# Absence of belief is itself a belief **URL:** \ **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:** 19\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/101 "2003-07-18T11:23:43Z")
Of course you can! If you’re happy that the case for there being no God is proven to your satisfaction, then you B(¬G). I don’t believe that I’ve ever said otherwise! But that is nothing to do with the OP. The OP states that ¬B(G) = B(¬G). I hope that I’ve convinced you otherwise. pan ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/102 "2003-07-18T11:36:03Z")
> [@](#): > > The OP states that ¬B(G) = B(¬G). I said that the difference between them was merely one of _degree_, and that appears to be borne out by your descriptions of your own “beliefometer”. There is no evidence for “not Santa Claus”, you are merely “happy” with the explanation that people made him up. You are simply _less_ “happy” about applying the same explanation to God, and so are not yet able to contend B(¬G), as I do. Many thanks for you patience, **kabbes**. I put my head above the parapet expecting to be intellectually pelted with tomatoes, only to find I am treated with tolerance and gentle humour. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/103 "2003-07-18T12:12:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > **I said that the difference between them was merely one of _degree_, and that appears to be borne out by your descriptions of your own “beliefometer”.** Well, you said, “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?”, which isn’t quite the same thing. As I’ve been saying, you’re measuring a _fundamentally different probability_ (P(D|¬G) vs. P(D|G)) and not merely looking at two probabilities on the same scale. But I don’t want to rehash - I think this is coming to a natural conclusion. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence for “not Santa Claus”, you are merely “happy” with the explanation that people made him up. > > You are simply _less_ “happy” about applying the same explanation to God, and so are not yet able to contend B(¬G), as I do. Well, I think that there is evidence for ¬SC AND for ¬G. It’s just that I find the evidence for ¬SC satisfactory enough to accept it, whereas I don’t (for argument’s sake) find the evidence for ¬G satisfactory enough to accept it. Now _that’s_ a matter of degree. > [@](#): > > Many thanks for you patience, **kabbes**. I put my head above the parapet expecting to be intellectually pelted with tomatoes, only to find I am treated with tolerance and gentle humour. \*\* Oh tish tosh. If you approach a discussion in good faith and with patience, I would be less of a person if I didn’t do the same. And it’s easier for me, 'cos -I- was right 😃 pan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/104 "2003-07-18T12:21:44Z")
No evidence for “Not-Claus”? He supposedly travels around the world giving presents to worthy girls and boys, and yet I have _never_ heard of parents finding gifts under the tree that cannot be accounted for. Is there an Anti-Claus thqt follows him and steals the presents back, or what? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/105 "2003-07-18T12:34:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, I think that there is evidence for ¬SC AND for ¬G. > [@](#): > > No evidence for “Not-Claus”? You cannot prove a negative of this nature. You cannot provide absolute proof that he does not take the bought presents and replace them with identical elf-manufactured ones. Such a scenario is _not logically impossible_. All you can do is provide an alternative explanation which any reasonable person would accept as proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, and adjust the needle of their belief-o-meter to well into the B(¬SC) zone. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/106 "2003-07-18T12:39:44Z")
Yes. Quite. Nobody mentioned absolute proof – only pursuasive evidence. Where has this “absolute proof” notion come from? pan ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/107 "2003-07-18T12:45:31Z")
That was merely my paraphrasing of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/108 "2003-07-18T12:58:21Z")
Ah, well. There can be evidence of absence without it being incontrovertable proof. Anyway, you can’t fool me: there ain’t no sanity clause. pan ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/109 "2003-07-18T13:12:58Z")
Can you give an example of something which is not mere absence of evidence for Santa, nor reasoning based on this absence (no-one’s ever seen him, all presents are accounted for, _etc_.), but is _actual verifiable evidence that Santa does **not** exist?_ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/110 "2003-07-18T13:42:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*Can you give an example of something which is not mere absence of evidence for Santa, nor reasoning based on this absence (no-one’s ever seen him, all presents are accounted for, _etc_.), but is _actual verifiable evidence that Santa does **not** exist?_ \*\* [Does Santa Exist?](http://home.uchicago.edu/~rascalzo/arch/palace/library/humor-tech/santa-physics.html) But, point taken, we _all_ agree that one cannot prove a negative, right? And, if I may be allowed to repeat myself, this is exactly why the equating of _belief_ and _not belief_ of the OP is incorrect. Qualitively, not believing in something (because of an absence of evidence) is _different_ to believing something (presumably based on some evidence). ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/111 "2003-07-18T13:59:39Z")
Indeed, **TGU** , but do you agree with **kabbes** that belief in not-Santa is justified despite no _evidence_ of not-Santa? I am still contending that ¬B(SC), while it _is_ different to B(¬SC), is only different in that it is a slight nudge of the belief-o-meter needle. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/112 "2003-07-18T14:34:23Z")
Not quite proving a negative. If Santa Claus exists, then by definition he leaves presents in people’s houses. It’s what he does. If he doesn’t do this, then he isn’t Santa Claus by definition of Santa Claus. The lack of presents, therefore, is positive evidence that there is no Santa Claus. At least - that’s my take on it. Remember too that we are looking at P(D|SC), in other words the probability of the data given that Santa Claus exists. If Santa Claus exists, then what is the probability that there will be no presents left by him? Pretty damn low, is the answer. Certainly low enough for me to reject the Santa Claus hypothesis. This kind of hypothesis-rejection is what statistical testing is all about. Aside from that, I note that I can trace the invention of the Santa Claus myth back to its origins. This is further evidence that Santa Claus is a made-up figure rather than a real one. pan ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/113 "2003-07-18T15:00:46Z")
But there _are_ presents! You are merely providing an alternative hypothesis - that the parents bought them - for which there _is_ evidence (receipts, security camera footage _etc._). You have _not_ presented evidence for the non-existence of Santa. Similarly, I assume you would not argue that the theory of evolution provides evidence for the _nonexistence_ of God? ---
**Author:** ![mascaroni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@mascaroni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mascaroni)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/114 "2003-07-18T22:28:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Voyager \* > \*\*Some people are trying to get the word _bright_ accepted to refer to people who do not believe in the supernatural. It is not supposed to be used as an adjective. > > I’m not sure myself about how good a term this is, but check out [the website if the brights.](http://www.the-brights.net) \*\* An interesting concept but, as you imply, the term ‘Bright’ (even though used as a noun) would suggest that those that do believe are ‘Dim’… ‘Rationalist’ was a good term, but seems to me to denote a certain form of radical A\*\*\*ism… We need a new word… ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/115 "2003-07-18T22:36:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > I don’t believe that I’ve ever said otherwise! Really. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/116 "2003-07-19T09:49:21Z")
Sentient > [@](#): > > You cannot prove a negative of this nature. It really has nothing to do with being a negative, but rather with the size of the set. It is merely impractical (but not necessarily impossible) to prove that there is no one pushing Christmas presents down chimneys. The set is the union of all homes for all time frames. It is the same difficulty were you to want to prove that ALL homes are visited in such a manner by someone. If you would accept (and could implement) a forced-compliance poll, you could prove either one. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/117 "2003-07-19T10:30:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*Indeed, **TGU** , but do you agree with **kabbes** that belief in not-Santa is justified despite no _evidence_ of not-Santa? > > I am still contending that ¬B(SC), while it _is_ different to B(¬SC), is only different in that it is a slight nudge of the belief-o-meter needle. \*\* Yes, “belief in not-Santa is justified”, or maybe not, oh I dunno. But I was thinking, “What do I want for breakfast?”, and I thought I didn’t _want_ anything – not that I didn’t want breakfast, but that my desires towards a particular configuration were neutral. Particularly, I didn’t _want_ a sausage sandwich\*, but then I didn’t _not want_ one either. It is the same thing with some beliefs – I don’t believe in God, and I don’t believe in not-God. However, one _has_ to eat, so I did indeed have a sausage sandwich, if I _had_ to take a position on the God/not-God dichotomy I would say I believe in not-God. I hope this clarifies my position. \*(Cumberland style) vegetarian sausages, in toasted bread with ketchup ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/118 "2003-07-19T12:28:15Z")
Not-God: It’s not just for breakfast anymore. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849/119 "2003-07-19T13:32:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*Not-God: It’s not just for breakfast anymore. 🙂 \*\* Observe: [Breakfast with the Simpsons](http://www.taquitos.net/snacks.php?page_code=40) > [@](#): > > - > > **Homer:** Oh, Lord! Why do You mock me? > **Marge:** Homer, that’s **not God**. That’s a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling\* Anyway, my breakfast is starting to repeat on me… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/absence-of-belief-is-itself-a-belief/188849.md?page=5)