics, but in one of your prior posts to me, you seemed to kibosh that idea and I'm not sure I understand why.

The definition provided disallows such associations (e.g., mere/only a lack of theism). When questioned, these 'lack of theism' atheists simply reiterate the definition. So, blame the atheists. ;)

I think the 'lack of belief' idea is just an acknowledgement that the particular 'atheist' has not been swayed enough to believe. They would say "I don't believe in God", rather than "I believe that God doesn't exist", though I think that they actually mean the latter. How strongly they believe the latter can vary of course.

I agree, completely.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Fair enough. I appreciate your candor.

I guess I am confusing "why you believe" with "why others should believe". I really think that these ought to be the same or very close at the very least.

I know very little about the psychology and neurophysiology of belief, and I agree that it seems extremely complex. It also seems that humanity is only beginning to really study belief, and that there is so much to learn. I am particularly interested in the relationship between beliefs and emotions, such as the proposition that strong disbelief may actually be a form of the emotion of disgust. It will be interesting to see how this field evolves.

Nevertheless, I do think that we come to many of our beliefs via a consideration of convincing arguments. I think that continuing to hold beliefs despite good arguments against them is foolish. Maybe I am naive about this.

Can you give me some examples of beliefs that one might hold without a consideration of convincing arguments?

SB

 

[Guest]

I guess I am confusing "why you believe" with "why others should believe". I really think that these ought to be the same or very close at the very least.

I agree there are similarities, but stark differences as well.

I know very little about the psychology and neurophysiology of belief, and I agree that it seems extremely complex. It also seems that humanity is only beginning to really study belief, and that there is so much to learn. I am particularly interested in the relationship between beliefs and emotions, such as the proposition that strong disbelief may actually be a form of the emotion of disgust. It will be interesting to see how this field evolves.

Agreed.

Nevertheless, I do think that we come to many of our beliefs via a consideration of convincing arguments. I think that continuing to hold beliefs despite good arguments against them is foolish. Maybe I am naive about this.

I agree. We do come to many of our perspectives from a conscious consideration of evidence and arguments. I think we differ to the degree to which this occurs. I think most belief-formation occurs in the subconscious.

Can you give me some examples of beliefs that one might hold without a consideration of convincing arguments?

Yes, I have a perfect example. This one impacts almost an entire nation, but almost no one outside of it. It is called fan death. The government has issued warnings about it. Deaths are reported in the media. Many medical doctors believe it to be true. And even manufacturers install timers on their fans because of it.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Can you give me some examples of beliefs that one might hold without a consideration of convincing arguments?

Yes, I have a perfect example. This one impacts almost an entire nation, but almost no one outside of it. It is called fan death. The government has issued warnings about it. Deaths are reported in the media. Many medical doctors believe it to be true. And even manufacturers install timers on their fans because of it.

I suppose I should have asked for examples of beliefs that one ought to hold without consideration of convincing arguments (assuming that one is interested in truth). . .

Thanks for bringing fan death to my attention. It is fascinating isn't it?

To me, fan death and theism are in the same category.

Fan death appears to be a brilliant example of how large groups of people can honestly believe the utterly irrational. Items such as this provide an important context for understanding theistic beliefs to be nothing more than very successful and complex man-made memes, and for championing skepticism and critical thinking.

SB

 

[Guest]

I suppose I should have asked for examples of beliefs that one ought to hold without consideration of convincing arguments (assuming that one is interested in truth).

I am not one to argue for self-evident ideas.

To me, fan death and theism are in the same category.

Please describe this category.

Fan death appears to be a brilliant example of how large groups of people can honestly believe the utterly irrational. Items such as this provide an important context for understanding theistic beliefs to be nothing more than very successful and complex man-made memes, and for championing skepticism and critical thinking.

Is the context appropriate applied? To find out, I need you to define the category to which you are referring.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Category =widely accepted firm beliefs based on insufficient evidence.

 

[Guest]

Category =widely accepted firm beliefs based on insufficient evidence.

Define "firm" and "insufficient evidence."

 

[Silver Bullet]

Category =widely accepted firm beliefs based on insufficient evidence.

Define "firm" and "insufficient evidence."

That seems hard!

I would say firm = strongly held or strongly believed, difficult to dissuade. It seems subjective to me, or like pornography (hard to define but you know it when you see it!)

I would also say that "insufficient evidence" is also subjective or dependent on perspective: unconvincing. This is why we must try to not be biased.

They seem intuitive, yet I'm having a hard time. Can you or someone else help me out?

Overall, the category refers to a mismatch between the strength of the belief and the evidence supporting it.

SB