Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is meant by the term "default position"? and why?
Regards
If, for instance, you were driving along a highway and you came upon a branch in the road that offered you choices of direction to pursue, one of which included movement in the same direction you had been going, the "default" would be to continue in the direction you were proceeding at the expense of the alternatives.
Don't tell "Rocky", he might punch you knock out in the first roundA default is the situation that one has when no decision, no action, no choice or no event presents itself.
Many of us atheists (myself included) consider atheism a defautl stance.
Personally, I call even rocks atheists. It helps to emphasize how unremarkable atheism is and how odd it usually is to attribute active properties to it.
Or, as I prefer to put it, atheism is indeed a default in exactly the sense that you describe, despite the insistence of some people (such as you) of claiming that atheism "proper" requires active challenge to some form of theistic claim to be opposed.If, for instance, you were driving along a highway and you came upon a branch in the road that offered you choices of direction to pursue, one of which included movement in the same direction you had been going, the "default" would be to continue in the direction you were proceeding at the expense of the alternatives.
Atheism is not a "default" in the sense that some people would prefer it to be, that is that "atheism" is the normal state of a human being when "god" is not taken into account, because "atheism" is a response to claims that there is a god, and until and unless those claims arise, atheism cannot arise. Atheism is a branch along the road.
The claim "there is a god" is present in every instance of atheism, whether explicit or implicit. To introduce the term is also to introduce the claim.Or, as I prefer to put it, atheism is indeed a default in exactly the sense that you describe, despite the insistence of some people (such as you) of claiming that atheism "proper" requires active challenge to some form of theistic claim to be opposed.
It just plain makes a lot more sense to describe it as a default.
The claim "there is a god" is present in every instance of atheism, whether explicit or implicit.
To introduce the term is also to introduce the claim.
Consider car ownership.
Balderdash!The claim "there is a god" is present in every instance of atheism, whether explicit or implicit. To introduce the term is also to introduce the claim.
The dictionary.Balderdash!
What have you been smoking?
We as humans though aren't born as blank slates.The default position is the factory setting, without apps. Philosophically it's a blank slate, a beginning point.
I agree.We as humans though aren't born as blank slates.
Do you have a word to describe a person who has no God concept and has never even been introduced to the idea? I doubt you do. And considering the word atheist's definition - "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.", why not use it? Would you deny that someone without the concept of a thing "disbelieves" in that thing? They certainly don't "believe" it. So it is clear that they don't believe it. They don't even have it in their realm of knowledge.Atheism is not a "default" in the sense that some people would prefer it to be, that is that "atheism" is the normal state of a human being when "god" is not taken into account, because "atheism" is a response to claims that there is a god, and until and unless those claims arise, atheism cannot arise. Atheism is a branch along the road.
It is believed by a fair amount of research at least that we may have and evolutionary trait of believing in something. And belonging to religious organizations, for most people, provides a range of benefits. Those who believe it is an offense to their beliefs to commit suicide do so less often than those without. This approach does not favor a blank state default position or atheist default position, but does explain why things like religion are culturally-bound phenomena. Seems to me it's more likely you'll practice what your culture practices.I agree.
But we're all born with the default position of not
believing that Athena sprang from the head of Zeus.
For some, such a belief could be their default.It is believed a fair amount of research at least that we may have and evolutionary trait of believing in something. And belonging to religious organizations, for most people, provides a range of benefits. Those who believe it is an offense to their beliefs to commit suicide do so less often than those without.
It seems to me that the jump from "something" to "some form of deity" is non-trivial. Or, if it is trivial, that would suggest that theism is not of much significance.It is believed by a fair amount of research at least that we may have and evolutionary trait of believing in something. And belonging to religious organizations, for most people, provides a range of benefits. Those who believe it is an offense to their beliefs to commit suicide do so less often than those without. This approach does not favor a blank state default position or atheist default position, but does explain why things like religion are culturally-bound phenomena. Seems to me it's more likely you'll practice what your culture practices.
Precisely. We only need words to communicate which options there are to consider.Do you have a word to describe a person who has no God concept and has never even been introduced to the idea? I doubt you do.
I would assert that both "belief" and "disbelief" require a subject. When I disbelieve in Santa Claus, it is Santa Claus who is the subject of my disbelief. That implies a level of comprehension. A person who has not been introduced to the subject can have no personal belief or disbelief about it. And when the term is used objectively to describe the person as beliefless in Santa Claus, it is the third party doing the describing who has comprehension of the subject. Comprehension of the subject is never lacking in the use of the word.And considering the word atheist's definition - "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.", why not use it? Would you deny that someone without the concept of a thing "disbelieves" in that thing? They certainly don't "believe" it. So it is clear that they don't believe it. They don't even have it in their realm of knowledge.
This isn't true. There are all sorts of words to describe something that is void of something without necessarily offering the observer positive/negating "options". "Vacuum" for example. For someone who has never encountered a vacuum - perhaps they have no need of such a word, however the vacuum still exists - that is, the possibility for a space to be devoid of matter exists. Just because a particular person has no concept of it, does not mean it isn't a thing that could be described by someone else. In your case you're making a sort of category error - you assume that because a particular person does not have a use for the word "atheist", that the word is useless for the purposes of describing that particular person by anyone else in the world. Not so.Precisely. We only need words to communicate which options there are to consider.
I don't feel that "disbelief" requires a subject at all. I would state that you disbelieve everything you've never come in contact with. The word "disbelief" is used to describe a refusal to believe (supporting your argument) OR an inability to believe (supporting my argument). Because the inclusion is an "OR" condition, and not exclusive to one or the other, it is completely applicable to anyone who has no belief in a thing even if it is because they are ignorant of that thing. They have a distinct "inability" to believe - because they have no knowledge of the subject.I would assert that both "belief" and "disbelief" require a subject. When I disbelieve in Santa Claus, it is Santa Claus who is the subject of my disbelief. That implies a level of comprehension. A person who has not been introduced to the subject can have no personal belief or disbelief about it. And when the term is used objectively to describe the person as beliefless in Santa Claus, it is the third party doing the describing who has comprehension of the subject. Comprehension of the subject is never lacking in the use of the word.
Yes, concepts provide us with options.This isn't true. There are all sorts of words to describe something that is void of something without necessarily offering the observer positive/negating "options". "Vacuum" for example. For someone who has never encountered a vacuum - perhaps they have no need of such a word, however the vacuum still exists - that is, the possibility for a space to be devoid of matter exists. Just because a particular person has no concept of it, does not mean it isn't a thing that could be described by someone else. In your case you're making a sort of category error - you assume that because a particular person does not have a use for the word "atheist", that the word is useless for the purposes of describing that particular person by anyone else in the world. Not so.
Belief and disbelief have a subject grammatically. If you said to me, "You disbelieve!" I would have to respond, "Disbelieve what?" Else, it can make no sense. That "what" is the subject of the disbelief.I don't feel that "disbelief" requires a subject at all. I would state that you disbelieve everything you've never come in contact with. The word "disbelief" is used to describe a refusal to believe (supporting your argument) OR an inability to believe (supporting my argument). Because the inclusion is an "OR" condition, and not exclusive to one or the other, it is completely applicable to anyone who has no belief in a thing even if it is because they are ignorant of that thing. They have a distinct "inability" to believe - because they have no knowledge of the subject.
To demonstrate, let's pretend we come across another reclusive tribe of human beings, heretofore unapproached by any human from any other culture - and this tribe holds no god concepts. Would it be completely out of the realm to state "This tribe doesn't believe in any gods."? Does that sound completely incorrect as a description of the people of the tribe? Are we restricted in some way to saying "The tribe has no god concepts."? To my mind (and I would wager, to many others' minds who aren't riding out an agenda) the two statements would be nearly synonymous - with the latter only imparting slightly more information - that being, that they didn't have knowledge of gods to reject belief in in the first place.