What is meant by the term "default position"?

[Khasekhemwy]

Many of us atheists (myself included) consider atheism a default stance. Personally, I call even rocks atheists.

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.

I suspect this depends on how one defines atheism. Defaults can be characterized as a sort of Newton’s second law, that an object in motion remains in motion at the same speed in its original direction unless an external force acts upon it. Strong atheism, the denial that any deity exists, what Luis likely intends as subject, does in fact require a prior existence claim as Willamena says. Simple absence of opinion on the matter, however, does not.

Arrival of a god concept after birth presupposes the concept of agency, which comes in two forms: Either we may act on our own to a purpose, or persuade another to act on our behalf. As babies, we quickly learned that our cries, coos and babbles wielded great influence over our mothers, almost as causative verbs. I offer little more point of view here; my religious identifier implies that yes, I believe a deity capable of both direct and persuasive agency exists, yet I cannot prove it and doubt any proof is possible given the theologians have been trying to supply one for 800 years.

 

[paarsurrey]

I suspect this depends on how one defines atheism. Defaults can be characterized as a sort of Newton’s second law, that an object in motion remains in motion at the same speed in its original direction unless an external force acts upon it. Strong atheism, the denial that any deity exists, what Luis likely intends as subject, does in fact require a prior existence claim as Willamena says. Simple absence of opinion on the matter, however, does not.

Arrival of a god concept after birth presupposes the concept of agency, which comes in two forms: Either we may act on our own to a purpose, or persuade another to act on our behalf. As babies, we quickly learned that our cries, coos and babbles wielded great influence over our mothers, almost as causative verbs. I offer little more point of view here; my religious identifier implies that yes, I believe a deity capable of both direct and persuasive agency exists, yet I cannot prove it and doubt any proof is possible given the theologians have been trying to supply one for 800 years.

"I offer little more point of view here; my religious identifier implies that yes, I believe a deity capable of both direct and persuasive agency exists, yet I cannot prove it and doubt any proof is possible given the theologians have been trying to supply one for 800 years."

I agree with the contents of the post, except the portion dimmed by me in the end of it, please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I have a feeling I know why certain people wouldn't want to use it... but their feelings on the matter should be recognized as irrational. It is just a word, after all.

I give the following other words:

disbeliever, misbeliever, unbeliever, nonworshiper .​

Regards

 

[Windwalker]

It is the position one takes when no evidence has been presented.

Example: My friend Jennifer has claimed that she can fly by flapping her arms. If no evidence is presented the default position is that she can't.


Example 2: Bill says that he has an invisible magical friend. With no evidence presented the default position would be one of nonbelief in the friend.

Why wouldn't belief be the default position? Actually, I believe most people will believe what they are told is true. Just look at politics, as one example.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why wouldn't belief be the default position? Actually, I believe most people will believe what they are told is true. Just look at politics, as one example.

Theism is simply too active to qualify as a default.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why wouldn't belief be the default position? Actually, I believe most people will believe what they are told is true. Just look at politics, as one example.

Many people are gullible, that does not mean belief is the default. If one is never introduced to the idea of the Easter Bunny his or her default will be disbelief.

 

[Windwalker]

Many people are gullible, that does not mean belief is the default. If one is never introduced to the idea of the Easter Bunny his or her default will be disbelief.

No. Think about it practically here. When someone is a child, their default position is to believe what they are told is true. They have to be taught to distrust and doubt what someone tells them. When they are lied to, it hurts them. It hurts because it was a betrayal of the trust and belief they took as the natural course of their humanness - to trust.

The default is not skepticism or doubt. The default is faith. It's the same thing with fear. Fear is not the default. Love is. Faith and Love are defaults, not atheism. Atheism is the result of a loss of faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. Think about it practically here. When someone is a child, their default position is to believe what they are told is true. They have to be taught to distrust and doubt what someone tells them. When they are lied to, it hurts them. It hurts because it was a betrayal of the trust and belief they took as the natural course of their humanness - to trust.

The default is not skepticism or doubt. The default is faith. It's the same thing with fear. Fear is not the default love is. Faith and Love are defaults, not atheism. Atheism is the result of a loss of faith.

I think you may be confusing a trusting disposition (which may well be a default) with theism (which is IMO far too complex to be such a default stance).

It is possible that you may also be confusing atheism (which is IMO clearly such a default stance) with skepticism (which probably is not).

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Think about it practically here. When someone is a child, their default position is to believe what they are told is true. They have to be taught to distrust and doubt what someone tells them. When they are lied to, it hurts them. It hurts because it was a betrayal of the trust and belief they took as the natural course of their humanness - to trust.

The default is not skepticism or doubt. The default is faith. It's the same thing with fear. Fear is not the default love is. Faith and Love are defaults, not atheism. Atheism is the result of a loss of faith.

if they were not told of an invisible friend do you think that they would make one up?

Relying on children that are not able to think rationally yet for your argument only means that your argument is irrational.

 

[Windwalker]

I think you may be confusing a trusting disposition (which may well be a default) with theism (which is IMO far too complex to be such a default stance).

I am not equating that with theism. He had said, "Many people are gullible, that does not mean belief is the default." That statement is wrong. Belief is the default. Not doubt. Not skepticism. But trust and belief.

It is possible that you may also be confusing atheism (which is IMO clearly such a default stance) with skepticism (which probably is not).

Theism and atheism are both not the default position. The default "position" of faith or "belief" in the sense of trusting. That is not about this proposition or that. It's not about a choice of beliefs, which are mental constructs, concepts (both theism and atheism are this). It is a true non-position. The true default.

I would not necessarily equate atheism directly with skepticism. But there is a mental choice involved. There is a question and an answer, a this or a that question. Belief, in the sense of faith is not about a choice. It would be neither theism nor atheism. It is before the question and the answer. It is pre-theism/atheism, and trans-theism/atheism.

Faith may express itself in both theism and atheism. Faith may express itself in many different points of view, or beliefs. But it is the same faith in all. Which just simply believes. And that, faith, is the default: a true non-position. It just believes, whether it chooses a for or against position, a like or a dislike.

We become theists or atheists after the fact, or we instead see the question for what it really is. To say one truly lacks a belief, is to say one rests in their faith. Faith just believes, with no object of faith in mind. That is, the faith of a child. That is the default.

 

[Windwalker]

if they were not told of an invisible friend do you think that they would make one up?

What does this have to do with what I said? Children believe, they trust. Doesn't matter what you tell them.

Relying on children that are not able to think rationally yet for your argument only means that your argument is irrational.

What sort of nonsense response is this? We are talking about belief in the sense of faith. Faith is the default "position", which is what children have. Rationality and stuff comes much later. Critical thinking is a way later development. The faith of a child is the default.

How is this irrational to you? I will need you to rationally explain that to me.

 

[Skwim]

The most conspicuous default position propounded here on RF is that of creationism. Because the basis of creationism is faith in the Bible, the only legitimate defense the creationist has for the belief is; "The Bible tells me so." However, recognizing how weak such a defense is in light of the vast amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution, creationism's archenemy, "The Bible tells me so" is never brought up. Instead, running with the bogus idea that only evolution or creationism can be true---a neat, but wholly unproven postulate---creationists try to establish their ludicrous default position:

If evolution is wrong then creationism has to be right.​

And to do so they attack evolution with everything from misinformation and irrationality to outright lies. A matter of, desperate situations call for desperate measures.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does this have to do with what I said? Children believe, they trust. Doesn't matter what you tell them.

It seems that you think that children are dumber than they are. The only reason they believe is due to strong and constant indoctrination. That means that It is not "default".

What sort of nonsense response is this? We are talking about belief in the sense of faith. Faith is the default "position", which is what children have. Rationality and stuff comes much later. Critical thinking is a way later development. The faith of a child is the default.

How is this irrational to you? I will need you to rationally explain that to me.

Are you that slow? Seriously it is not "nonsense'. Faith is never the default position. It is an excuse, not a reason. Children are indoctrinated, faith is an adult reaction.

Children usually believe their parents because they have proven themselves to be generally reliable. Unfortunately they fail when they force religion on their children.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not equating that with theism. He had said, "Many people are gullible, that does not mean belief is the default." That statement is wrong. Belief is the default. Not doubt. Not skepticism. But trust and belief.

Sorry, but I just can't understand what you are saying as anything but an odd, strange confusion of unlike concepts from your part.

Theism and atheism are both not the default position.

Actually, atheism is. Because of what you say right next:

The default "position" of faith or "belief" in the sense of trusting. That is not about this proposition or that. It's not about a choice of beliefs,

Again, and from what you say after that, I think that you are confusing atheism with skepticism.

which are mental constructs, concepts (both theism and atheism are this). It is a true non-position. The true default.

"Non-position" in this field is atheism-by-default, for exactly the same reasons why ignorance of (and therefore disbelief in) say, manticores also is.

 

[Augustus]

What is meant by the term "default position"?

It's a discourse marker for "I'm making a specious and vapid point by identifying that the unknown thought processes of newborn babies are the most pertinent unit when discussing questions of human cognition, philosophy and the evolution of human culture".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, concepts provide us with options.

I addressed a third party describing them above.

Basically, all you did was "admit" exactly what I stated: that it is completely valid to refer to someone's lack of belief in something as a third party with knowledge about the subject:

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.

Notice the point at which you went to a completely cop-out (and make-believe) word "beliefless." You do realize why you had to do that, right?

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.

Still dodging even the point your yourself have made here - 2 people WITH knowledge of the subject can easily and validly speak about a third party's lack of belief or disbelief using vocabulary they have to convey the fact. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. you just don't like the word in the context that "atheism" can be used... so you are fighting very hard to avoid it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I give the following other words:

disbeliever, misbeliever, unbeliever, nonworshiper .​

Regards

And all of those would apply to me as well. What is the real problem you all have with the word "atheist?" You think you're giving the atheist "side" a "win" by admitting applicable usage of the word? Get yourselves a security blanket for goodness sake. Goes for you too @Willamena.

 

[Willamena]

Basically, all you did was "admit" exactly what I stated: that it is completely valid to refer to someone's lack of belief in something as a third party with knowledge about the subject:

Yes, I "admit" it.

Notice the point at which you went to a completely cop-out (and make-believe) word "beliefless." You do realize why you had to do that, right?

It's not a made-up word.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/beliefless

Still dodging even the point your yourself have made here - 2 people WITH knowledge of the subject can easily and validly speak about a third party's lack of belief or disbelief using vocabulary they have to convey the fact. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. you just don't like the word in the context that "atheism" can be used... so you are fighting very hard to avoid it.

Two people with knowledge of a subject (I prefer simple comprehension, but meh) can easily and validly speak about a third party's condition. Heck, even one person can. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is captured in the definition of atheism.

 

[Willamena]

No. Think about it practically here. When someone is a child, their default position is to believe what they are told is true. They have to be taught to distrust and doubt what someone tells them. When they are lied to, it hurts them. It hurts because it was a betrayal of the trust and belief they took as the natural course of their humanness - to trust.

The default is not skepticism or doubt. The default is faith. It's the same thing with fear. Fear is not the default. Love is. Faith and Love are defaults, not atheism. Atheism is the result of a loss of faith.

^This.

The world is positive (and posited).

 

[Willamena]

Belief is the default. Not doubt. Not skepticism. But trust and belief.

Pretty much. From birth, we are accumulating beliefs. It's not extraordinary, it's just what we are, we are belief-accumulating machines. If we can be said to have any purpose in relation to the universe it is this. It's why Dharmic religions spend so much time teaching people to recognize and put into proper perspective all the biases, preconceptions, misconceptions, and "delusions" about themselves and develop a more "skillful" relationship to the world.

The world is made up of positive beliefs. We believe things that have the appearance of truth, reality. Belief in God is particularly dependent on how much we are going to trust the person giving us the image in which to believe.