RE: Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?
March 18, 2016 at 6:18 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2016 at 6:23 pm by Simon Moon.)
In a epistemological discussions and debates, lack of belief is all that atheists need to defend. Even if they actually hold a stronger position.
Because lack of belief is the default position for epistemological claims.
To use Matt Dillahunty's hypothetical; there is a jar with an unknown number of gumballs. It is true, that there is either an even number, or an odd number.
If someone claims that there is an even number, the correct position on their claim, is not to actively disbelieve them. The correct position is to lack belief that they are correct, whether they claim there was an even number or an odd number.
Lacking belief that they are correct, does not mean that you are taking the counter positive position, either.
Because lack of belief is the default position for epistemological claims.
To use Matt Dillahunty's hypothetical; there is a jar with an unknown number of gumballs. It is true, that there is either an even number, or an odd number.
If someone claims that there is an even number, the correct position on their claim, is not to actively disbelieve them. The correct position is to lack belief that they are correct, whether they claim there was an even number or an odd number.
Lacking belief that they are correct, does not mean that you are taking the counter positive position, either.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
