Is atheism a belief?

[bennyboy]

Belief is defined by cognitive scientists and philosophers, as the mental state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true, or likely true.

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts the proposition that a god exists, or they do not accept that proposition. There is no happy middle ground between belief and disbelief. If you think there is, and that's how you define your agnosticism, then you are using the colloquial definition, not the formal one.

This is not correct.  In order to arrive at a belief statement, the following must all be true:

1)  You need to presented with a well-framed question which CAN be considered in terms of belief.
If I ask you if you believe in boobledyboo, the right answer is: "I don't know.  What is boobledyboo?"  You shouldn't claim that since in not knowing what it means I lack an active belief in boobledyboo, I'm an a-boobledybooist.  If you ask me if I believe in God, then if you're talking about Skydaddy, I'm a gnostic atheist.  If you're talking about some mysterious philosophical principle or quantity which allows for the existence for the Universe despite problems with paradox or infinite regress, then I'd say quite possibly. If you just say "Do you believe in God?" I'd answer that I don't know.

2)  You need sufficient time for your brain to provide you with an answer.
Once you understand the question, you must process it.  Your brain has to poll your cortex, compare patterns, remember life events, and potentially collect more information in order to confirm that you do/don't have a belief. Unless you want to be more specific, "Do you, right here right now, have some vision of God in which you definitely believe," then you'll have to accept not-knowing as one of the answers to your belief question.

3)  You must not be psychologically conflicted about the answer.
The idea that a person is an individual entity, and that Yes/No questions can therefore always resolve to a single unambiguous answer, is illusory, and represents a philosophical abuse of our understanding of the brain.  It's perfectly possible that some brain systems skew toward "yes," some brain systems skew toward "no," and that the individual ego attempting to reconcile them cannot process the answer unambiguously.  You can rudely claim that such a person is atheist because they can't express an unambiguous belief.  But that's not how such a person experiences the attempt to answer-- rather, when they look at it one way, they DO have the belief, and when they look at it another way they DO NOT have the belief, and your question has not resolved for them the issue of which way to look at it.

4) The belief should not be conditional on an unknown quantity, i.e. be dependent on a state of knowledge.
I'd say if panpsychism is true, then I'd define the Universe itself as God, and such a God would be real by definition. I suspect that panpsychism is true, because of issues I have with QM, but I cannot confirm it to be true. So I have a clear definition of God, I can formulate an unambiguous answer, but I still cannot state whether I believe God under this definition is real. My belief DOES REQUIRE knowledge, it's not just a hunch.

All of these amount to a simple principle-- that it is perfectly possible not to know whether you do / don't have a belief, because your brain cannot arrive at an unambiguous response to a yes / no question. Sometimes "I don't know" has to be taken at face value, and your insistence on a bi-axial view of mind is impolite.

[Simon Moon]

Belief is defined by cognitive scientists and philosophers, as the mental state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true, or likely true.

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts the proposition that a god exists, or they do not accept that proposition. There is no happy middle ground between belief and disbelief. If you think there is, and that's how you define your agnosticism, then you are using the colloquial definition, not the formal one.

This is not correct.  In order to arrive at a belief statement, the following must all be true:

1)  You need to presented with a well-framed question which CAN be considered in terms of belief.
If I ask you if you believe in boobledyboo, the right answer is: "I don't know.  What is boobledyboo?"  You shouldn't claim that since in not knowing what it means I lack an active belief in boobledyboo, I'm an a-boobledybooist.  If you ask me if I believe in God, then if you're talking about Skydaddy, I'm a gnostic atheist.  If you're talking about some mysterious philosophical principle or quantity which allows for the existence for the Universe despite problems with paradox or infinite regress, then I'd say quite possibly.  If you just say "Do you believe in God?"  I'd answer that I don't know.

I'm not sure where you find disagreement.

"I don't know", is not accepting the proposition that a god exists as being true. If you accepted the proposition that a god exists as being true, there is only one answer, "Yes". All other answers, besides yes, are not accepting the proposition as being true.

2)  You need sufficient time for your brain to provide you with an answer.
Once you understand the question, you must process it.  Your brain has to poll your cortex, compare patterns, remember life events, and potentially collect more information in order to confirm that you do/don't have a belief.  Unless you want to be more specific, "Do you, right here right now, have some vision of God in which you definitely believe," then you'll have to accept not-knowing as one of the answers to your belief question.

I figured this is a given, considering that there is a mental state in which one either accept the proposition, or one does not.

As to your question posited here, "Do you, right here right now, have some vision of God in which you definitely believe", if the answer is "yes", then one accepts the proposition. If the answer is anything else, then one does not accept the proposition.

3)  You must not be psychologically conflicted about the answer.
The idea that a person is an individual entity, and that Yes/No questions can therefore always resolve to a single unambiguous answer, is illusory, and represents a philosophical abuse of our understanding of the brain.  It's perfectly possible that some brain systems skew toward "yes," some brain systems skew toward "no," and that the individual ego attempting to reconcile them cannot process the answer unambiguously.  You can rudely claim that such a person is atheist because they can't express an unambiguous belief.  But that's not how such a person experiences the attempt to answer-- rather, when they look at it one way, they DO have the belief, and when they look at it another way they DO NOT have the belief, and your question has not resolved for them the issue of which way to look at it.

But 'skewing toward' a yes or a no, is still either accepting the proposition, or not accepting it, no matter how weakly one accepts the proposition, or not.

As Hume said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

4)  The belief is conditional on an unknown quantity, i.e. the belief is dependent on a state of knowledge.
I'd say if panpsychism is true, then I'd define the Universe itself as God, and such a God would be real by definition.  I suspect that panpsychism is true, because of issues I have with QM, but I cannot confirm it to be true.  So I have a clear definition of God, I can formulate an unambiguous answer, but I still cannot state whether I believe God under this definition is real.  My belief DOES REQUIRE knowledge, it's not just a hunch.

I never said otherwise. People do not wait until they have knowledge before they believe things.

As far as your position toward panpsychism goes, if you suspect it is true, then you believe it, no matter whether you have knowledge or not.

By the way, it seems to me, that if you suspect it is true, based on problems you have with QM, it seems like you believe based on the fallacy of personal incredulity.

All of these amount to a simple principle-- that it is perfectly possible not to know whether you do / don't have a belief, because your brain cannot arrive at an unambiguous response to a yes / no question.  Sometimes "I don't know" has to be taken at face value, and your insistence on a bi-axial view of mind is impolite.

If one answers, "I don't know" to a question about if they believe something, and they understand the question, had time to consider the question, etc, then one does not, at least for the time being, accept the proposition, under consideration, as being true. They might also not accept it as being false, either. But that is not what is under consideration here. All we are considering is whether one accepts it as being true.

To use Matt Dillahunty's jar of marbles thought experiment.

There is a jar of marbles with an unknown number in it. It is a fact, that either the number of marbles is either even or odd. If someone claims, without knowledge, that there is an even number of marbles in the jar, I am justified in not accepting their claim. By not accepting their claim, does not mean that I believe there is an odd number in the jar, it just means I do not accept that there is an even number.

There are 2 separate claims; either there is an odd number, or there is an even number. Both have to be parsed individually.

Just like with the god claim. It is a fact, that either there is a god or there is not. If someone claims there is a god, if they are unable to meet their burden of proof, I am justified in not accepting their claim. That does not mean I know accept the claim that there is no god, as being true.

But all that is required to make me an atheist, is not accepting the former as being true. Even if I barely disbelieve, strongly disbelieved, or claimed I have knowledge that no gods exist, all are those positions are not accepting the proposition as being true.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure where you find disagreement.

"I don't know", is not accepting the proposition that a god exists as being true. If you accepted the proposition that a god exists as being true, there is only one answer, "Yes". All other answers, besides yes, are not accepting the proposition as being true.

If you say "Is boobledyboo true?" then I cannot answer that question, as I don't know what you mean by it. However, I can see that you are speaking meaningfully, and I suspect that if I understood you, I could answer your question. I'm not a-boobledyboo-ist by default.

But 'skewing toward' a yes or a no, is still either accepting the proposition, or not accepting it, no matter how weakly one accepts the proposition, or not.

As Hume said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

You are still thinking of the mental end-point-- the arrival at a statement by an individual ego. However, the self is more than this-- the brain is doing all kinds of things, and it's perfectly possible for multiple brain systems to hold contrary states about a question. Until you can verbalize your answer, a yes/no question stands in a state of superposition: not yes by default, or no by default, but yes/no.

As far as your position toward panpsychism goes, if you suspect it is true, then you believe it, no matter whether you have knowledge or not.

I wouldn't call a hunch that vague a belief at all. And anyway, we're not talking about panpsychism, we're talking about god-- a belief in which is dependent on actual knowledge: IF panpsychism, then god, IF NOT panpsychism, then not god.

If one answers, "I don't know" to a question about if they believe something, and they understand the question, had time to consider the question, etc, then one does not, at least for the time being, accept the proposition, under consideration, as being true. They might also not accept it as being false, either. But that is not what is under consideration here. All we are considering is whether one accepts it as being true.

I disagree. It's perfectly possible for the myriad functions of the brain to be in conflict, and for the ego to be aware of that conflict. How does one reduce a complex state into a binary answer? For example, you can have spiritual and religious feelings that are very compelling for you, and you can have an intellectual understanding of omni-3 and see that it cannot be explained away. If you feel that there's a God, but do not think the God idea holds up to rational thought, then which of these answers should you give when attempting to verbalize an unambiguous answer to the question?

My answer is this: if I can NEITHER definitely state that I believe in god, NOR definitely state that I believe in not-god, then I'm agnostic. I don't have any coherent belief worth stating, except "I don't know." In this case, the bi-axial model you are trying to fit my answer isn't very useful.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say if panpsychism is true, then I'd define the Universe itself as God, and such a God would be real by definition.  

I'd define it as a unicorn, and such a unicorn would be real by definition.

Panpyschism neither claims, implies,  or would demonstrate the existence of a god.  An atheist can be a panpsychist all day long. If there are reasons for your agnosticism, and there are plenty of potential reasons...this isn't a valid one.

[bennyboy]

I'd say if panpsychism is true, then I'd define the Universe itself as God, and such a God would be real by definition.  

I'd define it as a unicorn, and such a unicorn would be real by definition.

Panpyschism neither claims, implies,  or would demonstrate the existence of a god.  An atheist can be a panpsychist all day long.  If there are reasons for your agnosticism, and there are plenty of potential reasons...this isn't a valid one.

Not really the point. I'm not really talking about God, the definition of God, or about the nature of the Universe.

I'm talking about the ways in which a binary statement about belief cannot be expressed, and in which an agnostic position is right, rather than agnostic/gnostic X-ist or agnostic/gnostic not-X-ist.  One, because the question is not well formed-- so I gave an example of a very easy-to-understand definition which was unambiguous enough to satisfy that criterion: I didn't claim it was a good definition of God, or a popular one.  Finally, because the belief is dependent on knowledge which is unattainable-- since I cannot know whether the condition of that conditional belief is met, I cannot form a coherent belief (or statement about the belief).

Let's drop the God idea and just look at Schrodinger's cat.  Do you believe it is alive?  In my opinion, it would be foolish to say that you lack a concrete belief that the cat is alive, and that you therefore default to cat-is-dead.  You have a conditional belief-- IF the particle has not decayed, the cat is alive.  But unless you have access to that information, the only answer you can give to "Do you believe that there's a living cat in this box?" is "I don't know."  It would be nonsense to start pointing to bi-axial relationships between belief and knowledge, and shouting something like "Yes or no! Do you have that belief or don't you?" The answer would still be-- "I'm agnostic about that belief," because knowledge and belief are strongly linked in at least some cases.

[The Grand Nudger]

 And anyway, we're not talking about panpsychism, we're talking about god

Not really the point. I'm not really talking about God, the definition of God, or about the nature of the Universe.

IF panpsychism, then god, IF NOT panpsychism, then not god.

Quantum cats and potential ambiguity don't matter if any of the above statements are true, and they can't all be true simultaneously.  Again, if you have some valid reason for your agnosticism...and I'm perfectly willing to believe that you do (especially since the bar for a valid reason for agnosticism is "I just don't know", lol..?), the panpsychism angle isn't among them.

If it were the only thing to judge your agnosticism by, the only thing you could explain it by, a person would be forced to conclude that you were engaged in a faulty ad hoc rationalization for the specifics of some state of belief or knowledge whose underlying cause or justification you were unaware of.

If someone asks you "do you believe x" and you respond with "I don't know" you have answered the question "what month is it" with "tuesday"...or, you've simply indicated that you don't know the contents of your own beliefs.

If you don't know, and you have no beliefs either way, then the answer to the question "do you believe the cat is alive" is "no" - simply no. It's also the answer to the question "do you believe the cat is dead". It's an interesting predicament to be in, but only from a semantic point of view. You're an agnostic because you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead. You're an aquantumcatist because you don't believe either claim. I do think that this is a better example, but it only shows us a greater level of specificity into the two terms referents and how they can play out in novel ways. Ala

""Yes or no! Do you have that belief or don't you?" - No, you don't. You've given reasons as to why you -don't- hold such a belief and why it would be imprudent to do so, so far as you can see.

[900ft j]

"Atheism contains no positive beliefs. It is not a belief. It is a rejection of a claim."

that's the most accurate, clear, and concise definition.

[Bucky Ball]

Bennyboy
Let's drop the God idea and just look at Schrodinger's cat

That's where this goes off the rails.
Cats and particles are well defined.
A god is not.

Therefore your analogy is false.

[Simon Moon]

"Atheism contains no positive beliefs. It is not a belief. It is a rejection of a claim."

that's the most accurate, clear, and concise definition.

If I could get theists to understand one thing about atheism, this would be it.

The only hurdle that needs to be cleared in order to be an atheist, is to not be convinced that gods exist.

The fact that some atheists go further and claim that no gods exist, does not alter the fact that not being convinced that gods exist defines one as an atheist.

Those that claim no gods exist, are still clearing the hurdle of not being convinced that gods exist.

[bennyboy]

Bennyboy
Let's drop the God idea and just look at Schrodinger's cat

That's where this goes off the rails.
Cats and particles are well defined.
A god is not.

Therefore your analogy is false.

?

I feel like people aren't reading the posts.  Please read the posts first, and then respond to them.

---

If I could get theists to understand one thing about atheism, this would be it.

The only hurdle that needs to be cleared in order to be an atheist, is to not be convinced that gods exist.

The fact that some atheists go further and claim that no gods exist, does not alter the fact that not being convinced that gods exist defines one as an atheist.

Those that claim no gods exist, are still clearing the hurdle of not being convinced that gods exist.

Atheism can be a belief-- the belief that no god exists.  I'd say in response to specific enough god claims, most atheists are positive-- "Skydaddy.  No way.  It's logically incoherent."  In the face of a very general question: "Do you believe in ANY god at all?" then you're likely to answer, "No, I don't have a definition of God of my own about which I have an active belief-- and I'm pretty sure I don't believe in yours either."

---

Quantum cats and potential ambiguity don't matter if any of the above statements are true, and they can't all be true simultaneously.  Again, if you have some valid reason for your agnosticism...and I'm perfectly willing to believe that you do (especially since the bar for a valid reason for agnosticism is "I just don't know", lol..?), the panpsychism angle isn't among them.

I'm going to have to stop responding to you if you keep doing this, because arguing with someone who refuses to get what you're talking about isn't very interesting. I'm not talking about panpsychism per se, I'm talking about definitions of God which cannot be expressed bi-axially. I'm giving an example of a definition of god in whose existence a belief would be conditional on knowledge.

Let's try it one last time, then I'm just going to believe that my verbal powers are insufficient to even get it known what point I'm even trying to make. I don't mind arguing, but I'd like to argue the thing I'm actually trying to talk about, which we currently aren't.

IF one chooses to view a panpsychic Universe as a super-intelligent entity, and to define (DEFINE) that as God. IF. IF IF IF IF. If one says that if panpsychism is true, he'd call the Universe, which would be full of mental activity God. IF. IF one defined it that way. IF.

In that case, the belief would still be dependent on a knowledge state. That God, under that definition, cannot either be positively believed in or disbelieved-- i.e. there cannot be said to be a default position, but rather an unresolved superposition. In this case, there's no agnostic/gnostic theism/atheism expressible as a belief. You cannot say that you lack a belief, nor that you hold a belief. There's only "I don't know."

You can do this with other definitions of God. You could say something like, "If the Universe was created, I believe there was a creator God. But if it wasn't, then there could not have been a creator God." Now, can this person say they believe that a creator God exists if they don't have a belief about whether the Universe was created or not? No, not really. It's a superpositional belief, dependent on knowledge which we don't, and possibly cannot, have. There's no default position under this definition. There's no "You lack an active belief, so you're atheist." The truth is the person is both/neither theist and atheist, because they hold a conditional belief, the condition of which cannot be resolved.