Atheism is Not Simply a 'Lack of Belief'

[pattylt]

Steve, you claimed that Christianity has 2,000 years of descriptions and definitions of god, correct? Judaism has 4,000 years and even Muslims have ~1500 years of the same. Yet, they don’t totally mesh. You prefer your Christian definitions because that’s what you were either raised in or trained in or both. Many more disagree.

With so many years and so many descriptions/definitions, how can one honestly choose other than to just say, I agree with this one. Your agreement doesn’t answer anyone else’s question, unfortunately.

[SteveII]

I assumed at least the people I would be interested in discussing this topic with understand the claim I am addressing. That was obviously a mistake and I should have been more clear in the OP. To correct that, here is problem in simple terms:

There is a difference between.

1. I believe there is a God [theism]
2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]
3. I believe that the evidence is inconclusive or unknowable so I simply don't know the answer to the question [agnosticism]
4. I don't have a belief on the issue of God.
    -- From American Atheist: What is Atheism "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods [2]; it is a lack of belief in gods."
    -- The confusion is that it is not simply a claim that they don't have a belief in gods like a theist does, they have some other belief. It is a claim that atheism describes a state of affairs where no belief on the question of God exists. Babies are atheists.
    -- It describes a state of non-belief.
    -- If you have a belief, you need another word to describe it: agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, ignostic atheist.

The OP was addressing (4). My argument is that (4), a state of non-belief is confused and impossible once you become aware of the concept of theism. From the OP:

LACK OF BELIEF IS NOT AN OPTION
The only time someone can genuinely lack a belief regarding the existence of a god is before they have encountered any claims or discussions about such a being. In this initial state of ignorance, they can be described as an atheist in a minimalist sense, as they do not hold a belief in a god. However, this is a very limited and weak definition. Once they are exposed to the concept of a god, they can either accept the claim, reject it, or remain undecided. However, the state of not having any belief about the existence of a god is no longer available to them, as they are now aware of the concept and must form some stance, even if it is one of uncertainty. This shift underscores the transition from ignorance to awareness, where the mere knowledge of the claim necessitates some form of cognitive response: a belief.

Taking your first proposition above:

"I believe that god exists"

For any individual this must either be true or false via the Law of the Excluded Middle. If true then no further examination is necessary. If false then you immediately arrive at "I do not believe that god exists."

The Law of the Excluded Middle applies strictly to propositions and their truth values, not necessarily to the states of belief or knowledge. A person can be undecided about the truth of a proposition, which introduces a third category in the realm of belief, but not in the realm of logic.   Also, human psychology allows for uncertainty, doubt, and suspension of judgment, which do not neatly fit into the binary true/false framework of classical logic. Wrong tool for the job.

As I argued above with CapriMark1, the word picture/sentence in someone's mind "I do not believe that god exists" is a belief (definitionally) and therefore is identical to the word picture/sentence "my belief is there are no gods".

For reference.

BELIEF
Philosophically, it is defined as a mental state that represents a state of affairs accepted as true by the believer. This means it is like a 'picture' or 'sentence' in your mind that you believe accurately represents reality. When you look at your desk, you form a belief about that desk. When you think about the past, you form a belief about the past. The term 'belief' here indicates that you perceive the world in a particular way. It is important to distinguish this from the notion of 'acceptance without evidence.' Belief, in this philosophical sense, does not necessarily imply a lack of evidence; rather, it signifies a mental representation or understanding that one holds to be true.

At that point the individual may form further beliefs (e.g.: "I believe that god does not exist." or "I believe that another god or gods exist."); however, this is a personal choice and there is no logical necessity to do so and your statements to the contrary are baseless. All of the following are entirely valid:

 - I do not believe in god and I couldn't care less (apatheism).
 - I do not believe in god and the definitions used are so incoherent as to make further inquiry meaningless (ignosticism).
 - I do not believe in god and believe that the question can never be answered (agnostic atheism).
 - I do not believe in god. Full Stop.

More simply it is possible to reject a claim without producing any new claim or belief. It takes the very simple for of "I believe that you are wrong."

I'm okay with all of that until your last sentence.

I contend that belief formation, more precisely, implicit belief formation happens when you are confronted with a non-trivial proposition like does god(s) exist. You hear or read some concept of god(s) and at the very least, you compare that concept to your view of the world and your experience thus far and see how the concept might fit (we'll set aside for the moment that most people would ask for at least basic evidence, history, and ponder reasons the question is important.). The idea of implicit belief formation is based on the idea that our minds naturally incline towards making judgments about propositions we encounter--we can't help it.

The concept of cognitive dissonance suggests that holding an awareness of a claim (especially an existential one) without forming some sort of belief about it creates psychological tension. This tension often leads individuals to implicitly form a belief or lean towards a disposition about the claim.

Related is psychological inertia, the idea that once a person is introduced to a concept as significant as the existence of gods, their cognitive inertia will naturally lead them to form a belief. This is based on the human tendency to seek coherence and closure in their worldview.

[epronovost]

I contend that belief formation, more precisely, implicit belief formation happens when you are confronted with a non-trivial proposition like does god(s) exist.

I would content that "god belief" is a trivial proposition. It's the other proposition that surrounds god belief like "god wants you to do x or he will destroy with a lightning bolt" that are non trivial.

[Rhythmcs]

It's the religion that matters, not the lucky rabbits foot.

[CapriMark1]

This is the problem I was talking about.  What it should read is:

2.  I don't believe in gods. [atheism]

Until you understand this point, your arguments fall on deaf ears.

Ah, my claim is that these are functionally the same thing. The reason I worded it the way I did was to be clear that the "I don't believe in gods" is a belief. 

.........

if those 2 definitions are functionally equivalent, why pick one over the other?  No, I think you know they are not, but for your argument to work, you have to pick the one that is actually a belief. 

So, do you want to argue that "I don't believe" is a belief?  Here is the first definition from my internet search:


be·lief
[bəˈlēf]
noun

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
   

****************

Clearly, saying "I don't believe" is not accepting that a statement is true nor is it accepting that something exists.  It's the opposite of that.

[Paleophyte]

Taking your first proposition above:

"I believe that god exists"

For any individual this must either be true or false via the Law of the Excluded Middle. If true then no further examination is necessary. If false then you immediately arrive at "I do not believe that god exists."

The Law of the Excluded Middle applies strictly to propositions and their truth values, not necessarily to the states of belief or knowledge.

Hence my lead in, "Taking your first proposition above"

A person can be undecided about the truth of a proposition, which introduces a third category in the realm of belief, but not in the realm of logic.   Also, human psychology allows for uncertainty, doubt, and suspension of judgment, which do not neatly fit into the binary true/false framework of classical logic.

I'm not addressing the ambiguities of the human psyche. I'm talking about the truth of the proposition itself. The proposition "I believe X." will always be either true or false for any individual at any time for any value of X. 

BELIEF
Philosophically, it is defined as a mental state that represents a state of affairs accepted as true by the believer. This means it is like a 'picture' or 'sentence' in your mind that you believe accurately represents reality. When you look at your desk, you form a belief about that desk. When you think about the past, you form a belief about the past. The term 'belief' here indicates that you perceive the world in a particular way. It is important to distinguish this from the notion of 'acceptance without evidence.' Belief, in this philosophical sense, does not necessarily imply a lack of evidence; rather, it signifies a mental representation or understanding that one holds to be true.

I do not accept your belief. <---- Where in that proposition is it logically necessary that I hold a counter-belief?

At that point the individual may form further beliefs (e.g.: "I believe that god does not exist." or "I believe that another god or gods exist."); however, this is a personal choice and there is no logical necessity to do so and your statements to the contrary are baseless. All of the following are entirely valid:

 - I do not believe in god and I couldn't care less (apatheism).
 - I do not believe in god and the definitions used are so incoherent as to make further inquiry meaningless (ignosticism).
 - I do not believe in god and believe that the question can never be answered (agnostic atheism).
 - I do not believe in god. Full Stop.

More simply it is possible to reject a claim without producing any new claim or belief. It takes the very simple for of "I believe that you are wrong."

I'm okay with all of that until your last sentence.

I contend that belief formation, more precisely, implicit belief formation happens when you are confronted with a non-trivial proposition like does god(s) exist. You hear or read some concept of god(s) and at the very least, you compare that concept to your view of the world and your experience thus far and see how the concept might fit (we'll set aside for the moment that most people would ask for at least basic evidence, history, and ponder reasons the question is important.). The idea of implicit belief formation is based on the idea that our minds naturally incline towards making judgments about propositions we encounter--we can't help it.

The concept of cognitive dissonance suggests that holding an awareness of a claim (especially an existential one) without forming some sort of belief about it creates psychological tension. This tension often leads individuals to implicitly form a belief or lean towards a disposition about the claim.

Related is psychological inertia, the idea that once a person is introduced to a concept as significant as the existence of gods, their cognitive inertia will naturally lead them to form a belief. This is based on the human tendency to seek coherence and closure in their worldview.

You seem to be hung up on this notion that it's necessary to form some strange counter-belief in order to reject a belief. Likely because that's how your belief system works. Kindly don't project to the rest of us. We're quite capable of examining a belief, rejecting it, and forming no belief to replace it with. We know this because you can't hold my belief in your mind, for the very simple reason that there's nothing to hold.

[SteveII]

Ah, my claim is that these are functionally the same thing. The reason I worded it the way I did was to be clear that the "I don't believe in gods" is a belief. 

.........

if those 2 definitions are functionally equivalent, why pick one over the other?  No, I think you know they are not, but for your argument to work, you have to pick the one that is actually a belief. 

They are not definitions, they are beliefs...and functionally the same (at least you have given no reasons to think they are not).

So, do you want to argue that "I don't believe" is a belief?  Here is the first definition from my internet search:


be·lief
[bəˈlēf]
noun

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
   

Clearly, saying "I don't believe" is not accepting that a statement is true nor is it accepting that something exists.  It's the opposite of that.

You are using the "folk-concept" which is why I went through the trouble of writing all this down in the OP (and for which Danu gave me grief). The nature of belief and belief formation is a philosophical question and you need to use the philosophical definition.

From the OP:

WHAT IS A DEFINITION
It's important to understand what a definition of a word actually is. In the philosophy of language, the relationship between a word (the symbol), the concept, and the referent is central to understanding meaning and communication. This relationship can be described using the semiotic triangle, which consists of three components:

Symbol (Word): This is the linguistic element or signifier, such as a written or spoken word.
Concept: This is the mental representation or idea that the symbol evokes in the mind of a speaker or listener.
Referent: This is the actual object or thing in the real world to which the concept refers.
The process works as follows: The symbol (word) is used to evoke the concept in someone's mind, and this concept is connected to the referent in the real world.

Example:

Word (Symbol): "Tree"
Concept: The mental image or understanding of what a tree is—an object with a trunk, branches, and leaves, typically growing in soil.
Referent: A specific tree, such as the oak tree in a person's backyard.

The 'folk-concept' refers to the intuitive, everyday understanding or common-sense notion that ordinary people have about various categories and phenomena in the world. Folk concepts are shaped by cultural, social, and practical experiences rather than by scientific or philosophical theories. They are accurate enough, helping people navigate and make sense of their daily lives.

The point is, we need to distinguish between a 'folk-concept' of words like belief and more precise concepts (philosophically-speaking) of what a belief actually is. The nature of belief (and its application to theism) is at its core a philosophical discussion and if you engage in an argument with philosophical implication, precision is required.

BELIEF
The folk-concept of belief is basically an acceptance that something exists or is true, even without proof. [nearly identical to the one you provided]

Philosophically, it is defined as a mental state that represents a state of affairs accepted as true by the believer. This means it is like a 'picture' or 'sentence' in your mind that you believe accurately represents reality. When you look at your desk, you form a belief about that desk. When you think about the past, you form a belief about the past. The term 'belief' here indicates that you perceive the world in a particular way. It is important to distinguish this from the notion of 'acceptance without evidence.' Belief, in this philosophical sense, does not necessarily imply a lack of evidence; rather, it signifies a mental representation or understanding that one holds to be true.

[Rhythmcs]

Yep. That was me. Sitting there at age 7 just doing philosophy and stuff.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Obviously, certainly, of course atheist 'lack a belief in God'. They also have a belief that there is no god. That is my point, you cannot have one without the other.

Wrong. "I don't believe in gods" is a statement about oneself. "There is no god" is a statement about the wider world.

[pattylt]

I’m getting the idea that Steve wants us to say that “we believe that we don’t believe in god”. He just can’t wrap his head around the fact that belief isn’t involved somewhere in there…

[The Paladin]

The OP is based on one massive mistake.  Theists do not just believe that "gods" exist; they believe their specific god exists.  The do not believe any other gods exist.  Therefore, they are all atheists to the n-1 where n=gods.  Atheists simply add one more to the mix.

That's much more simple than the OP.

If your god exists, convince me and I'll accept it.  Pretty simple.

[epronovost]

“we believe that we don’t believe in god”.

That would be a nonsensical sentence. A more correct version would be "we don't believe in god because [insert belief here]", but that would be admitting that atheism is not a belief but a stance and that the beliefs of atheists can be widely different just like the beliefs of theists are widely different one from another. The problem of recognizing atheism as a stance is that then "god claims" can no longer be presupposed and Steve is desperate to avoid any suggestion that skepticism is a rational epistemic stance when it comes to "god claims".

[Dānu]

He's building a house of cards, in which, as often, his conclusion depends upon semantics.

@Steve:

Why is the distinction between a belief and the lack of belief important to you? That seems to be a shoe that is waiting to drop which can be handled without all this.

[Paleophyte]

He's building a house of cards, in which, as often, his conclusion depends upon semantics.  

@Steve:

Why is the distinction between a belief and the lack of belief important to you?  That seems to be a shoe that is waiting to drop which can be handled without all this.

I call dibs on the undead attempt by apologists to shift the burden of proof.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If your god exists, convince me and I'll accept it.  Pretty simple.

... until you actually try to do it, as Steve has so ably demonstrated.

[Thumpalumpacus]

“we believe that we don’t believe in god”.

That would be a nonsensical sentence. A more correct version would be "we don't believe in god because [insert belief here]", but that would be admitting that atheism is not a belief but a stance and that the beliefs of atheists can be widely different just like the beliefs of theists are widely different one from another. The problem of recognizing atheism as a stance is that then "god claims" can no longer be presupposed and Steve is desperate to avoid any suggestion that skepticism is a rational epistemic stance when it comes to "god claims".

I simply don't have faith. I'm unsure why that should be so baffling, even to someone who does have it.

All he needs to do is imagine what his outlook might be if he didn't have faith.

That is the only claim I make as an atheist: I simply do not have faith. I don't need others to understand this, nor do I try to proselytize this lack of faith to others. I just cannot believe the stories about gods. That is a claim about me, not about the wider world. It apparently rustles the jimmies of at least one Christian. That's not a me problem.

I'm happy to let Steve define himself. It's a shame he lacks the courtesy to return the favor ... a shame, but not a surprise.

[Astreja]

That is only true for gnostic atheists.  Agnostic atheists, including myself, believe that the proposition "God(s) exist" is indeterminate due to lack of credible data.  This is the reason we do not believe that there are any gods - we don't see any convincing evidence for them.

Then why wouldn't you just be an agnostic? Why do you have to add 'atheist' to the end?

Because. I. Don't. Fucking. Believe. In. Gods.  I never have.  I'm an atheist, and I'm not dropping the word "atheist" from my self-description.

It's highly likely that I never will believe in gods, unless I actually encounter one in the physical world, and even then the furthest I'm prepared to go is "Ah.  This appears to be some sort of god-like being."  (That's why I'm a strong agnostic - I believe that it is simply not possible to determine with certainty whether any candidate being is an actual god, or just an unusually powerful non-god.)

[The Paladin]

I know this is a very old trope, but the best ideas just can't be improved upon, right? Consider Carl Sagan's response to this question. (Generalizing here) Why don't you believe in the invisible dragon in my garage? I think its more than a lack of belief. Words, words, words, words. You must have faith that my invisible dragon exists because I say it does and most of my friends agree with me.

[SteveII]

The Law of the Excluded Middle applies strictly to propositions and their truth values, not necessarily to the states of belief or knowledge.

Hence my lead in, "Taking your first proposition above"

A person can be undecided about the truth of a proposition, which introduces a third category in the realm of belief, but not in the realm of logic.   Also, human psychology allows for uncertainty, doubt, and suspension of judgment, which do not neatly fit into the binary true/false framework of classical logic.

I'm not addressing the ambiguities of the human psyche. I'm talking about the truth of the proposition itself. The proposition "I believe X." will always be either true or false for any individual at any time for any value of X. 

BELIEF
Philosophically, it is defined as a mental state that represents a state of affairs accepted as true by the believer. This means it is like a 'picture' or 'sentence' in your mind that you believe accurately represents reality. When you look at your desk, you form a belief about that desk. When you think about the past, you form a belief about the past. The term 'belief' here indicates that you perceive the world in a particular way. It is important to distinguish this from the notion of 'acceptance without evidence.' Belief, in this philosophical sense, does not necessarily imply a lack of evidence; rather, it signifies a mental representation or understanding that one holds to be true.

I do not accept your belief. <---- Where in that proposition is it logically necessary that I hold a counter-belief?

I'm okay with all of that until your last sentence.

I contend that belief formation, more precisely, implicit belief formation happens when you are confronted with a non-trivial proposition like does god(s) exist. You hear or read some concept of god(s) and at the very least, you compare that concept to your view of the world and your experience thus far and see how the concept might fit (we'll set aside for the moment that most people would ask for at least basic evidence, history, and ponder reasons the question is important.). The idea of implicit belief formation is based on the idea that our minds naturally incline towards making judgments about propositions we encounter--we can't help it.

The concept of cognitive dissonance suggests that holding an awareness of a claim (especially an existential one) without forming some sort of belief about it creates psychological tension. This tension often leads individuals to implicitly form a belief or lean towards a disposition about the claim.

Related is psychological inertia, the idea that once a person is introduced to a concept as significant as the existence of gods, their cognitive inertia will naturally lead them to form a belief. This is based on the human tendency to seek coherence and closure in their worldview.

You seem to be hung up on this notion that it's necessary to form some strange counter-belief in order to reject a belief. Likely because that's how your belief system works. Kindly don't project to the rest of us. We're quite capable of examining a belief, rejecting it, and forming no belief to replace it with. We know this because you can't hold my belief in your mind, for the very simple reason that there's nothing to hold.

I am hung up on the notion that it's necessary to form beliefs in order to reject a belief. I understand that someone might not immediately recognize this, but I am confused why this is not obvious once you think about it.

I am referring to the part I bolded above.

Rejecting a belief requires a series of beliefs. The more complicated or existential the proposition, the more explicit and implicit beliefs you will generate. Go ahead, why did you reject theism? The very concept of 'why' exposes your error. Any why to that question will be a series of beliefs about the evidence, the concept, how you think it does or does not map onto the world, the epistemological weight you place on empirical things vs the concept of the supernatural, and on and on. They are not 'strange counter-beliefs'. This is simply how belief formation works.

[SteveII]

He's building a house of cards, in which, as often, his conclusion depends upon semantics.  

@Steve:

Why is the distinction between a belief and the lack of belief important to you?  That seems to be a shoe that is waiting to drop which can be handled without all this.

The fact that so many atheists buy into the nonsense of not having any beliefs about the existence of God has always confused me. The subject lent itself to some research and some technical writing practice of the OP which I thought would result in a rigorous debate--all three of which, as I have mentioned, are my current purposes here.

[SteveII]

That would be a nonsensical sentence. A more correct version would be "we don't believe in god because [insert belief here]", but that would be admitting that atheism is not a belief but a stance and that the beliefs of atheists can be widely different just like the beliefs of theists are widely different one from another. The problem of recognizing atheism as a stance is that then "god claims" can no longer be presupposed and Steve is desperate to avoid any suggestion that skepticism is a rational epistemic stance when it comes to "god claims".

I simply don't have faith. I'm unsure why that should be so baffling, even to someone who does have it.

All he needs to do is imagine what his outlook might be if he didn't have faith.

That is the only claim I make as an atheist: I simply do not have faith. I don't need others to understand this, nor do I try to proselytize this lack of faith to others. I just cannot believe the stories about gods. That is a claim about me, not about the wider world. It apparently rustles the jimmies of at least one Christian. That's not a me problem.

I'm happy to let Steve define himself. It's a shame he lacks the courtesy to return the favor ... a shame, but not a surprise.

I'm not trying to define anyone and I don't care what you believe or even the reasons why. This is a simple logical exercise involving belief formation and how that works and using a popular atheist mistake as the vehicle seemed to ensure a lively discussion!

[TheGentlemanBastard]

2. I believe there are no gods [atheism]

This is why you fail.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

That is only true for gnostic atheists.  Agnostic atheists, including myself, believe that the proposition "God(s) exist" is indeterminate due to lack of credible data.  This is the reason we do not believe that there are any gods - we don't see any convincing evidence for them.

Then why wouldn't you just be an agnostic? Why do you have to add 'atheist' to the end?

By adding atheist to the end it either (a) has no meaning and is doing no work or (b) you don't really mean "indeterminate". What do you think the word 'atheist' is doing in your description of your belief?

Why are you asking why someone uses a word, when you refuse to even attempt to understand the relevant definition of that word. You present yourself as an intelligent person, yet you wallow in willful ignorance. It's both funny and sad to watch.

[brewerb]

I'm not trying to define anyone and I don't care what you believe or even the reasons why. This is a simple logical exercise involving belief formation and how that works and using a popular atheist mistake as the vehicle seemed to ensure a lively discussion!

It's a nit picking deflection away from the problamatic beliefs that you hold.

First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[SteveII]

I know this is a very old trope, but the best ideas just can't be improved upon, right?  Consider Carl Sagan's response to this question.  (Generalizing here)  Why don't you believe in the invisible dragon in my garage?  I think its more than a lack of belief.  Words, words, words, words.  You must have faith that my invisible dragon exists because I say it does and most of my friends agree with me.

You're new and keep replying off-topic to my thread so I thought I would mention something.

I am not at all interested in engaging your 5th grade arguments and challenges to "prove it" (and never will be).

I will be more than happy to respond to something you want to add on-topic if I thought it was interesting, instructive, or furthered the conversation in some way.