Er… What godzillatemple said, above.
“in spite” vs “because” – succinct, and deadly accurate, wish I’d said it – have a gold star, gt.
Ok, let’s see.
Faith = Belief in God with the absence of any concrete evidence.
I can definitely believe in that, that makes perfect sense.
Atheism = Lack of belief due to absence of any concrete evidence.
I think there’s a slight problem with that definition. Where does an agnostic fit in then? An agonistic does not believe nor disbelieve in God, due to lack of concrete evidence. Isn’t that exactly what you just stated above?
You present a false dichotomy. My mind is not set to either “believe in God” mode or “don’t believe in God mode”. My mind, by default, believes nothing about God whatsoever. Agnosticism is a perpetuation of this state of mind, believing that since there is no evidence, no conclusions can be drawn about God.
Let’s put this in symbolic logic, it’ll make things more easily understandable.
B = Belief in God
D = Disbelief in God (Belief that there is no God)
What is missing here is agnosticism, but that is implied through not believing in either of those cases.
E = Evidence about God’s existence or non-existence
~ = Negation
> = Horseshoe, but I can’t do that without using the symbols font set. A < B means that B follows from A, you can think of it like, “If A is true, then B must be true”.
Now, the Theist can be represented by the SL sentence -
B & ~E
He believes with no evidence
The agnostic is represented by the SL sentence -
~E > (~B & ~D)
The agnostic, because there is no evidence, has no belief about God.
Finally, the atheist is neither of those, and is represented by the SL sentence -
D & ~E
He disbelieves in God with no evidence.
These are, at the base, the actual definitions of Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Not an opinion, simple fact.
ag·nos·tic
n.
- One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
- One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.
You are not an atheist, you believe that nothing can be known about the deist God, and so you withold any conviction about that God. You are still in that “default position” of not having an opinion about God, but instead of holding that view due to ignorance, you hold it do to examination of the hard facts, and realizing there is no concrete evidence either way.
It differs not, but it depends. Metaphysicists have many, many proofs about the nature of reality. That particular branch of metaphysics is called “Ontology” and is something you might be interested in looking into. Descartes offers up a particularly famous breakdown of the physical world, although there are problems inherent in it. There are also other views that attempt to explain the world logically, but I don’t believe there has yet been one written out that is entirely sound. However, as physicists have been able to accurately map out how the world moves around us and all that jazz, there exists some circumstantial, but strong evidence that there is indeed something out there. But, that could just be another deception anyhow. So yes, it does take faith for me to believe that there is a world out there. Is that so surprising?
Allow me to restate something:
Ask any philosopher how many beliefs he has, and he will say he has more than he could possibly ever count. Any given person has bajillions of beliefs, that is simple fact. In fact, to actually be able to “know” something, requires that you believe in it, so you believe in everything that you “know”.
Faith then, is a special category of belief. Faith is, in a way, opposite knowledge.
To “know” A, you must:
- Believe in A
- Have adequate proof of A
- A must be true
Faith, by definition, must satisfy 1, cannot satisfy 2, and 3 must be unknown.
In both theism and atheism, 2 is unsatisfied because,
Atheists believe that God does not exist, Theists believe that God does exist. Atheism requires conviction in the belief that God does not exist, much that theism requires conviction in the belief that God does exist. Anything in between can be considered agnosticism. Neither know whether or not it is true, because once again, there is no evidence. Therefore, both atheists and theists are exhibiting faith.
Lastly, another way of describing the differences between Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics. First, agnosticism, since it is the broadest category. We’ve already asserted the whole no evidence thing.
So, agnostics believe that nothing can be known of God due to the lack of evidence. Very logical, and the only one of the three categories that is seated on purely solid ground.
Theists believe in God in spite of the lack of evidence. Not entirely logical, an unjustified belief, therefore it is faith.
Atheists believe there exists no God in spite of the lack of evidence. Not entirely logical, an unjustified belief, therefore it is faith.
Once again, you are (surprise, surprise) wrong. I do not have any belief in the so-called “deist” God, any more than I have a belief in 10-foot-tall green alligators inhabiting a planet in orbit around Alpha Centauri.
If it makes you happy, though, I have repeatedly said that I am an atheist with regard to the traditional Judeo-Christian God but “merely” agnostic when it comes to what you call the “deist” God. I also happen to think, though, that the so-called “deist” God is nothing but the product of extreme mental masturbation by weak-minded people who are barely sophisticated enough to realize that the notion of a traditional Judeo-Christian God cannot possibly exist, but who are not capable of abandoning their need to be comforted by the thought that there is “something” out there watching over us. But hey, that’s just me.
With regard to the whole “faith” issue, I suppose you can warp the term to describe my lack of belief in God (or my belief in the lack of God, if you prefer), but then you would also have to say I have “faith” in the non-existence of Big Foot, UFOs, pixies, invisible pink unicorns, and an infinity of non-existent entites that I’ve never even heard or dreamt of before. However, this is not the way the word “faith” is usually defined. Again, there is a difference between believing in something in spite of a lack of proof, and not believing in something because of that very same lack of proof. The first is “faith” while the second is just our default state of consciousness (i.e., we don’t believe in something until we have a reason to believe in it).
You can play semantic games all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that my lack of belief in God is not based on faith in the same manner that a theist’s belief in God is based on faith.
Barry
Dakravel, what aren’t you getting?
The OP asks “Does a non believer express as much faith as a believer?”, and godzilla draws our attention to a fine dichotomy between theistic and atheistic belief.
You then reiterate your position that beliefs based on lack of evidence, be they because of or in spite of, are still equal faith positions.
Surely you see some difference?
Whatever, as I have taken many pains to point out (and obviously I must admit that I have failed), it is very easy to demonstrate that ALL beliefs ultimately come down to a place where we must admit lack of evidence. A banal example:
[TGU]I am sat at my desk.
[Devil’s Advocate]How do you know?
[TGU]I can see my desk, I can feel my weight pressing down into my chair, I can hear the key-clicks as I type.
[DA]How do you know that these sense inputs are faithful representations of some external reality, and indeed, how do you know that the wetware of your brain is capable of interpreting these inputs correctly?
[TGU]Um, I don’t.
[DA]Aha! Therefore you only have faith that you are sat at your desk!
[TGU]Mu.
So, what’s the difference, why is my belief in no god different to by belief in my presence at my desk different in terms of faith?
Ummm…, I never said you did believe in the deist God.
That’s what I said.
But, you can’t be atheist towards one thing, and agnostic towards another. You can not believe in one God, but entertain the thought of the other, but that makes you an agnostic. I said that you believed nothing could be known about the Deist God, because previously you said that due to the nature of my definition of God, it is impossible for anything to be known about him.
[quote]
godzilla draws our attention to a fine dichotomy between theistic and atheistic belief.
[/quote
The default state of consciousness is not automatic disbelief in everything. The default state of consciousness towards things is that of no opinion or strong belief. So, you don’t have faith in the non-existence of those entities, you simply don’t really care. You present a false dichotomy because your definition of atheist incorporates agnostics as well, and agnostics are not atheist. These definitions are very important. An atheist does not “not believe in God because of lack of proof”, an atheist “believes there is no God in spite of lack of proof”. The key part is that the atheist must believe there is no God, otherwise he is not atheist, but agnostic.
[TGU]
I am sat at my desk.
[Devil’s Advocate]How do you know?
[TGU]I can see my desk, I can feel my weight pressing down into my chair, I can hear the key-clicks as I type.
[DA]How do you know that these sense inputs are faithful representations of some external reality, and indeed, how do you know that the wetware of your brain is capable of interpreting these inputs correctly?
[TGU]Um, I don’t.
[DA]Aha! Therefore you only have faith that you are sat at your desk!
[TGU]I operate my normal life under the assumption that the physical world is real, and under those assumptions, I am indeed sitting at my desk.
[DA]Well, then you have to prove that the world actually exists.
[TGU]Why not show me a proof that shows that the world doesn’t actually exist first.
[DA]Ummmm…, there is none.
[TGU]Then both our views are equally valid, and require faith.
Right, all beliefs eventually come to a point of no evidence, but if we operate under certain assumptions, then much can be accomplished. The physicist assumes tha the physical world exists, and that cause and effect actually exists, and so is able to come to many conclusions about the world, assuming those things.
Now, that is not to say that he operates under no faith, but you’re attributing faith to the wrong aspect of his life. He does not have faith in his existence at his desk, he has faith in that the real world exists. That allows him to believe that he is at his desk. And now I kind of see what your problem has been. In your case, it’s probably actually true your atheism requires no faith, because there is, of course, a hierarchy of beliefs. Beliefs about the nature of reality are pretty high up there, since many things we do in the world, presuppose those. So, you believe that the world is entirely physical, that anything which is not physically tangible, does not actually exist. Atheism is simply a result of that, and so takes no faith to discount because you’ve already discounted the possibility of intangible beings. But there is still faith involved in the situation, because of your faith in a materialistic world.
I’d respond more, but for now I have to catch the bus to class.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dakravel *
Ummm…, I never said you did believe in the deist God.
[quote]
You are correct, I mistyped. My bad. What I meant to say was that I do not have “faith” in the non-existence of your so-called “deist” God any more than I have “faith” in the non-existence of 10-foot-tall green alligators inhabiting a planet in ordbit around Alpha Centauri. Again, I apologize for the miscommunication on my part.
Why on earth not? Who said so? How come I didn’t get a copy of that particular memo?
Right. If you define God as “a being about which nothing can be known,” I will agree that nothing can be known about such a being if, in fact, such a being were to exist. That’s not faith, however, but merely a tautology.
Hey – if you can define “faith” to include non-belief based on a lack of evidence, then please allow me to define “disbelief” to include not having any affirmative belief in something (or, as you say, having “no opinion” on the matter).
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t even make sense. No matter how much you struggle linquistically, a choice not to believe in something because there is no evidence to support such a belief is NOT the same as believing in something despite the fact that there is no evidence to support that belief.
To be honest, I wonder what you’re trying to prove here. “Faith” is, by all accounts, a deeply held emotion that motivates people to do many great and wonderful things, and I think you do a disservice to faithful people everywhere by equating their beliefs with my lack of such beliefs.
Barry
Nowhere. Why would agnostics needed to be “fit” in there?
Look, it’s simple. These two positions are simply answers to the question, “Do you believe in a god?” Or more specifically, “Do you believe in an infinite, personal being as described by Jeudo-Christianity?”
The answers are “yes” and “no.” “I don’t know” is not an answer. Not in a strict, logical sense at least.
You are wrong. B is the same as ~D, and D is the same as ~B. There cannot be a third choice. The Law of Excluded Middle tells us that.
Ontological arguments are some of the weakest around.
Problem!? What problem? I don’t have any damned problems! [would insert smiley if I did that sort of thing].
Anyway, I’m happy, I think we have found some level of understanding which can only be a good thing. Let us proceed.
You concede that my atheism is not an act of faith in itself, and you posit that somewhere “above” this in my “hierarchical” world view (for want of a better term), I commit an act of faith, which you surmise to be my belief that the world is “entirely physical”.
I’d like to say that you were right, then I could just claim that I had won the “atheism isn’t a faith position” argument:
dakravel: 0 TGU: 1
and I could get on with my life [would insert smiley, etc.]
But, a) I’m enjoying the craic, and b) honestly, I am unsure if it is true – and I’m having trouble getting “me 'ead around” this precise “angle”, so forgive me if I ramble, and indeed forgive me if I posit something now which later on I wish to recant (sorry if that puts you in a rather “unwinnable” position).
This is the way I think you are wrong: I’d be happy if in all my posts to this thread we replaced the words theism and atheism with dualism and materialism respectively!
This is the way I think you are right: I might have some level “above” materialism which is a faith position, if I have it, then this is it:
if there is something beyond the material then it will manifest itself to me.
I’m tempted to concede an equalising goal to you (but not that tempted). The thing is, dakravel, I’m not sure that this is a faith position, or a merely a pragmatic position. What do you think?
[a jolly aside]
Let me posit that there exists outside of the material, another world – not the spiritual world, but the Surreal World[tm]. This Surreal World exists if, and only if, no-one believes in it.
Okay, I admit that my Surreal World is a simple rejigging of the Liar Paradox, but rest assured in the Surreal World the Liar Paradox ain’t a paradox, the Law of the Excluded Middle is false, and knock-knock jokes have replaced the syllogism.
You get it, it’s a pretty whacky world. Does it exist? If one answers in the affirmative or the negative is that a faith position?
[/a jolly aside]
Balderdash. How does it necessarily follow from God’s attributes that it is impossible to know anything about him? God’s infinite attributes mean that he cannot be completely understood, but this does not preclude the possibility of knowing anything about him.
In fact, God’s omnipotence means that he could choose to manifest himself to a given individual, or groups of individuals. This means that he can be known, albeit not completely. (Of course, those people could likewise choose to deny the reality of this manifestation, but that’s beside the point. The question is whether God can be known, which is independent of whether people can choose to deny or explain away his manifestation.)
(my italics)
(temporarily unsure as to exactly which side I am arguing)
Would it not be sufficient that they doubt the reality?
And who is without doubt?
And if there’s doubt, can it be said that there is knowledge?
If you are talking about the traditional God of Judeo-Christian mythology or any of the other historical depictions of God, I would agree with you 100%. These Gods are described with very specific attributes, and it is these very attributes that allow me to state with some degree of certainty that these beings cannot and do not exist.
However, there is also the so-called “deist” God which is basically the invention of people who are smart enough to realize that the traditional notions of God are inherently self-contradictory, but not quite smart enough to therefore reject the notion of God as pure myth. Instead, they have come up with a concept of God who is defined as being wholly immaterial and therefore not having any attributes whatsover that can actually be observed or discussed. This God has the advantage of not being subject to proof or disproof, but has the disadvantage of having no relevance whatseover to mankind. As I stated before, I personally think this particular concept of God represents mental masturbation at its worst, but since the concept is defined as not being provable or disprovable, I have to say that, while I doubt such a being exists, we can never really know for sure.
Basically, if you define “God” as a being whose existence can neither be proven nor disprove, it’s no great feat to then say that everybody must be agnostic with repsect to this God. However, protestations by such people as dakravel aside, this isn’t the concept of God that most people mean when they ask if somebody believes in God or not, and is really nothing more than a distracting straw man brought up by people who neither have the convctions of their faith nor the sophistication required to abandon the notion of God altogether.
Barry
Sorry about the hiatus there, school is a hard taskmaster.
But, you can’t be atheist towards one thing, and agnostic towards another.
I guess you could be if you wanted, but it seems like it doesn’t make much sense. Kinda like saying you’re democratic towards one thing but republican towards another. What you really mean to say is that you’re liberal towards one thing, and conservative towards another. I figured atheism and agnosticism were all-encompassing sorta beliefs.
That isn’t how God is defined at all. God is simply defined as being physically intangible and possibly omnipotent. His nature makes it impossible for us to know about him at this point in time. It is not part of his definition that he cannot be known, it’s just a side effect.
Ok, you can have three states of belief on a matter. You can believe it to be true (believing it), you can believe it to be false (disbelieving it), and you can have no opinion or be witholding your opinion until further evidence (no strong belief either way).
The important part of your statement is bolded. An atheist is not choosing “not to believe”, an atheist is choosing to disbelieve, as defined above.
I ask if you love me. You say no. Does that mean you hate me? Not at all. It simply means you do not love me. Therefore, hate and love are two different things, same with belief and disbelief. If you do not believe something is true, it does not mean you believe it is false.
Ummm…, what is that supposed to mean? I mean, yeah, not one has yet been entirely sound, but can you expect they would be? I don’t get what you’re getting at here.
Yeah, in an explicit sense, you sorta did. But…, a materialistic worldview is not a trivial thing either.
This is inherently illogical in the sense it is not based in logic. I suppose it’s pragmatic if pragmatic is defined as “Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical”, but it’s a flighty sort of statement. Why in the world would something immaterial reveal itself to you? Why would it even care what you thought? How do you know it even realizes you exist?
Your jolly aside is interesting, but it’s simply the Liar’s Paradox, or even Schroedinger’s Cat in a different costume.
Godzilla, I’d appreciate it if you cut the “Atheists are so much cooler than everyone else” crap. Atheism does not require more ‘sophistication’ than theism. It’s simply a different view on the world. Atheists have no proof on their side, just as theists have none on their side, and so they’re both on an even playing field.
I realize that is what you figured. You figured wrong, however. Since the concept of “god” has many different definitions, it is perfectly valid to be atheistic toward some and agnostic toward others. The same way I can validly say that on one hand I affirmatively do not believe there is intelligent life on the Moon, but on the other hand cannot say one way or the other whether there is intelligent life somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy.
So, he’s not defined as a being whose nature cannot be known, instead he’s defined as a being who has a nature that just so happens, as a mere side effect, to make it impossible to know about him at this point in time. Uh-huh. It all suddenly becomes clear to me… Let me guess, the “point of time” at which his nature can become knowable to us is after we die, right? If that’s true, then please ask me about the whole atheist/agnostic thing again after I die, OK? Thanks.
Well, the point you keep missing (over and over again) is that the atheists do have plenty of proof on their side, at least with regard to the traditional notion of God as a being who is not physically intangible and who does supposedly interact with the material world. With regard to the other “new-agey” concept of God, the atheists are still one up in the sense that they require proof (or at least evidence) before believing in something, whereas the theists are willing to believe something in the absence of any proof or evidence.
As for me thinking that atheists are somehow “cooler” than everyone else, that’s not the case. More logical, perhaps. Less self-deluded (at least with regard to God), definitely (although I admit they can still be deluded about many other things). But cooler? Hardly.
Besides, I’m cooler than everybody else because I drive a spiffy sports car, not because I’m an atheist. 
Barry
Oh, and one other thing…
Awhile back I started a thread wherein I stated that as an atheist I do, in fact, have “faith” in quite a lot of things. These include my belief in the law of causality (i.e., that things don’t just happen randomly), my belief that the way the universe works here and now is the same way it works in other times and places, and my beilef that we are not just brains in a jar somewhere experiencing life as virtual reality. Most other atheists took me to task for saying this, but I still feel it is true.
However, these are all things in which I affirmatively believe. I am not willing to label my lack of belief in something due to the absence of evidence as “faith,” and I find your semantic games attempting to prove the contrary tiring. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. Lack of faith is NOT believing in something for which there is no evidence. Faith and lack of faith are not equivalent, regardless of how you twist the language.
I’d like to think this puts the matter to final rest, but somehow I doubt it.
Barry
His nature is that he is physically intangible. Do you have a magical object that can detect the physically intangible? Do you even have an object that can make a normal object invisible to the eye? I’m saying, with the equipment that we have, we can not detect God if he does not wish to be detected. Maybe later we’ll have this equipment, but for now, we don’t.
I’ve agreed that the Judeo-Christian God has some problems due to the bible and all that, but I’m not dealing with that here. At least that is not the primary concern, I’m speaking more of other concepts of God.
However, once again, Atheists do not simply not believe in God, that is what an agnostic does. An Atheist disbelieves in God, in that he believes there is no God. A much stronger belief. Do you see the difference? This is not a semantic game, it’s a truth, there is a difference between belief, no belief, and disbelief. You seem to be consistently ignoring that. I’ll write a proof later, to solidify exactly what I am saying.
According to your personal definition. Most people who consider themselves atheists would disagree. It’s not considered polite form to tell people what they really believe and then criticize that belief.
No need to have a logical proof of a word in common usage, and any attempt to do so is, I’m sorry to say, nothing more than a semantic game.
Barry
a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
-
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
-
A godless person. [Obs.]
n : someone who denies the existence of god
Then most atheists don’t understand the meaning of the word atheist. Just because I call myself a samurai doesn’t mean I’m a samurai. Just because I say I’m president does not make me president. I still gotta fall under certain criteria. If the atheists you know believe there might be a god, then they’re not atheists at all, they’re agnostic. No semantics, real definitions right up there.
And I’m saying I don’t believe that a god that went out of its way to avoid detection could/would mind in the least if I denied its existence, because, let’s face it, anything else would be perverse.
Hey dakravel, you know if you look in the dictionary under redundant, it says, “see redundant”?