Popularity of Belief--evidence for belief?

[Tonymai]

What if Atheism becomes popular instead of God? Such intellectual game does not really address the deep issue of religion: people long for survival after physical death. All religions offer such hope for man. Atheism offers nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

What if Atheism becomes popular instead of God? Such intellectual game does not really address the deep issue of religion: people long for survival after physical death. All religions offer such hope for man. Atheism offers nothing.

Atheism isn't for everyone.

Btw, Greetings, Tony!

 

[idav]

So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.

As if atheists are crazy not seeing the obvious. I can understand the need to push for evidence when your a minority. Though I can't understand having to rationalize not seeing a god that theists normally don't really see either. Many of the theist arguments are fallacious beyond appeal to popularity.

 

[darkendless]

What if Atheism becomes popular instead of God? Such intellectual game does not really address the deep issue of religion: people long for survival after physical death. All religions offer such hope for man. Atheism offers nothing.

An issue which is dying. People are beginning (thankfully) to value what they know over needless superstition.

Religion offers hope, not reality.

 

[Tonymai]

An issue which is dying. People are beginning (thankfully) to value what they know over needless superstition.

Religion offers hope, not reality.

True religion does not offer hope alone, it provides personal experiences that what is to come is real even though such thrilling venture can not be objectively examined with reason of science (material reality) and logic of philosophy (moral reality). Faith, personal relation with Deity, is for religion along (spirit reality).

 

[Acim]

Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.

As stated elsewhere on this thread, this is very common, and I see no way around it. Pointing out the logical fallacy does next to nothing for the vocal majority. If anything, it makes the minority seem desperate and unable to refute whatever it is the majority is claiming. Not unable to refute it 'for real,' but it will seem that way as long as vocal majority is allowed to essentially control the argument.

The God debate is actually an example of this that is rather tame. Meaning, the minority position I think tends to make headway regardless of how popular things are.

I encounter the popular belief thing on issues like:
- belief in physical world as real (overwhelming majority)
- belief that monogamy is natural (vast majority)
- belief that voting is a duty / right thing to do (notable majority)
- belief in evolution as a fact (notable majority)
> To name a few. Each of these I disagree with, have arguments against them, but routinely come across not only other logical fallacies, but primarily one that amounts to, 'majority agrees with us, not you, therefore you're wrong.'

Intention isn't to hijack this thread and discuss these items (for in this thread I won't), but is my intention to say that there really is no way to get around the arrogance / righteousness that comes with appeal to popularity. At least not in short order. Time can change these things, as can seeking understanding within from Higher consciousness. But on debate level, one just has to suck it up and realize, yep, I'm in minority and that's that.

Look at it this way. Nobody except children believes in Santa Claus and nobody believes that the moon is made of green cheese. Those are two irrational arguments in that they are appeals to popularity. Nevertheless, we all make those kinds of arguments all the time, and they usually serve to kill debate. Why should anyone debate what is non-controversial?

You made some good additional points in this post where this second quote is from. But this one stood out for me.

I think we debate the less controversial stuff (thus more popular) because it seems like there is thread connecting arguments. Like belief in Santa Claus that gets perpetuated seems connected to belief in God that is perpetuate. Me, I'm a strong theist, but I recognize that to be what seems to be the case for substantial amount of non believers. I think there is underlying issue of, "let's stop lying to ourselves" and that permeates several issues. Perhaps all of them, to a degree. And while we may not win the Santa Claus debate, or the physical world is unreal debate, I think it is part of a larger debate we are having ultimately with our own self, but what sure as heck seems like our selves collectively. Even if we can make just a little headway on some of the popular false memes, or at least not let it continue to be ignored, I think we can say it wasn't really a bad day for spirit of debate.

That would be my 'good' spin on things. Because admittedly as I started out this post with, I do think debating popular stuff from minority position continues to show up rather pointless. Seems like vast majority is fairly comfortable living on a flat earth, until someone else comes along and does the work for them to suggest another (reasonable) perspective on these sort of matters.

 

[Falvlun]

As stated elsewhere on this thread, this is very common, and I see no way around it. Pointing out the logical fallacy does next to nothing for the vocal majority. If anything, it makes the minority seem desperate and unable to refute whatever it is the majority is claiming. Not unable to refute it 'for real,' but it will seem that way as long as vocal majority is allowed to essentially control the argument.

And, in a nutshell, that is my main beef with the whole "You have the burden of proof!" argument. It is simply unproductive. Really, what is gained from it, besides animosity? And worse, I see it as stoking complacency in young atheists: "We don't need to have reasons for our (lack of) belief! It's up to the theists to prove their side first!". That's just an unhealthy way to go about things.

If an atheist has reasons, evidence, supporting her side, then by all means, she should disclose them to the enquiring theist. And if she doesn't, well, then it's time for some re-evaulation.

 

[Copernicus]

Are we ignoring the fact that this popular blanket belief in "gods," in fact, covers an endless array of different actual beliefs?

Atheism is rejection of belief in what are conventionally thought of as gods, not just particular gods.

What if Atheism becomes popular instead of God? Such intellectual game does not really address the deep issue of religion: people long for survival after physical death. All religions offer such hope for man. Atheism offers nothing.

I agree with this up to a point. While most religions do seem to dwell on the theme of an afterlife (which depends on the belief that minds can exist in a disembodied form), religion addresses a lot of other human needs. It isn't just about immortality of the soul. If atheism were to become popular, then I think the shoe would be on the other foot. Theists would not find their faith as easy to defend as the do in the present circumstances. People generally tend to assimilate the beliefs of others that they interact with regularly.

As if atheists are crazy not seeing the obvious. I can understand the need to push for evidence when your a minority. Though I can't understand having to rationalize not seeing a god that theists normally don't really see either. Many of the theist arguments are fallacious beyond appeal to popularity.

I think that the fairytale of the "Emperor's New Clothing" is particularly appropriate to this thread. When there is a powerful social incentive to see something that isn't there, people either see it or behave as if they do. Children have the manners of atheists. They quite often point out life's inconvenient truths when others would rather not hear them.

 

[crocusj]

And, in a nutshell, that is my main beef with the whole "You have the burden of proof!" argument. It is simply unproductive. Really, what is gained from it, besides animosity? And worse, I see it as stoking complacency in young atheists: "We don't need to have reasons for our (lack of) belief! It's up to the theists to prove their side first!". That's just an unhealthy way to go about things.

If an atheist has reasons, evidence, supporting her side, then by all means, she should disclose them to the enquiring theist. And if she doesn't, well, then it's time for some re-evaulation.

Well, yes and no. If an atheist takes the position that faith in a god is misguided then yes but I'm not sure the world is that polarised. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not believing simply because one does not believe, in the same way as there is nothing wrong with believing simply because one does. If an atheist is approached in the street and asked if they believe in a god it is perfectly reasonable from their point of view to say "No". You either do or you don't and not everybody cares why, it is simply who they are. Catching the bus might be more important and in the great scheme of things probably is.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, yes and no. If an atheist takes the position that faith in a god is misguided then yes but I'm not sure the world is that polarised. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not believing simply because one does not believe, in the same way as there is nothing wrong with believing simply because one does. If an atheist is approached in the street and asked if they believe in a god it is perfectly reasonable from their point of view to say "No". You either do or you don't and not everybody cares why, it is simply who they are. Catching the bus might be more important and in the great scheme of things probably is.

But we aren't talking about the grand scheme of things. In a debate between atheists and theists over the belief in gods, it isn't enough just to declare that there is no evidence for gods, dust one's hands off, and sit back with a "mission accomplished" attitude. That is a bit like claiming that Santa Claus doesn't exist because there is no good evidence to prove his existence. Well, yeah, but there are certainly more compelling reasons than that for rejecting belief in Santa Claus. An honest debate over the existence of Santa Claus would not just stop with a "burden of proof" argument. And the only reason that we do not have serious debates over Santa's existence is that belief in Santa is not very popular among mature, intelligent people.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, yes and no. If an atheist takes the position that faith in a god is misguided then yes but I'm not sure the world is that polarised. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not believing simply because one does not believe, in the same way as there is nothing wrong with believing simply because one does.

Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with having/not having beliefs for no good reasons? "Just cuz"? If so, then I do disagree. We should know what we believe and why; simply accepting/rejecting beliefs "just because" indicates apathy and lack of growth. People have the right to be lazy, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it, or find it to be a good thing.

If an atheist is approached in the street and asked if they believe in a god it is perfectly reasonable from their point of view to say "No". You either do or you don't and not everybody cares why, it is simply who they are. Catching the bus might be more important and in the great scheme of things probably is.

I am talking specifically of the argument that goes like this:
Theist: Why don't you believe in the existence of God?
Atheist: It is not my responsibility to provide arguments for my lack of belief. The burden of proof is on you to prove your side!

If you got your reasons, and someone's asking for them, (and you're on a religious debate site, for heaven's sake!) then why not just go ahead and answer?

 

[Willamena]

So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.

I kind of went a tangental route with my reasoning about the popularity of belief. I figured if so many people believe in a thing, perhaps they were seeing something I wasn't. Which, as it turned out, was the case.

Open-mindedness can actually be a last resort.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism is rejection of belief in what are conventionally thought of as gods, not just particular gods.

Right, but you're talking about the popularity of a belief. Which popular belief are you talking about, when there are countless varying beliefs which fall under the meaningless, vague blanket definition of god or gods?

 

[idav]

I kind of went a tangental route with my reasoning about the popularity of belief. I figured if so many people believe in a thing, perhaps they were seeing something I wasn't. Which, as it turned out, was the case.

Open-mindedness can actually be a last resort.

Being open minded I think is always a good thing but that can be done without investing faith in any particular belief. As for the missing something that the general mass of people sees is a consideration. However, studies show that higher education has an adverse effect on belief in religion and god. This indicates that the 'something missing' is knowledge.

 

[Copernicus]

Right, but you're talking about the popularity of a belief. Which popular belief are you talking about, when there are countless varying beliefs which fall under the meaningless, vague blanket definition of god or gods?

Theism is an abstraction of religious beliefs, not any particular belief in a god. You may be headed into a genetic fallacy if you pursue the line of reasoning that I think you are. The belief that atheists reject is that one or more gods exist. The details of those gods are irrelevant, as long as they represent beings that people would traditionally think of as gods.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Theism is an abstraction of religious beliefs, not any particular belief in a god. You may be headed into a genetic fallacy if you pursue the line of reasoning that I think you are. The belief that atheists reject is that one or more gods exist. The details of those gods are irrelevant, as long as they represent beings that people would traditionally think of as gods.

Okay, so a simple "yes" would have sufficed to my original question. Thank you.

 

[9Westy9]

definitely not

 

[Copernicus]

Okay, so a simple "yes" would have sufficed to my original question. Thank you.

Your original question was a bit loaded. I think that our subsequent discussion clarified things.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I just think if there is no evidence for a belief there should be a least a rational argument such as a logical syllogism. Like for instance I could argue for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence on the basis that intelligent life on at least one planet we know of is physically and naturally possible, and that is our own planet Earth. Anything that can happen naturally I have no reason to believe it cannot happen again. So nature can permit other earths to exist for the simple reason they are naturally possible. However seemingly improbable it may be, if it can happen naturally it will probably keep recurring naturally, but as for supernatural beings such as God or lesser deities, no one has produced the existence of even one such being. So I just have to take the default position that whatever happens supernaturally can never happen at all.

 

[Otherright]

Arguments from popularity are logical fallacies. Just because everyone holds a particular belief, that does not mean that the belief is correct. But I am intrigued by the idea that we may be biologically wired to ground belief in popularity. Children are so naive and trusting of adult authority. They tend to accept everything they are told, and they must learn to grow out of their gullibility. This makes perfect sense in that children have to assimilate a vast amount of information as quickly as possible. Acceptance and trust are quicker than skepticism and critical analysis.

As we reach adulthood, we become more and more skeptical. We rebel against authority and challenge it. Gullibility becomes a liability and can even be a fatal one, if we meet the wrong people. Critical thinking seems to become a more valuable strategy for survival than trust and acceptance as we age, but we can never completely abandon trust.

Although the arc of life may move us from trust to skepticism, children are never completely trusting and adults never completely skeptical. Although I am advanced in years, I still trust what a great many people tell me. I am certainly inclined to believe historians about historical events and physicists about the properties of matter even though I have never personally verified most of the things I believe. I tend not to believe what other experts tell me--for example, experts in religious doctrine. I trust that they know about their own doctrine, but I still do not trust their claims about the nature and existence of deities. In my life, I have gone from strong acceptance of Christian beliefs in childhood to strong rejection of them in adulthood. It seems to me that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian God.

So here is my proposition for debate: The argument from popularity that gods and other spirits exist merits serious rebuttal from atheists. Seeking to place the burden of proof on believers is not enough. That is, one cannot simply dismiss theism on the grounds of argumentum ad populum being a fallacious argument. Whether or not proof exists, the very fact that so many people believe in gods puts a de facto burden of proof on atheists. Why? Because people ultimately take popularity of belief as evidence for the correctness of that belief. Fallacy or not, basing a belief in its widespread popularity is part of the human condition. We cannot actually function very well at all if we abandon our trust in the popularity of beliefs. There is simply too much out there that we would need to prove before getting on with our lives.

I disagree. A once popular belief was that the Earth was flat. That was wrong. Had we suspended the desire of proof, we'd never gotten past it. We need skepticism to find truth. We must always strive against popular belief, rather it be religious, political, social, or scientific. The focus must be on truth, not popularity.