Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The weekend has come and I will not reply for a bit while I attend to other priorities (like craft beer). Nevertheless, I remain interested in your opinions about the blog post. I encourage you to read the whole post; however, recognizing that all of you also have other priorities, I wish to point you to some of the points I found most interesting, to wit:

“If a mere ‘lack of belief in god’ is sufficient to be an atheist, then babies are atheists. You might say “yes, they are, or at least were before religion got its mitts on them!” But on this definition chimps are also atheists. As are dolphins, dogs, and doors. They all lack belief in a god.”

Here I think the author is saying that “atheism as simply lack of belief” is a trivial position. That is the essence of my signature line. That said, I think that most of the time those who insist on this definition do so to avoid the task of defending their actual conviction that god(s) do not exist. Next.

“The only time someone can be said to have a lack of belief regarding a god is before they’ve heard the claim for one. In some minimalist sense this person is an a-theist, but that’s an extremely weak point to hang one’s hat on. After hearing it, they can accept, reject or mull over the claim undecided. But lacking a belief about it is no longer open to them.”

Here I think the author is suggesting (as I believe) that those who maintain the “atheism as simply lack of belief” are disingenuous. If someone truly felt that he simply lacked belief, then he would not argue against the belief in God. It would be a non-issue to them. As such, I believe that a non-believer who participates on AF is tacitly a gnostic atheist, even though he expresses otherwise.

“Rationality is the ability to recognise the strength and soundness (truth) of reasons, and to trade in them with other rational beings. If there is evidence for something being true, then it is rational for you to believe it. If there is no evidence for something being true (or evidence against it), then it is irrational to believe it. I imagine that most of the readers that have made it this far would want to say that belief in a god on the current evidence we have is irrational....on an [b]evidentialist epistemology[b] we are rationally required to believe that no such beings exist. And due to the weight of the evidence against them, we can be reasonably confident in saying that we know they don’t exist, too.” (emphasis mine)

Here I think the author makes a serious misstep by conflating rationality with a particular epistemological stance about what can or cannot be known and how. As I have argued elsewhere, much of what we believe follows from existential choices, which themselves are is not amenable to rational scrutiny, as to whether we will take the world as intelligible (or not) and that certain knowledge can (or cannot) be attained. My blog post summarizing this notion can be found here:

http://chadwooters.blogspot.com/2016/03/...f-man.html

But let’s suppose someone adheres to a particular epistemology that leads them to not believe in God. I say to each their own. At the same time I think it entirely appropriate to insist that he apply his epistemology consistently. I do not think that an “evidentialist epistemology” supplies any path that can logically justify opinions about value, morality, aesthetics, meaning or purpose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As a believer I still like to follow the musings of the "opposition". Occasionally I find positions with which I agree. Even before reading this article, I adopted a signature mocking the idea that atheism is simply a lack of belief. I have posted this link as an invitation to discuss the points raised by the author who just so happens to be an atheist:

https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/

I really don't think care about what you think is "the best". You haven't convinced me that your opinion is worth more than a grain or two of salt, and I'm certainly not going to kowtow to your predilections in order to garner your approval.

Put another way, is an imaginary friend rescuing your ass from an imaginary demon the best you can do?

When you understand why you don't care about my opinion, you'll understand why I think yours is ridiculous too. But I doubt you'll get there. You don't strike me as terribly thoughtful.

As to whether atheism is a trivial position, perhaps it is. But tell me, is your rejection of unicorns important to your worldview? My atheism is to me trivial because to me, your little god is trivial, a blip on the radar of human superstition.

[Whateverist]

*sees masturbatory philosophical gobbledygook.  backs away crossing himself as he goes*

Spun that for you.

[Esquilax]

Is lack of belief the best I can do? Yes, because I understand the nature of the game I'm playing.

Frankly, that anyone can look back at the history of any particular religion and still opt for gnostic atheism is baffling to me. A simple walk through the history of religious claims, the way they retract from discovery, the way they shift, shows that claiming active disbelief is folly. You are not facing the same god every time. The nature of it will change over time, and it will change from person to person: this theist believes in a personal god who grants prayers. That theist, of the same denomination no less, believes that god doesn't answer prayers because of free will, or that god helps those who helps themselves, or some other thing. Over here we have a deist who believes in an absentee god. Centuries ago god crafted rainbows, until we discovered how rainbows formed naturally, and then he didn't. God made the earth shake, until we discovered tectonic plates, and then he didn't... Unless he did in this specific instance to send a message about gay marriage or something. But he doesn't do it every time. Unless he does because abortion is so evil. Also he sends storms to rage over sinful towns, but not the storm that damaged Pastor Mike's roof, that was a natural storm. Or maybe it was the devil.

We just know, heathen! Don't try to take our faith from us!

Consistency in the particulars is not something religion does, and this is because religions have solid motivation to change so that they're always responsible for the good things, but also just outside of any means of testing those claims. God claims that persist must also actively resist investigation, and that means changing to suit the times, while pretending they've never changed at all. It's a sort of divine natural selection: if you can test a god, there's a possibility it might fail the test. If a god is impervious to testing, then it's safe from that risk. But if a god can be tested, while remaining amorphous enough that failed tests don't count because faith or something, then you've got a god that only passes tests... somehow! Gnostic atheism is a loser's game because of this: theists don't have any qualms about tailoring their religious views to lurk just beyond the range of our knowledge, even if perhaps not consciously, and they're very quick to scoff at how unreasonable it is to actively disbelieve in their god, because their god is hiding just outside of your ability to falsify it, so you're just presupposing that it doesn't exist! You just want to sin!

So yes, I lack belief in god claims, because why the fuck would I actively disbelieve something that I won't even find out about specifically until maybe fifteen minutes into a conversation with a theist about it? And that will be a completely different claim if I turn around and talk to that theist's friend? What's reasonable about that?

[KevinM1]

*sees masturbatory philosophical gobbledygook.  backs away crossing himself as he goes*

Spun that for you.

Haha!

[abaris]

The weekend has come and I will not reply for a bit while I attend to other priorities (like craft beer).

I knew there had to be at least one redeeming factor about you.

[Whateverist]

A german who likes his beer? That's weird.

[AFTT47]

Is lack of belief the best I can do? Yes, regarding all possible Gods. No, regarding every specific God-claim I've ever heard.

[Alex K]

I can make a mean veggie spaghetti bolognese, as well as a glorious quiche lorraine. I consider that better than lack of belief. Lack of belief just by itself isn't really a thing.

[Whateverist]

Is anything more needed? Is it earned? To whom exactly must I justify myself?