Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[Vigile]

Orbit, your response changes nothing. If the subject is whether or not a god exists, there are only three possible positions, there is a god, there isn't a god and I don't know if there is a god. Those are your options. Whether or not you choose to disbelieve or if you lack belief doesn't change anything. Its still a negative claim.

 

 

 

Then you're unfamiliar with Schrodinger's cat.

[miekko]

 

Orbit, your response changes nothing. If the subject is whether or not a god exists, there are only three possible positions, there is a god, there isn't a god and I don't know if there is a god. Those are your options. Whether or not you choose to disbelieve or if you lack belief doesn't change anything. Its still a negative claim.

 

 

 

Then you're unfamiliar with Schrodinger's cat.

 

How does Schrodinger's cat have anything to do with this? I posit that you're unfamiliar with the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, and only use it here as a misleading, misunderstood point. 

[florduh]

...but I am arguing semantics.

 

And my complaint is just that it is the theists who have created this semantic mess and rules of engagement. The Bigfootists do no such thing, and if they did, we would reject it. Again, why do we let theists tell us there is a distinction in how we accept or reject an unsupported assertion?

 

I do not currently have a belief in Bigfoot because of the lack of evidence for it. I can say the same for gods, and the chance I might have to change my mind about Bigfoot is infinitely greater. After all, new species are occasionally captured or photographed but in thousands of years man has offered no proof for any of their gods existing beyond that of a mental construct.

[directionless]

I agree with Storm and her explanation of her reasoning is much better than my own feeble attempts. (Of course I recognize that she might not agree with my views, but they seemed similar to me.)

 

Here are some more ideas that I will try to explain the best I can:

 

What makes a default? If we speak of metaphysical "naturalists" vs "a-naturalists" then the Christians can say they don't need to explain their position because they are simply "a-naturalists" and are not convinced by the arguments of the "naturalists". Everybody believes the same thing, but we've changed a few labels and now a different group can claim to be the default that needs no evidence.

 

The only meaningful definition for a default is subjective: "an individual's current opinion". If you are currently a Muslim, then Muslim is your default. If you are currently atheist then atheist is your default. If you are currently mixed-up (like me) then mixed-up is your default.

 

When you receive new evidence then you think about it and possibly change your opinion from the default and now you have a new default.

 

So skepticism is a willingness to periodically examine the evidence for all opinions including your current position without bias. It is not being biased towards some mythical objective default opinion of "disbelief", because we can reword any statement so that disbelief becomes belief.

 

I'm surprised I haven't at least persuaded Ravenstar, because it is her description of skepticism that got me thinking about this. Maybe I misunderstood her definitions of skepticism and that is why she doesn't agree with my model.

[Vigile]

 

Orbit, your response changes nothing. If the subject is whether or not a god exists, there are only three possible positions, there is a god, there isn't a god and I don't know if there is a god. Those are your options. Whether or not you choose to disbelieve or if you lack belief doesn't change anything. Its still a negative claim.

 

Then you're unfamiliar with Schrodinger's cat.

 

*realizing I made a mistake with the cat metaphor, here is my revised response*

 

You're forcing a negative claim. And, given the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative (at least beyond a shadow of doubt) this tries to force the non believer into an impossible position or take the agnostic route.

 

If you agree it's stupid to be agnostic about the existence of fairies, goblins and ghosts, then surely you can see that there's room to be more than simply undecided over the god question without forcing the unbeliever into the impossible position of having to back up 'a' claim with proof.

[directionless]

I have been referring to Ravenstar's description of skepticism, but I didn't think I would have any hope of locating it.

 

I just realized that her description was located in BAA's doubting Thomas thread on skepticism, so here it is. I won't try to claim that it supports my viewpoint, but I thought she made some excellent points.

 

One can not honestly investigate any subject with preconceived notions. It doesn't matter what anyone says… if you already believe a certain thing then true study and consideration of differing positions is impossible. One must suspend any conclusion until thorough investigation is done.

 

This is the "I don't know" position.

 

Without a deep understanding of one's inner 'world view' and belief matrix from childhood and the confirmation bias one has, and the biases of your sources - including cultural and geographical bias, there is no possibility of making a true judgement of any position, on any subject.

 

Source: Me… and a lifetime of experience seeking for truth. (and education in social science statistics)

[directionless]

Hey, Storm, I just realized I referred to you as "she" in my post when you are a "he". Oops, sorry.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Science is not all black and white. It is much more than a collection of facts.

It often goes beyond questions that have only right and wrong answers.

 

Many topics in science are indeed "settled."

 

But many topics are far from settled.

But it is always based on data. Not faith.

 

 

Amen, Orbit!  

.

.

.

 

Three points, Ironhorse.

 

First.

If something is currently unknown in science, it stays unknown until the data comes in.  If the data never comes in, then it stays unknown.  It's status as unknown isn't an invitation for you to draw a religious conclusion about it.  That is not science - that is faith. 

 

Second.

Lawrence Krauss never proceeds by faith in his cosmological arguments - even though you allege that he does.  He draws logical conclusions, based upon the data... just as other cosmologists do.  That is not faith - that is science.

 

Last.

I see that you have both the time and inclination to contribute to this thread.  

But you don't have the time and the inclination to honor your promise and answer those outstanding questions that I've collated for you and repeatedly asked you (politely) to respond to.  So... thank you for once again demonstrating how untrustworthy you really are.

 

Your dishonesty is noted by all reading this.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

Science is not all black and white. It is much more than a collection of facts.

It often goes beyond questions that have only right and wrong answers.

 

Many topics in science are indeed "settled."

 

But many topics are far from settled.

But it is always based on data. Not faith.

As for those things that are not settled, we do not and should not accept a candidate answer as correct or likely based on faith. If we wish to be scientific and as objective as possible, our position regarding those unsettled questions should always be, "I don't know." We are welcome and encouraged to entertain hypothesis that might explain what we do not yet understand, but liking a hypothesis is not the same as having faith in it. I have pet hypotheses, but I do not place bets on them. I may like them, but I understand that they are just cool thoughts but could very well be wrong. If that is your position regarding god, Iron Horse, then fine. Have at it. But, if like most religious believers, you believe you have some sort of certainty your beliefs are correct based only on your wishful thinking (faith), then you are indeed naive. To accept something as absolutely true based on no evidence (faith) is the hight of irrationality.

[Storm]

Hey, Storm, I just realized I referred to you as "she" in my post when you are a "he". Oops, sorry.

No problem. I figured you were relating me to Storm from the marvel universe.

[Storm]

 

 

Orbit, your response changes nothing. If the subject is whether or not a god exists, there are only three possible positions, there is a god, there isn't a god and I don't know if there is a god. Those are your options. Whether or not you choose to disbelieve or if you lack belief doesn't change anything. Its still a negative claim.

 

Then you're unfamiliar with Schrodinger's cat.

 

*realizing I made a mistake with the cat metaphor, here is my revised response*

 

You're forcing a negative claim. And, given the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative (at least beyond a shadow of doubt) this tries to force the non believer into an impossible position or take the agnostic route.

 

If you agree it's stupid to be agnostic about the existence of fairies, goblins and ghosts, then surely you can see that there's room to be more than simply undecided over the god question without forcing the unbeliever into the impossible position of having to back up 'a' claim with proof.

 

I may be pointing out a negative claim, but I can't say I am forcing one. At this point I do not believe in any deities. I do not hold any potentially real deities in any higher regard than I would fairies, goblins or ghosts. I can honestly say I am currently an unbeliever in any deities and I am open to the possibility that one may exist, but I have not yet seen any proof.

 

Secondly, Richard Carrier makes a few good points in regards to Proving a Negative here.

[ironhorse]

 

 

Science is not all black and white. It is much more than a collection of facts.

It often goes beyond questions that have only right and wrong answers.

 

Many topics in science are indeed "settled."

 

But many topics are far from settled.

But it is always based on data. Not faith.

 

 

Amen, Orbit!  

.

.

.

 

Three points, Ironhorse.

 

First.

If something is currently unknown in science, it stays unknown until the data comes in.  If the data never comes in, then it stays unknown.  It's status as unknown isn't an invitation for you to draw a religious conclusion about it.  That is not science - that is faith. 

 

Second.

Lawrence Krauss never proceeds by faith in his cosmological arguments - even though you allege that he does.  He draws logical conclusions, based upon the data... just as other cosmologists do.  That is not faith - that is science.

 

Last.

I see that you have both the time and inclination to contribute to this thread.  

But you don't have the time and the inclination to honor your promise and answer those outstanding questions that I've collated for you and repeatedly asked you (politely) to respond to.  So... thank you for once again demonstrating how untrustworthy you really are.

 

Your dishonesty is noted by all reading this.

 

 

First.

If something is currently unknown in science, it stays unknown until the data comes in.  If the data never comes in, then it stays unknown.  It's status as unknown isn't an invitation for you to draw a religious conclusion about it.  That is not science - that is faith.

Second.

 

Why can't I draw a religious conclusion based on a great unknown? My conclusion is not based on science but faith. 

 

Lawrence Krauss never proceeds by faith in his cosmological arguments - even though you allege that he does.  He draws logical conclusions, based upon the data... just as other cosmologists do.  That is not faith - that is science.

 

Again, I never alleged Krauss proceeds by faith in his scientific studies. He has drawn logical conclusions in many areas based on data. I said that in the interview when discussing the big question on "where matter come from" he said the data ends and it's pure speculation. He was honest enough to say he doesn't really know. He has an idea it might involve a parallel universe but I remember he laughed and said even with that the question is where did it come from. My idea is that God created is just that my idea. I have placed my faith this is correct. 

 

Last.

I see that you have both the time and inclination to contribute to this thread. 

But you don't have the time and the inclination to honor your promise and answer those outstanding questions that I've collated for you and repeatedly asked you (politely) to respond to.  So... thank you for once again demonstrating how untrustworthy you really are.

 

Again, I have stated before I am trying to answer every question. What I cannot do is keep repeating my answers over and over because some here refuse to accept them for what they are, my answers. I'm not asking you to agree with me. Some are not unwilling to agree with anything I post. 

 

 

 

Your dishonesty is noted by all reading this.

 

I don't know what others will think.

[Vigile]

I may be pointing out a negative claim, but I can't say I am forcing one.

You are by insisting it's a claim. There is clearly a distinction between those who claim there are no gods and those who simply withhold belief, or more accurately, just don't believe.

 

Yesterday, I forget which thread, I used the example of the words look and see to make this very point.

 

Look, implies control, whereas see is simply reflexive. Likewise, disbelieve and unbelief or non belief are distinctly separate entities where disbelieve implies control over the action.

[Storm]

 

I may be pointing out a negative claim, but I can't say I am forcing one.

You are by insisting it's a claim. There is clearly a distinction between those who claim there are no gods and those who simply withhold belief, or more accurately, just don't believe.

 

Yesterday, I forget which thread, I used the example of the words look and see to make this very point.

 

Look, implies control, whereas see is simply reflexive. Likewise, disbelieve and unbelief or non belief are distinctly separate entities where disbelieve implies control over the action.

 

It is a claim. If it isn't a claim, then what is it?

[Vigile]

 

 

I may be pointing out a negative claim, but I can't say I am forcing one.

You are by insisting it's a claim. There is clearly a distinction between those who claim there are no gods and those who simply withhold belief, or more accurately, just don't believe.

 

Yesterday, I forget which thread, I used the example of the words look and see to make this very point.

 

Look, implies control, whereas see is simply reflexive. Likewise, disbelieve and unbelief or non belief are distinctly separate entities where disbelieve implies control over the action.

 

It is a claim. If it isn't a claim, then what is it?

 

Not a claim, as I just explained. If you prefer, it's a distinction. It is to see, what look is to claim.

[Storm]

 

 

 

I may be pointing out a negative claim, but I can't say I am forcing one.

You are by insisting it's a claim. There is clearly a distinction between those who claim there are no gods and those who simply withhold belief, or more accurately, just don't believe.

 

Yesterday, I forget which thread, I used the example of the words look and see to make this very point.

 

Look, implies control, whereas see is simply reflexive. Likewise, disbelieve and unbelief or non belief are distinctly separate entities where disbelieve implies control over the action.

 

It is a claim. If it isn't a claim, then what is it?

 

Not a claim, as I just explained. If you prefer, it's a distinction. It is to see, what look is to claim.

 

I addressed this earlier. What is your take on this?

 

Let me try to explain it as I understand it. If atheism is just simply the lack of a belief in a god, or gods, then my laptop is an atheist. My phone is an atheist. My car is an atheist. None of these things have any belief in a deity. They cannot know if a deity exists or not. They are incapable of knowing or making an informed reasoning that a deity does or doesn't exist. So how do you logically explain that you are an atheist in this context? There has to be more to it. You, however, are capable of holding beliefs. You are capable of examining evidence and making rational conclusions about whether or not that evidence is valid or not. So, there is more to being an atheist than just "not believing". Once evidence is presented, once you make that decision about that evidence, you then begin to hold a belief. You either make the positive claim or you make the negative one. There is no in-between. Once you have been given the "evidence", it is then that you make a claim. 

 

If you say "there is no god" is not a claim or a belief, then it cannot be true or false. If atheism makes no claims, then it is worthless. There is no substantive value to it. The statement "there is no god" is either true or false. That makes it a belief. Atheism makes the claim that "there is no god". The primary claim is that god or gods do not exist. Once again, that is a negative claim. There is a burden of proof on a negative claim, much as there is a burden of proof on a positive claim.

[Vigile]

If atheism is just simply the lack of a belief in a god, or gods, then my laptop is an atheist.

You're equivocating. Atheism, as I noted, is a distinction related to a philosophical question. Does your laptap contemplate psychological questions?

 

 

You are capable of examining evidence and making rational conclusions

 

 

Yes, or even not concluding due to lack of evidence. 

 

So, there is more to being an atheist than just "not believing"

 

 

Indeed. Edit: I read 'no more'.  Sorry. 

 

If atheism makes no claims, then it is worthless. There is no substantive value to it.

 

 

What value do you want it to have?  Quite frankly, if I follow your thought process here, those alternatives that do make claims without sufficient evidence are even less valuable as it's my opinion that being duped (which taking a position without valid reason is) extracts a cost from the believer.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is not all black and white. It is much more than a collection of facts.

It often goes beyond questions that have only right and wrong answers.

 

Many topics in science are indeed "settled."

 

But many topics are far from settled.

But it is always based on data. Not faith.

Amen, Orbit!

.

.

.

 

Three points, Ironhorse.

 

First.

If something is currently unknown in science, it stays unknown until the data comes in. If the data never comes in, then it stays unknown. It's status as unknown isn't an invitation for you to draw a religious conclusion about it. That is not science - that is faith.

 

Second.

Lawrence Krauss never proceeds by faith in his cosmological arguments - even though you allege that he does. He draws logical conclusions, based upon the data... just as other cosmologists do. That is not faith - that is science.

 

Last.

I see that you have both the time and inclination to contribute to this thread.

But you don't have the time and the inclination to honor your promise and answer those outstanding questions that I've collated for you and repeatedly asked you (politely) to respond to. So... thank you for once again demonstrating how untrustworthy you really are.

 

Your dishonesty is noted by all reading this.

First.

If something is currently unknown in science, it stays unknown until the data comes in. If the data never comes in, then it stays unknown. It's status as unknown isn't an invitation for you to draw a religious conclusion about it. That is not science - that is faith.

Second.

 

Why can't I draw a religious conclusion based on a great unknown? My conclusion is not based on science but faith.

 

Lawrence Krauss never proceeds by faith in his cosmological arguments - even though you allege that he does. He draws logical conclusions, based upon the data... just as other cosmologists do. That is not faith - that is science.

 

Again, I never alleged Krauss proceeds by faith in his scientific studies. He has drawn logical conclusions in many areas based on data. I said that in the interview when discussing the big question on "where matter come from" he said the data ends and it's pure speculation. He was honest enough to say he doesn't really know. He has an idea it might involve a parallel universe but I remember he laughed and said even with that the question is where did it come from. My idea is that God created is just that my idea. I have placed my faith this is correct.

 

Last.

I see that you have both the time and inclination to contribute to this thread.

But you don't have the time and the inclination to honor your promise and answer those outstanding questions that I've collated for you and repeatedly asked you (politely) to respond to. So... thank you for once again demonstrating how untrustworthy you really are.

 

Again, I have stated before I am trying to answer every question. What I cannot do is keep repeating my answers over and over because some here refuse to accept them for what they are, my answers. I'm not asking you to agree with me. Some are not unwilling to agree with anything I post.

 

 

 

Your dishonesty is noted by all reading this.

 

I don't know what others will think.

You may draw whatever conclusion you like for whatever reason you like. But if you draw a conclusion based on faith and no evidence, then it is a complete and total crap shoot. Without evidence, you can never have any degree of certainty you are correct. There are an infinite number of faith based beliefs one could potential have. Therefore, the odds of yours being correct with no evidence is 1/infinity (or there about). Practically impossible that you are correct with no evidence. To believe something is absolutely true based on no evidence is the hight of irrationality, as I said before.

[Neverlandrut]

My only claim is that some assertions fail to make their case. I don't make a distinction between Bigfoot proponents who fail to make the case and God proponents who fail to make the case. It is incumbent upon them to show me why I should adopt their belief. It doesn't matter who is making the extraordinary claim or how many do so.

We can mince words over what is a belief and what is not, what is a default position and what is not. But at the end of the day, the above quote is what it boils down to. The one who rejects a claim has no burden of proof. If we hold the position that theism has no case, the only thing we must do to "support" that position is point out the fallacies in the theistic arguments, which we do. If the arguments are fallacious, then they do not support the conclusion. And so far, every theistic argument has been fallacious. Therefore, I do not believe there is a god. As with all conclusions, mine is tentative. If evidence ever arises, I will gladly reassess my position. But so far, no evidence has arrisen.

[Storm]

 

If atheism is just simply the lack of a belief in a god, or gods, then my laptop is an atheist.

You're equivocating. Atheism, as I noted, is a distinction related to a philosophical question. Does your laptap contemplate psychological questions?

 

 

You are capable of examining evidence and making rational conclusions

 

 

Yes, or even not concluding due to lack of evidence. 

 

So, there is more to being an atheist than just "not believing"

 

 

Indeed. Edit: I read 'no more'.  Sorry. 

 

If atheism makes no claims, then it is worthless. There is no substantive value to it.

 

 

What value do you want it to have?  Quite frankly, if I follow your thought process here, those alternatives that do make claims without sufficient evidence are even less valuable as it's my opinion that being duped (which taking a position without valid reason is) extracts a cost from the believer.

 

It has to have value to the one who holds its premise. Saying "there is no god" indicates that that statement holds value to you. You believe that it is a true statement based on the evidence or lack of evidence that you have seen. If you hold that the claim of "there is no god" is true, then it is a belief.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

If you say "there is no god" is not a claim or a belief, then it cannot be true or false. If atheism makes no claims, then it is worthless. There is no substantive value to it. The statement "there is no god" is either true or false. That makes it a belief. Atheism makes the claim that "there is no god". The primary claim is that god or gods do not exist. Once again, that is a negative claim. There is a burden of proof on a negative claim, much as there is a burden of proof on a positive claim.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say atheism is worthless.  It beats the hell out of being brainwashed with false, fundamentalist religious propaganda.

 

There is no god is a belief just like 1 + 1 =/= 3 is a belief.

 

Hard atheism claims there is no god at least beyond a reasonable doubt.  But not all atheism is hard atheism.  Most atheists are of the soft atheism kind which claims "there is no good reason to believe in any god".

 

Negative claims do not have a burden of proof.  Skepticism is the default position.  The conditions required to support a negative claim are very rare.  There are a few places where it can be done but it is unreasonable to demand all negative claims be supported the way positive claims require.

[Vigile]

 

 

If atheism is just simply the lack of a belief in a god, or gods, then my laptop is an atheist.

You're equivocating. Atheism, as I noted, is a distinction related to a philosophical question. Does your laptap contemplate psychological questions?

 

 

You are capable of examining evidence and making rational conclusions

 

 

Yes, or even not concluding due to lack of evidence. 

 

So, there is more to being an atheist than just "not believing"

 

 

Indeed. Edit: I read 'no more'.  Sorry. 

 

If atheism makes no claims, then it is worthless. There is no substantive value to it.

 

 

What value do you want it to have?  Quite frankly, if I follow your thought process here, those alternatives that do make claims without sufficient evidence are even less valuable as it's my opinion that being duped (which taking a position without valid reason is) extracts a cost from the believer.

 

It has to have value to the one who holds its premise. Saying "there is no god" indicates that that statement holds value to you. You believe that it is a true statement based on the evidence or lack of evidence that you have seen. If you hold that the claim of "there is no god" is true, then it is a belief.

 

 

It's not a premise and I, or other soft atheists don't say 'there is no god' but 'we don't believe in god.  Believe is a verb. 

 

You're describing hard atheism. 

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

If atheism is just simply the lack of a belief in a god, or gods, then my laptop is an atheist.

You're equivocating. Atheism, as I noted, is a distinction related to a philosophical question. Does your laptap contemplate psychological questions?

 

You are capable of examining evidence and making rational conclusions

 

Yes, or even not concluding due to lack of evidence.

So, there is more to being an atheist than just "not believing"

 

Indeed. Edit: I read 'no more'. Sorry.

If atheism makes no claims, then it is worthless. There is no substantive value to it.

 

What value do you want it to have? Quite frankly, if I follow your thought process here, those alternatives that do make claims without sufficient evidence are even less valuable as it's my opinion that being duped (which taking a position without valid reason is) extracts a cost from the believer.

It has to have value to the one who holds its premise. Saying "there is no god" indicates that that statement holds value to you. You believe that it is a true statement based on the evidence or lack of evidence that you have seen. If you hold that the claim of "there is no god" is true, then it is a belief.

I will accept your point that atheism is a belief. Sure, I "believe" there are no gods. But it is a well founded and rational belief based on the lack of evidence for any god's existence. Am I 100% certain there is no god? No. But for theists to think degrees of uncertainty make our position weaker is a red herring, because epistologically NO ONE can be 100% certain of ANYTHING. It's impossible to prove something's non-existence unless it is not logically possible. And there are god characters (or rather supposed god characteristics) that are logically impossible.

[directionless]

(this is just a general observation not directed at anybody's post in particular)

 

"I don't know" is a bit vague, because it can mean two things:

- "I haven't researched enough to form an opinion yet"

- "I have researched and formed an opinion that it could be true or false"

 

This is why I keep harping on probabilities. After careful research and study I might decide that the proposition is 30% likely to be true. I call that percentage my belief in the proposition. It's not the same as saying that I think it is 100% likely to be true.

 

I would argue that atheists have thought and researched the question of deities and assigned a low probability. That is different from a baby that has not considered the question.

 

So there are two positions a person can take in response to some proposition:

- I'm busy researching this proposition so ask me again later

- I've finished my research and this is the probability I assign to the proposition

 

Also, a person can't refuse to assign a probability forever, because he/she is periodically confronted with choices whose outcome might depend on that proposition.

[mymistake]

(this is just a general observation not directed at anybody's post in particular)

 

"I don't know" is a bit vague, because it can mean two things:

- "I haven't researched enough to form an opinion yet"

- "I have researched and formed an opinion that it could be true or false"

 

This is why I keep harping on probabilities. After careful research and study I might decide that the proposition is 30% likely to be true. I call that percentage my belief in the proposition. It's not the same as saying that I think it is 100% likely to be true.

 

I would argue that atheists have thought and researched the question of deities and assigned a low probability. That is different from a baby that has not considered the question.

 

So there are two positions a person can take in response to some proposition:

- I'm busy researching this proposition so ask me again later

- I've finished my research and this is the probability I assign to the proposition

 

Also, a person can't refuse to assign a probability forever, because he/she is periodically confronted with choices whose outcome might depend on that proposition.

 

Except there is no research to be done on gods.  There is zero objective evidence for them.  You have to either blindly accept a god or set of gods, or wake up to the fact that you can't think of a good reason to believe in any of them.