Atheism is not a default position

[ImmortalFlame]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Default: Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.

Thing about this: belief isn't an act. It's not something we do, and especially not something we choose to do. It's a description of the world, nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, no. Belief is the acceptance of a claim as being true. It categorically IS something we "do", maybe not consciously or by choice, but it is still a thing humans DO.

Take the world.

The world is the case.

If we wish to examine truth or untruth, belief or doubt, certainty or uncertainty about the world, then we must hold the world distinct from those things we wish to examine. Hence, we will refer to it, and all its parts, as "the case."

The world is the case, and of the case things may be true or false, hence they may be believed or doubted, with degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

I feel we're going down another poorly-defined, obfuscating Willamena rabbit-hole here...

If I say, "I believe George went to the store," that lends it uncertainty. It says that because of insufficient knowledge there may some amount of doubt about George's activities, but still I have a degree of certainty about it. Similarly, to say, "I don't believe George went to the store," is to assert its uncertainty. Belief is the case described in such a way as to hold a degree of certainty.

Not necessarily. A statement of belief and a statement of certainty are two different things. You can believe something with certainty.

If I say "George went to the store," then asserting the truth of that lends it a face that says there is no doubt, no uncertainty about George's journey. Truth is the case described as apart from me, apart from the certainty a consciousness might know.

Um, no. What you are doing is making a claim that entails a belief. There is no difference, technically speaking, between saying "George went to the store" and "I believe George went to the store" - both are assertions of the truth of a claim.

That's because a consciousness is distinct from the world it knows.

Ah, here comes the rabbit hole...

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing. The world is the case.

Both asserting a degree of certainty to the world and describing it as apart from me, apart from any degrees of certainty, are things we do. They are dong something, not nothing. Where the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing, asserting belief and truth--and their counterparts disbelief and falsehood--about what is the case are doing something.

In discussion, we do not fail to do something about the world.

You have said absolutely nothing about whether an absence of belief is the default position.

 

[Curious George]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Default: Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.

Thing about this: belief isn't an act. It's not something we do, and especially not something we choose to do. It's a description of the world, nothing more, nothing less.

Take the world.

The world is the case.

If we wish to examine truth or untruth, belief or doubt, certainty or uncertainty about the world, then we must hold the world distinct from those things we wish to examine. Hence, we will refer to it, and all its parts, as "the case."

The world is the case, and of the case things may be true or false, hence they may be believed or doubted, with degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

If I say, "I believe George went to the store," that lends it uncertainty. It says that because of insufficient knowledge there may some amount of doubt about George's activities, but still I have a degree of certainty about it. Similarly, to say, "I don't believe George went to the store," is to assert its uncertainty. Belief is the case described in such a way as to hold a degree of certainty.

If I say "George went to the store," then asserting the truth of that lends it a face that says there is no doubt, no uncertainty about George's journey. Truth is the case described as apart from me, apart from the certainty a consciousness might know.

That's because a consciousness is distinct from the world it knows.

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing. The world is the case.

Both asserting a degree of certainty to the world and describing it as apart from me, apart from any degrees of certainty, are things we do. They are dong something, not nothing. Where the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing, asserting belief and truth--and their counterparts disbelief and falsehood--about what is the case are doing something.

In discussion, we do not fail to do something about the world.

While I applaud the distinction for the use that atheism is not the default position. I still have a problem with you method.

You say that the default requires doing nothing. And a belief is not an act. (Just degrees of certainty, nothing more nothing less) But then you further define belief as holding a degree of certainty ( or uncertainty). Assuming you mean having a belief is to hold a degree of certainty then I guess this still makes sense. But what I cannot reconcile is when someone both both propositions they are certainly doing something, and when a person excerpts both positions they are doing something. Yet this still is the default. Which you indicated must not include doing something. This seems contradictory.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, no. Belief is the acceptance of a claim as being true. It categorically IS something we "do", maybe not consciously or by choice, but it is still a thing humans DO.


I feel we're going down another poorly-defined, obfuscating Willamena rabbit-hole here...


Not necessarily. A statement of belief and a statement of certainty are two different things. You can believe something with certainty.


Um, no. What you are doing is making a claim that entails a belief. There is no difference, technically speaking, between saying "George went to the store" and "I believe George went to the store" - both are assertions of the truth of a claim.


Ah, here comes the rabbit hole...


You have said absolutely nothing about whether an absence of belief is the default position.

Actually, no. Having a belief or believing would be the acceptance of a claim. A belief, by itself, is not doing anything. Willa was right here.

George went to the store asserts a truth about what George did.
I believe George went to the store asserts a truth about what I did. These are very different.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

If you see atheism as a description of the position held by those who have no knowledge of God, isn't that the definition of default?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, no. Having a belief or believing would be the acceptance of a claim. A belief, by itself, is not doing anything. Willa was right here.

George went to the store asserts a truth about what George did.
I believe George went to the store asserts a truth about what I did. These are very different.

"I believe George went to the store" is a statement of the acceptance of the truth of the claim "George went to store". By saying "I believe George went to the store" you are saying "I accept the claim' George went to the store' is true". You are asserting the truth of a claim.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"I believe George went to the store" is a statement of the acceptance of the truth of the claim "George went to store". By saying "I believe George went to the store" you are saying "I accept the claim' George went to the store' is true". You are asserting the truth of a claim.

No. You are asserting you believe the claim is true. If I assert that 1+1=2, I both assert that I believe this is true and that it IS true. I can, however, assert that I believe that truth is relative without asserting that my belief is true. That is, I can distinguish between my belief and truth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. You are asserting you believe the claim is true. If I assert that 1+1=2, I both assert that I believe this is true and that it IS true. I can, however, assert that I believe that truth is relative without asserting that my belief is true. That is, I can distinguish between my belief and truth.

But belief is necessarily the acceptance of a claim as true. You cannot assert belief in a claim without simultaneously asserting the truth of the claim, because by saying "I believe X" you are saying "I accept the truth of X". Accepting the truth of a claim is precisely what "belief" means.

 

[HonestJoe]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Atheism describes a person with no belief in any god or gods. It says nothing about their levels of interest or knowledge in the subject. It's a word that so often is made to work much harder than it ever should.

Thing about this: belief isn't an act. It's not something we do, and especially not something we choose to do. It's a description of the world, nothing more, nothing less.

I'd say description of a person rather than of the world. After all, theistic concepts extend beyond this world, potentially beyond the whole universe.

I'm not entirely clear where the rest of your post is going and I feel you might be over-thinking the question. I also suspect you're making an error in using a binary question as an example (whether George went to the store or not) when atheism is more not having an answer at all to a question with an infinite number of possible answers.

The idea of atheism as a "default" position is much simpler though. Given that holding any theistic position at all requires some kind of knowledge, thought and consideration, prior to gaining any of that, an individual can only possibly be atheist.

Of course there follows the question of whether that really matters and I fear it only does in the concept of the largely manufactured conflicts between atheism and various religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the OP is greatly overselling and overcomplicating the argument.

To be frank, I can't make heads or tails of it beyond the first sentence, which is just not at all convincing on its own.

It seems clear to me that atheism is indeed the default, simply because there is no standard for its alternatives.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You cannot assert belief in a claim without simultaneously asserting the truth of the claim

I can easily. For example, I don't believe the claim that the fundamental nature of physical reality is irreducibly statistical. However, I only assert that I BELIEVE this claim, and to the extent that I assert it is true I merely do so as a shorthand for "I believe it can be true and that I believe it to be true", not that "I believe it to be a fact" (where "fact" means by definition true).

by saying "I believe X" you are saying "I accept the truth of X".

...which is not equivalent to saying that X is true.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It seems clear to me that atheism is indeed the default, simply because there is no standard for its alternatives.

So what is your response to the scientific consensus in the relevant fields contradict your position?

 

[LuisDantas]

So what is your response to the scientific consensus in the relevant fields contradict your position?

I have no idea of what you are talking about. May you perhaps spell it out to me?

I honestly can't make heads or tails of the OP beyond the first sentence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have no idea of what you are talking about. May you perhaps spell it out to me?

The consensus position in evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related fields is that religion is "natural" while atheism is not.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You don't believe in the gods that you don't know exist, do you? Of course not.
Therefore, you are an atheist by default to any hypothetical alien gods from worlds yet undiscovered - just like babies.

How would dogmas or religions or faiths spread if they were not taught?
Are there any babies in the world who have beliefs about what we adults would call the supernatural that have not been taught to them?
Are there any children in the world who have created their own religions or gods, or do we force them into a mold that we accepted when it was forced upon us?

Now, children do spontaneously create imaginary friends. We know this for certain. Not all children, mind you. But some children do. This could certainly defend your argument that atheism is not the default position, as there would seem to be an inclination towards belief in imaginary things. But we don't allow children to maintain their spontaneous imaginary creations, do we? We prefer that our children conform to our accepted imaginary creations. And in relation to the specific gods that we choose, atheism has been proven correct more often than not.

You didn't come out of the womb a Hindu, worshipping shiva. You didn't come out of the womb as a Jew, praising he whose name you cannot write. You didn't come out of the womb chanting prayer 5 times a day. You didn't come out of the womb burning incense for Hera. You didn't come out of the womb spinning and twirling yourself in circles, hoping to spark a dizzy worship trance. You didn't come out of the womb chanting ancient tomes, hoping to scare the illness demons out of your bloody mother's body.... If you do any of those things, you do them because you were taught them. And those who taught them to you do them because they were taught them as well. But before anyone was taught anything, what were they? We all lacked belief in hocus pocus because we didn't know hocus pocus was a thing... We were atheists, lacking belief in something that we didn't know existed.

I'm an atheist in terms of whatever beliefs might exist outside of my knowledge. So are you.
So tell me again what's wrong with stating atheism as the default position.

 

[LuisDantas]

The consensus position in evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related fields is that religion is "natural" while atheism is not.

Religion is natural, sure.

It does in no way follow that atheism is not the default.

And I have yet to see anything resembling a scientific claim that atheism is either "not-natural" or in some meaningful sense not the default.

Sure, Islam and perhaps some other faiths claim that we are all originally Muslim, but that is just a claim with no actual support.


Edited to add: Also, we should attempt to clarify what is meant by "default".

As I understand the word, it is a state or situation that happens naturally when no external factors act to change it.

For that reason, and given how often and early children are taught concepts of deities, spirits, kami and the like, frequency and "naturalness" are quite unrelated to the default nature of atheism.

We would need to build a fairly insulated community that never used those concepts to see what would happen. I for one find that an exciting experiment to pursue, but, alas, hardly an easy one to implement.

Also, there is an enormous difference between religiosity (indeed and demonstrably a natural human tendency) and theism (a somewhat vague concept, as any other derived from "deity", and arguably pure superstition).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can easily. For example, I don't believe the claim that the fundamental nature of physical reality is irreducibly statistical. However, I only assert that I BELIEVE this claim, and to the extent that I assert it is true I merely do so as a shorthand for "I believe it can be true and that I believe it to be true", not that "I believe it to be a fact" (where "fact" means by definition true).

This sentence makes no sense. How can you assert that you don't believe a claim, and then assert that you believe it. Believing a claim to be TRUE and believing it to be a FACT are not quite the same. Assertion of belief is assertion of acceptance of the truth of a claim, not the assertion that the claim is a fact.

...which is not equivalent to saying that X is true.

Yes it is. Belief is the acceptance of a claim being true, therefore an assertion of belief is necessarily the assertion that the claim is true.

The consensus position in evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related fields is that religion is "natural" while atheism is not.

Correction: it is the consensus position that the human mind TENDS towards supernatural or religious explanations for phenomenon we don't understand. It is NOT the consensus position that human beings are BORN with supernatural or religious beliefs, or that we are born with anything other than an absence of belief (i.e: we are born atheists).

 

[Thief]

Actually, no. Having a belief or believing would be the acceptance of a claim. A belief, by itself, is not doing anything. Willa was right here.

George went to the store asserts a truth about what George did.
I believe George went to the store asserts a truth about what I did. These are very different.

are the pronouns correct?

and I believe you can't prove George went to the store.
You didn't see it......
and He's not talking.....

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Default: Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.

I think your definitions need work. M-W gives the definition of atheist as ": a person who believes that God does not exist." This contradicts your asserted definition; it is a very particular belief about god.

Your use of "or" in the sequence, and in the inclusion of "no particular belief" is problematic--because belief presumes an act--conscious or subconscious--to take a position. It sets general belief in contradiction to general and/or specific interest in and/or knowledge about. To keep the reasoning from getting too messy, the proper conjunction should be "and." Otherwise, you have two or three rather different propositions masquerading as one, and should therefore restructure your assertion as two or three separate propositions. And they do not seem to be necessary or sufficient to describe atheism.

A person who has "no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief" should more appropriately be classified as an agnostic about a particular proposition, such as the existence or nonexistence of God, as they would not have any grounds for making a claim of either fact or belief.

Once an individual develops an interest in, has knowledge about, AND has heard propositions about particular beliefs or evidence of the world, one would then be in a better position to make the decision to accept (believe), reject (disbelieve), or withhold judgment (remain agnostic) on those propositions.

 

[Thief]

You believe because you think your should....or feel like it.
You believe not....because you think you shouldn't .....or don't feel like it.

The action is identical......only the results are different.

 

[LuisDantas]

On a second reading, I find the OP to fail to even touch on the matter of atheism.

It seems to be arguing that it is impossible to know whether theism or atheism is "true" and that nonetheless people end up taking one or the other out of lack of options anyway.

Which is fair enough, I suppose. But a bit incomplete for my taste. It seems to assume that one or the other will be true in the sense of corresponding to objective reality, and I find that a dangerous, unsupported premise to take. It seems likely to me that deities exist to the exact degree that people create them.