No reason justifies disbelief.

[LadyForCamus]

If you don’t mind me asking, for what reasons do you lack a belief in god?

Interesting question!

I have more follow-ups if that’s okay!

I'd say: the knowledge that I'm not wise or smart enough to answer the big questions.

Other than the existence of god, are there any other questions that you would place in this distinct, “big” category?  Also, you seem to be implying that with enough wisdom and intelligence, one could arrive at the correct answer to the question, “does a god exist?” Is that correct?

That far smarter people have believed things that are different.

Do you mean to say that highly intelligent individuals have disagreed on the existence of god? How does intelligence relate to the search for the answer to the question, “does a god exist?”

That any individual, even in the Internet age, lives in a very restricted intellectual "belief environment" (what Foucault called an "episteme").

Does that mean it’s impossible for people to arrive at true conclusions?  You seem to be saying, “we can’t ever really know anything, so why even try?”  Is that an accurate reflection of your position?  If so, do you hold that position regarding knowledge in general, or just knowledge about the existence of god?

[Belacqua]

You seem to be saying, “we can’t ever really know anything, so why even try?”

Absolutely not. Exactly the opposite. We can't be sure of many things, but we should still do our best. 

(And I'm not saying that everybody has to study the same things I do.)

Let's take the standard definition of knowledge: justified true belief. We believe something when we hold it to be true. We can and should do our best to make sure those things we hold to be true are justified. But to be knowledge, they also have to be really truly true, and this is something that we may have to hold back from saying. History teaches that we may be justified, but still wrong. 

Obviously there are different levels of provability. In a formal system like math, we can be sure that 2+2=4 if we agree on what the symbols mean. But empirical and metaphysical claims are in different categories. 

Other than the existence of god, are there any other questions that you would place in this distinct, “big” category?  Also, you seem to be implying that with enough wisdom and intelligence, one could arrive at the correct answer to the question, “does a god exist?” Is that correct?

The bigness of a question might depend on what's important to you. I guess things like moral issues can be big questions, pressing environmental concerns, physics questions. Some of these things are more decidable and some less. 

It's possible that a lot of people have the correct answer to the question "Does a god exist?". Our job is to work out which of the available answers that is. If any.

Do you mean to say that highly intelligent individuals have disagreed on the existence of god? How does intelligence relate to the search for the answer to the question, “does a god exist?”

The existence of God is one question smart people have disagreed on. The other ones we read about in history should teach us humility. 

An example I cite a lot: Galileo rejected the alchemical concept of "action at a distance" because he didn't like alchemy and had a mechanistic view of the universe. Newton took alchemy seriously and accepted "action at a distance," which we have renamed "gravity." 

Surely it's better to listen to intelligent people more than stupid ones? I mean, stupid people may be saying true things, perhaps by chance, but doesn't intelligence count for something?

[Anomalocaris]

I thought I had, but I'll have another go.

Reasoned disbelief is the rejection of a proposition when there is neither convincing evidence nor compelling arguments to support the proposition.  Let's do Bigfoot as an example.  I disbelieve in Bigfoot because the evidence for Bigfoot simply isn't there - no bodies, no bones, no adolescents, no scat, no hair, no nothing.  Believers use all manner of specious arguments to explain away this (for them) disturbing lack of evidence: Bigfeet are too smart to get caught; Bigfeet are hyperdimensional beings; Bigfeet are aliens; and so on.  Given the non-existence of evidence and the non-compelling nature of the explanations, I make the reasoned choice to disbelieve that Bigfeet exist.

To be fair, there is also 'unreasoned disbelief'.  Things like, 'I don't believe in Bigfeet because I'VE never seen one' or 'My spirit animal told be not to believe in Bigfeet.' 

Hope this helps.

Boru

Yes that helps. I always saw it as belief is a threshold thing. You either had justification or it didn't meet a level of criteria. If it surpassed your threshold you believed, if you didn't your disbelieved. You make it sound here as if you're positively positing arguments against nothing.

I always thought that kind of “belief” to be infantile. Real belief has no threshold. It is proportional to quality of evidence.

[Rahn127]

I find the title to be a very accurate statement.

No reasons justify disbelief.

When there are zero reasons to believe a claim, then I can easily justify my disbelief by simply pointing at the non existent reasons that support the claim.

Until I have a sufficient reason to believe a claim, I'm going to not believe it.

If there are no reasons to believe something, then it would seem my only logical choice is to not believe it.

[Belacqua]

When there are zero reasons to believe a claim

How did you decide that the reasons other people use to believe the claim are in fact not reasons?

[possibletarian]

If you begin with the premise that only empirical, intersubjectively repeatable, quantifiable results count as evidence, it's impossible to discuss metaphysics at all.

Oh metaphysics is needed, at the very least to categorise,  I was more asking how you could could count it as an additional or alternative proof or evidence ?

Religious people generally accept authority, tradition, revelation, etc., as evidence. I'm not saying they're right, only that atheists have a commitment that they're wrong. That is why atheists do have commitments which may be challenged and defended. Atheists generally don't have just a lack, they have metaphysical premises they operate by.

It's not so much that I believe they are wrong, but that they cannot show why tradition or authority is a good way to determine truth, this is especially true when they are making fantastical and amazing claims. The athiest is asking if it can be shown to be true in any meaningful way, other than simply believed to be true.

Historical or geographical evidence is relevant if we want to know whether an event really happened, or what the original authors meant. But religious texts are usually of a different type. The Book of Job, for example, isn't important as a historical record. And it isn't really important what the original authors and editors had in mind. What's important is what people have made of it. What it means to us who read it. There are better and worse readings, but that doesn't depend on evidence. It depends on wisdom.

Sure you could pick Job, though I'm uncertain what you would take from it as a story, or how you could call it a story of wisdom, again maybe i simply don't get it. I used to think I 'got it' as a theist, but frankly as i read it again without a religious responsibility to make it fit in my preconception of a loving god it reads completely different.

I really hope that most people who use the arguments take it as a given that we don't know. It's not something humans are really capable of being sure about. Belief ("I hold it to be true") stands back from claiming that "I absolutely know it to be true." 

It's not fair, though, to say that the people who work on these arguments are trying to avoid something. In many cases they are sincerely trying to work something out. If you think they're wrong, OK, but don't begin with the premise that they're insincere. 

I don't think I was as much claiming insincerity as insecurity which often does not exist in modern times we are more comfortable saying we simply do not understand.

Well, there you go. That's the result of a long chain of logical argument. It's not easy to follow; it takes work. I'm not saying it must be true; I'm not sure. But many people have worked on it, sincerely found it to be reasonable, and held that it is something like proof. I know a guy at the University of Chicago philosophy PhD program who thinks it's probably true, and he has worked on it among smart skeptics for years. Which is not to make an argument from authority, but just to show that smart people can sincerely hold positions different from you. 

Oh they can, and do and sure people think it's reasonable, being able to refine an argument though does not mean that it is true and of course believing something to be true (no matter how smart) does not mean it's true,  smart people throughout history have believed some things we now consider silly, your buddy Aristotle for instance,  This is why we prefer evidence we can test carefully, refine and change if needed rather than just logical arguments.  Sure bring the logical arguments on, but be prepared to back it up with more than belief.

I don't agree with you about this.

I know.

[Belacqua]

true in any meaningful way

It seems that I hold logical conclusions to be reasonable evidence for believing something, and you don't.
I think that many philosophers and theologians have and still are making sincere efforts to answer hard questions, and you think they are just avoiding questions. 
I think we can leave it there.

[LadyForCamus]

You seem to be saying, “we can’t ever really know anything, so why even try?”

Absolutely not. Exactly the opposite. We can't be sure of many things, but we should still do our best. 

(And I'm not saying that everybody has to study the same things I do.)

Let's take the standard definition of knowledge: justified true belief. We believe something when we hold it to be true. We can and should do our best to make sure those things we hold to be true are justified. But to be knowledge, they also have to be really truly true, and this is something that we may have to hold back from saying. History teaches that we may be justified, but still wrong. 

Obviously there are different levels of provability. In a formal system like math, we can be sure that 2+2=4 if we agree on what the symbols mean. But empirical and metaphysical claims are in different categories.

So, then how should one go about investigating the claim that a god exists?  If intelligence is required for having a shot at getting to the correct answer, to what field of study should one apply their intelligence?

The bigness of a question might depend on what's important to you. I guess things like moral issues can be big questions, pressing environmental concerns, physics questions. Some of these things are more decidable and some less. 

It's possible that a lot of people have the correct answer to the question "Does a god exist?". Our job is to work out which of the available answers that is. If any.

Again, I'll ask, how should we go about finding the true answer to that question?  It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), that you think scientific inquiry is the wrong tool for this job, because the nature of things the scientific method endeavors to find belong to a different (and mutually exclusive) category from metaphysical truths.  If not the scientific method, what other method should we employ in order to arrive at a true answer to the question, "does a god exist?"

Surely it's better to listen to intelligent people more than stupid ones? I mean, stupid people may be saying true things, perhaps by chance, but doesn't intelligence count for something?

Well, I suppose that depends on its relevance to the nature of the thing in question.  If you believe that intelligence is a relevant tool for investigating god claims, then you've got to expand on which relevant subjects we should be applying our intelligence to in order to have a shot at reaching a true conclusion.  When you eliminate any and all empirical and/or testable things...well...I'm not sure what's left, lol.

[Belacqua]

When you eliminate any and all empirical and/or testable things...well...I'm not sure what's left, lol.

The fact that you're not sure what's left tells me that you haven't studied the field much. 

Traditionally, metaphysical issues are studied by philosophy, and when they relate to God, by theology. If you rule them both out a priori then you can't study the issue. 

Some things are known through logic. Then you can hold them up to the real world and see if they're compatible. But it may be that no certainty is possible.

[LadyForCamus]

true in any meaningful way

It seems that I hold logical conclusions to be reasonable evidence for believing something, and you don't.
I think that many philosophers and theologians have and still are making sincere efforts to answer hard questions, and you think they are just avoiding questions. 
I think we can leave it there.

You realize that the premises for these arguments need to be demonstrated sound before you can accept their conclusions as true, yes?  Every single serious logical argument for the existence of god contains at least one disputed, contested premise.