# Absence of belief is itself a belief
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 16, 2003, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849 "2003-07-16T11:03:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/1 "2003-07-16T11:03:36Z")
One encounters a given statement. One assesses in one’s mind the statement’s truth or falsity. The conclusion one reaches is one’s _belief_.
If one has not yet encountered a given statement, or is simply unequipped to assess it, or _refuses_ to assess it (or at least tell anyone the conclusion reached), then one cannot say it is any more or less likely to be true than false. The probability in one’s mind of the statement being true must remain exactly 50%. The moment the probability of truth moves, in one’s mind, infinitessimally _towards_ 51% then one _believes_ the statement. A similar move towards 49% constitutes a “believe not” the statement.
I am an atheist: I think it more likely that _no_ Gods exist than Gods exist. I believe in NoGod.
A quote in another thread from **Apos** :
> [@](#):
>
> At best, it’s a belief about the present state of one’s own mind
Surely our “states of mind” are _all we have_, given that one can only _believe in_ (and never _know_) an external reality, since Descartes’ Deceiver might, just _might_ (with an ascribed probability of near zero), be typing this for me?
And, if our minds _are_ all we have, then the difference between absence of belief and belief (or between absence of belief and belief-not) is as arbitrary as the difference between 50% and \>50% (or \<50%), is it not? Surely, one has simply not bothered to change one’s “default” belief?
Suggestions for further reading appreciated.
---
### Author:  [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/2 "2003-07-16T11:22:01Z")
I don’t have any great problem with your main statement, but I am curious why you choose the \>50% and \<50% measures when a binary 1 or 0 would do the same trick. The % method _implies_ **to me** a scale or a continuum where differing values are permitted and which suggest shades and tints of values.
I suspect your choice of scale weakens your basic argument.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/3 "2003-07-16T11:37:53Z")
Perhaps, **Zendar** , but surely there are things one _strongly_ believe, such as that one is _not_ a victim of Descartes’ Deceiver, and things which one believes much less strongly, such as that a horse valued at evens will win the race.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/4 "2003-07-16T11:54:41Z")
Sure, and absence of liking for chocolate is really a liking for _unchocolate_, failure to wear trousers equates to the wearing of _nontrousers_, lack of interest in playing golf is the same as playing a game called _nongolf_.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/5 "2003-07-16T12:15:54Z")
**Mange** , your examples would be more faily paraphrased as:
_Statement_:You like chocolate.
If your assessment of the truth of this statement leaves you unmoved from the 50% default, we would not be talking about your ambivalence towards the taste of chocolate but your _inability to tell whether or not you liked it_. One would similarly assess the truth or falsity statement “You are wearing trousers” or “You are playing golf”. (Incidentally, “you are wearing no trousers” or “you are playing no golf” work fine grammatically, but this is not really the point I am forwarding for debate).
**I am not attempting to paint NoGod as an entity in itself.** I am contending that ascribing personal probabilities to statements is _all we can do_, and that an ascription of \<50% to the probability that the statement “God exists” is true follows precisely the same processes as an ascription of 50% or more.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/6 "2003-07-16T12:19:41Z")
**Mange** , your examples would be more fairly paraphrased as:
_Statement_:You like chocolate.
If your assessment of the truth of this statement leaves you unmoved from the 50% default, we would not be talking about your ambivalence towards the taste of chocolate but your _inability to tell whether or not you liked it_. One would similarly assess the truth or falsity of the statements “You are wearing trousers” or “You are playing golf”. (Incidentally, “you are wearing no trousers” or “you are playing no golf” work fine grammatically, but this is not really the point I am forwarding for debate).
**I am not attempting to paint NoGod as an entity in itself.** I am contending that ascribing personal probabilities to statements is _all we can do_, and that an ascription of \<50% to the probability that the statement “God exists” is true follows precisely the same processes as an ascription of 50% or more.
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/7 "2003-07-16T12:47:04Z")
Let’s try breaking this down a bit.
Okay. So if you do not believe that aliens are going to paint the Empire State Building pink next Tuesday, it is the same as believing that aliens are going to paint said building at said date?
I don’t see it. I think your problem is a matter of relativism, though. Is a choice to believe in something a point midway on a spectrum or a larger leap? I’d have to call “not believing” in things one has no experience in or evidence for, a ground state, and to believe is an effort beyond the default.
---
### Author:  [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/8 "2003-07-16T12:57:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Statement:You like chocolate.
> If your assessment of the truth of this statement leaves you unmoved from the 50% default, we would not be talking about your ambivalence towards the taste of chocolate but your inability to tell whether or not you liked it.
Yes, but you’re _still talking about a lack of liking of chocolate rather than an active dislike of chocolate_. It is possible to not like chocolate but not dislike it either.
Or to put it another way,
¬L© != L(¬C)
In general, unless you can come up with a decent argument why the ¬ operator should be commutative then your reasoning is spurious.
But I hate unnecessary analogies - you just end up debating the analogy. The thing itself is simple enough for us not to go there.
The default position _should_ be to not believe in God, for the same reason that the default position is to not believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the IPU or goblins at the back of your garden. It then remains to convince you otherwise.
It’s like falsifying a null hypothesis.
If the arguments presented are not sufficient to convince you, you are merely not convinced _yet_. That doesn’t mean that you’ve taken a strong stance and declared that God does not exist. You’re simply saying that you’ve seen nothing yet to make you change from your default position. You don’t “believe” that God doesn’t exist - you lack the impetus to believe that God _does_ exist.
Can you not see that B(¬G) is a much _much_ stronger statement thatn ¬B(G)?
pan
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/9 "2003-07-16T13:02:39Z")
Yes; there are more than two possible positions to occupy here (quite aside from agnosticism):
Believe there is a God
Believe that there is no God
Don’t care.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/10 "2003-07-16T13:04:46Z")
**E-Sab** , on the contrary: You are not breaking things down, you are building them up unnecessarily.
_Statement 1_: ¬B (Al & Pa & Em & Pink)
_Statement 2_: B (Al & Pa & Em & ¬Pink)
My argument solely concerns ¬B(G) and B(¬G). I contend that the difference between them is that between 50% and not 50%.
---
### Author:  [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/11 "2003-07-16T13:05:22Z")
Or indeed: to not believe that there is a God.
To refute this by stating that this is no different to believing there is no God is begging the question, since that is what the OP is stating in the first place. I assert that there _is_ a difference and my post above attempts to defend that position.
pan
---
### Author:  [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/12 "2003-07-16T13:06:07Z")
No- like kabbes seems to be saying;
Don’t believe anything.
Believe in a particular thing.
Don’t care(see don’t believe anything)
---
### Author:  [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/13 "2003-07-16T13:07:39Z")
**Absence of belief is itself a belief**
Dunno, I find that a bit hard to believe…
---
### Author:  [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/14 "2003-07-16T13:08:23Z")
Yeah, its like saying absence of lots of money is itself having lots of money.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/15 "2003-07-16T13:12:37Z")
**kabbes**
> [@](#):
>
> The default position should be to not believe in God [or Santa Claus]
Or electrons, or dinosaurs, or an external reality? Given that our minds are _all we have_, then any appeal to “proof” or “evidence” simply puts us back a step: there is no _qualitative_ difference between belief in dinosaurs and belief that we are not in a Matrix.
> [@](#):
>
> Can you not see that B(¬G) is a much much stronger statement thatn ¬B(G)?
No.
---
### Author:  [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/16 "2003-07-16T13:13:49Z")
I think I see your problem **Mr Meat**. It’s a common problem amongst those who haven’t studied measure theory, i.e. 99.99% of the population.
It makes no sense to talk about what you believe in terms of a percentage. You have to be very careful with probabilities; they almost certainly don’t mean what you think they mean. The existence of God is **not a probabilistic event**. Either he exists or he does not exist. You can’t say that there is a 50% chance that he exists.
What you can say is that IF God exists, the chance that the universe would be like this is 50%. But that is a reflection of the dataset and not of the existence of God. It’s like confidence intervals - they reflect the probability that the range contains the mean not the probability that the mean is within the range. A subtle but important difference.
Let’s examine ¬B(G) with this in mind. This doesn’t mean “I believe that the chance God exists is less than 50%”. If anything it means, “I believe that given the existence of God, the chance that the universe would present itself as it does is less than 50%”.
On the other hand, B(¬G) means, “Given that God doesn’t exist, the chance that the universe would present itself as it does is more than 50%”
These are _two different statements_. (In statistical terms, one is analogous to a Type I error and the the other to a Type II error). Both statements are predicated on a given axiom **and the axiom is different in each case**. They are therefore not trivially comparable and certainly cannot be said to be the same.
I realise that the above is pretty impenetrable. I’m more than willing to go into more detail on any point if necessary. In the meantime I’m going to try to construct a simple numerical example of the difference between the generic A(¬B) and ¬A(B) statements.
pan
---
### Author:  [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/17 "2003-07-16T13:15:16Z")
We don’t _believe_ in dinosaurs- there is evidence to suggest that they were around. Since there is no evidence around that we live in a matrix it would require belief.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/18 "2003-07-16T13:22:55Z")
Thanks **kabbes**. “Measure theory” huh? (Like I said, further reading is really what I’m after).
---
### Author:  [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/19 "2003-07-16T13:25:54Z")
Alright, very simple example.
Let’s say that you have a die. It may or may not be loaded. If it is loaded then there is a 50% chance of getting a 6. Otherwise, of course, there is a 1/6 (or 17%) chance of getting a 5.
You roll the die and you get a 6.
If we start from the default position that the die is not loaded then the probability of getting such a result is 17%. Statistically, this is not low enough to convince anyone to change their mind. We’d therefore stick to ¬B(L)
On the other hand, if we start from the default position that the die _is_ loaded then the probability of getting such a result is 30%, which ALSO isn’t low enough to convice anyone to change their mind. We’d therefore stick to B(L)!
It admit that this example still doesn’t quite get to the heart of the matter, but I’m going to see if I can come up with something better…
pan
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/20 "2003-07-16T13:27:52Z")
Meat, you’re multiplying entities yourself. It’s just B=Belief in E=Event.
B(E)=!B(E)?
Belief in God versus no Belief in God. Is !B(G) equivalent to B(!G)? I’m missing the argument here, but I don’t see it.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849.md?page=2)