Is a Lack of Belief a Belief?

[Nakosis]

Or a set of beliefs?

My lack of belief is based on the belief that we have no actual knowledge about any god.

Of course, I'm not talking about not having knowledge of a concept or idea but being aware of the concept and choosing not to have any belief about that concept because of other beliefs you have.

IOW, I believe I should not have any belief about a God.

 

[Orbit]

I think it becomes about semantics, which is not helpful. Lack of a belief is, by definition, an absence of belief.

 

[Lain]

Or a set of beliefs?

My lack of belief is based on the belief that we have no actual knowledge about any god.

Of course, I'm not talking about not having knowledge of a concept or idea but being aware of the concept and choosing not to have any belief about that concept because of other beliefs you have.

IOW, I believe I should not have any belief about a God.

This has set me on a belief-loop about everything. One believes they should not believe because they believe because they do not believe because they believe... I'll come out of it in some hours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or a set of beliefs?

My lack of belief is based on the belief that we have no actual knowledge about any god.

We don't?

Of course, I'm not talking about not having knowledge of a concept or idea but being aware of the concept and choosing not to have any belief about that concept because of other beliefs you have.

There's also a blurry middle ground: when someone expresses or defines their concept so poorly or vaguely that we can't make sense of it enough to consider whether it's true or false.

IOW, I believe I should not have any belief about a God.

Why not?

 

[Kooky]

I think it becomes about semantics, which is not helpful. Lack of a belief is, by definition, an absence of belief.

Semantics is the field of studying meaning in language.
Why would it not not be helpful to analyze the meaning of statements like in the OP?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it becomes about semantics, which is not helpful. Lack of a belief is, by definition, an absence of belief.

I think it's more useful to talk about lack of belief in gods than it is to talk about lack of belief about gods.

Lack of belief in gods covers the entire spectrum from "every god-claim is necessarily false" to "what's a god?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it's more useful to talk about lack of belief in gods than it is to talk about lack of belief about gods.

Lack of belief in gods covers the entire spectrum from "every god-claim is necessarily false" to "what's a god?"

Yeah, as long as you understand it includes this:

...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

Our Vision

 

[amorphous_constellation]

My lack of belief is based on the belief that we have no actual knowledge about any god.

I think you have to define what constitutes what you will take as actual knowledge, because the problem is, your entire sense of reality is mediated by flawed perceptual systems in your body. That means, I think, that there is nothing here that you don't at least believe. Even words, like "belief," only seem to correlate to biological sensations in the brain, where you think you know what you are saying

 

[Yazata]

Is a lack of belief a belief?

I'd say not always, but sometimes it can be.

First off, what is a 'belief'?

I think that I will follow Augustus in saying that a belief is a particular kind of propositional attitude. That requires that one be capable of entertaining a proposition (roughly speaking a sentence that can be T or F) and having some attitude regarding that proposition. 'Belief' would be defined as the attitude that the proposition is true. Other propositional attitudes include things like 'desire', 'intend', 'hope', 'regret' and so on.

If you conceive of a proposition such as 'I have no beliefs about X' and if you think that particular proposition is true, then by definition you believe that you lack that belief.

Compare that to a stone lying there in the dirt. The stone can't conceive of a proposition such as 'stones like me have no beliefs' nor can it think that particular proposition is true.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not talking about not having knowledge of a concept or idea but being aware of the concept and choosing not to have any belief about that concept because of other beliefs you have.

A more pertinent question is whether you can be aware of the concept and not hold any beliefs about it.

This relies on a rational 'Cartesian' view of comprehension where comprehension and acceptance of ideas are separate acts. We remain unaffected by information until we choose to be affected by it.

The 'Spinozan' view seems to be better supported by scientific evidence though. In the Spinozan view comprehension and acceptance are the same act, and we need to consciously 'correct' anything we comprehend and judge not to be true. In this view we are impacted by all information we comprehend and must adopt a stance towards it in one form or the other.



"Is there a difference between believing and merely understanding an idea? Descartes thought so. He considered the acceptance and rejection of an idea to be alternative outcomes of an effortful assessment process that occurs subsequent to the automatic comprehension of that idea... if one wishes to know the truth, then one should not believe an assertion until one finds evidence to justify doing so... One may entertain any hypothesis, but one may only believe those hypotheses that are supported by the facts.

According to Spinoza, the act of understanding is the act of believing. As such, people are incapable of withholding their acceptance of that which they understand. They may indeed change their minds after accepting the assertions they comprehend, but they cannot stop their minds from being changed by contact with those assertions. [He believed] that (a) the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance."



https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gillbert (How Mental Systems Believe).PDF


Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Descartes (1644/1984) suggested that people can and should, whereas Spinoza (1677/1982) suggested that people should but cannot. Three experiments support the hypothesis that comprehension includes an initial belief in the information comprehended. Ss were exposed to false information about a criminal defendant (Experiments 1 and 2) or a college student (Experiment 3). Some Ss were exposed to this information while under load (Experiments 1 and 2) or time pressure (Experiment 3). Ss made judgments about the target (sentencing decisions or liking judgments). Both load and time pressure caused Ss to believe the false information and to use it in making consequential decisions about the target. In Spinozan terms, both manipulations prevented Ss from "unbelieving" the false information they automatically believed during comprehension.

https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert et al (EVERYTHING YOU READ).pdf

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think it's more useful to talk about lack of belief in gods than it is to talk about lack of belief about gods.

Lack of belief in gods covers the entire spectrum from "every god-claim is necessarily false" to "what's a god?"

I think maybe with that, you may not get that far. Why would you wonder what a god is, if you didn't believe in it

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think that I will follow Augustus in saying that a belief is a particular kind of propositional attitude. That requires that one be capable of entertaining a proposition (roughly speaking a sentence that can be T or F) and having some attitude regarding that proposition. 'Belief' would be defined as the attitude that the proposition is true. Other propositional attitudes include things like 'desire', 'intend', 'hope', 'regret' and so on.

I think it's kind of interesting to conflate belief with attitude. Then god judges you based on your attitude: don't show any 'attitude' to god. But then, you could say that you were just thinking of things 'logically,' but he might say you are still showing attitude

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think maybe with that, you may not get that far. Why would you wonder what a god is, if you didn't believe in it

Those two positions were meant to be the theoretical limits of the spectrum.

... but last time I checked, theists were everywhere and many of them insist on bringing up their gods.

 

[Nakosis]

We don't?

As noted, it is my belief.

There's also a blurry middle ground: when someone expresses or defines their concept so poorly or vaguely that we can't make sense of it enough to consider whether it's true or false.

Ok, but you are still going to have to decide whether to deep further to try and make sense of it our not. I'd imagine some initial beliefs would be part of that decision.

Why not?

For reasons stated in the OP.

 

[Suave]

We don't?

Why not?

Because who are we to deny the likelihood of the creator of the heavens and Earth, how could we as simulated living beings deny the likelihood of life's Creator, the controller of simulations?!

Because what if you Nullifidians are wrong! What if our simulated reality is indeed controlled by simulator devices beyond our 21st century level of technological comprehension. What if our simulator's beloved characters have been reanimated or resurrected into paradise virtual realities, meaning it's not necessarily lights out and game over when ionic currents stop flowing across the minds of the simulator's favorite characters?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Semantics is the field of studying meaning in language.
Why would it not not be helpful to analyze the meaning of statements like in the OP?

I think what's being said here is that there is a difference between disagreeing about what is the case and disagreeing about what to call it. I just posted this in another thread:

"There is a big difference between disagreeing about what something is and what to call it. If I say that Constance said something, and you insist it was Missy, there's a big difference between whether we are discussing two different people, in which case it's a question of fact, and whether we are talking about the same person using both a given name and a nickname, in which case it is a semantic argument, and not worth debating. You can go on calling her Missy because she is your sister, and I will go on calling her Constance because she is my supervisor at work. There is no substantive disagreement about what (who) we are talking about. There is nothing to debate."

 

[Suave]

I think it's more useful to talk about lack of belief in gods than it is to talk about lack of belief about gods.

Lack of belief in gods covers the entire spectrum from "every god-claim is necessarily false" to "what's a god?"

You should not feel compelled to justify your lack of belief. I'm the one who is conjecturing us being simulated beings living in a simulated reality; as such the onus of responsibility is upon me to explain the indicators of us being in a simulated universe.

 

[Yazata]

A more pertinent question is whether you can be aware of the concept and not hold any beliefs about it.

There might arguably be some belief implicit in merely understanding a proposition. Any meaningful use of a word that's anything more than a bark or a grunt that happens to sound like a word, seems to imply knowledge of what the word means. So to knowingly and truthfully say "I lack belief in God" would seem to me to imply not only the attitude of belief in the truth of that particular proposition, but also some implicit ideas about what the words mean that could themselves be stated as propositional beliefs. Using the word 'God' at all might imply at least implicit acceptance of some theological doctrines about what the word means and what the concept is.

This relies on a rational 'Cartesian' view of comprehension where comprehension and acceptance of ideas are separate acts. We remain unaffected by information until we choose to be affected by it.

The 'Spinozan' view seems to be better supported by scientific evidence though. In the Spinozan view comprehension and acceptance are the same act

I'm very much on the 'Cartesian' side on that one. At least initially, I haven't given much thought to it.

 

[F1fan]

If Ted refers to how good the cookies he's eating and how magically delicious they are, and is serious about it, he is asking us to believe that the Keebler Elves actually exist, really make cookies, and bake them in a hollow tree. We can make fairly quick assessments of fantastic claims and dismiss them. Does this mean we believe in the non-existence of these particular elves?

No, we don't care. There is a claim being made, we hear it, we assess it, and we decide if it is warranted to examine in depth because it is plausible. Ideas that are quickly realized as implausible are dismissed. Ideas that require the time needed to assess will be assessed. We will make our judgments. We can compare notes with others and debate.

The bottom line is whether there is sound evidence for any given claim. Jim might claim he ate a ham sandwich for lunch. but as plausible as that is we don't know for sure. It's a reasonable claim. He can show us the reciept from the deli. He can show us the half eaten sandwich. This is still circumstantial but it is compelling and vastly superior to what theists offer for their fantastic beliefs.

 

[Augustus]

I'm very much on the 'Cartesian' side on that one. At least initially, I haven't given much thought to it.

There is a fair amount of scientific evidence that we only need to be exposed to information to be influenced by it in psychology, media and communication science, etc.

Anecdotally though, you never find yourself (when talking about a topic you aren't familiar with) making a point and prefacing it with "can't remember where I heard this, but..." (and sometimes you later find out it was from the most ridiculous source).

Or try watching a breaking news event where there is a lot of uncertainty and you can't possibly tell true from false. You know that that everything they say is speculative and much is likely wrong, in a week's time your mind will still be full of false information remembered as true though.

I think it is quite important that people realise this in a modern media dominated world.