Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[tonyrey]

I don’t think so, unless you’re using an obscure definition of “pagan”. According to Wikipedia, paganism is a blanket term for polytheistic religions. A person being ignorant of a conception of a deity certainly doesn’t imply that they believe in many deities. In fact, they would believe in none, which would make “atheist” the more appropriate label, at least by my reckoning.

“Pagan” came to be equated with a Christianized sense of “epicurean” to signify a person who is sensual,** materialistic**, self-indulgent, unconcerned with the future and uninterested in sophisticated religion. The word was usually used in this worldly and stereotypical sense, particularly among those who were drawing attention to what they perceived as being the limitations of Paganism. - wikipedia

And that’s okay if those are the definitions you use. However, those are not the most commonly used definitions. More often than not, an atheist is taken to be a person who doesn’t believe in a deity and an agnostic is taken to be a person who believes we can’t gain knowledge pertaining to deities. Those are the definitions I use. The qualification that a person must be aware of conceptions of deities isn’t usually added to the definition of “atheism”, and so I exclude it from my definition.

A person who doesn’t believe in a deity is one who is aware of the meaning of deity. It doesn’t make sense to disbelieve in something you have never heard about!

 

[Oreoracle]

Regardless of whether your premise is true or not, I do not think it is in an atheist’s best interest to class his beliefs with the lack of belief in children who have not yet reached the age of reason.

I don’t think it’s in Christians’ best interest to class their beliefs with those who launched the Crusades and the Inquisition, but they would be cherrypicking to ignore such people and their being Christian, no?

The bottom line is that everyone was once an atheist. You don’t have to infer that atheism is “childish” from that fact. Just because children agree with it doesn’t make it wrong. Even though children are naive, they are free from bias; they’ve not yet had dogma foisted upon them. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if you isolated a child from religious influence and educated him or her in the sciences, they wouldn’t even come close to conceiving in what most people take to be a deity. Religion, in its modern form*, only comes about when it is suggested; it does not arise naturally.

• By “modern form” I am referring to the fact that religion nowadays does not attempt to explain natural phenomena, unlike religion in the past.

Catholic theology teaches that man has a natural desire to see God. If you do not believe this, then you must explain why adults do have a concept of God that wasn’t present in early childhood (assuming your premise).

I already answered that: It was suggested to them by other people. If this constant suggestion didn’t happen, and people were sufficiently educated about the nature of the universe, I highly doubt that people would see the need to propose an immaterial, completely undetectable, and rather shy deity. I’m sure that more primitive deities would arise that are meant to explain natural phenomena among the less educated, but educated society would almost surely have no need for this nearly deist god, who supposedly created the natural laws and seemingly lets the world run its course from there.

Also, having a concept now that you didn’t have as a child does not imply that we have a natural desire for that concept. For example, very few children are aware of the concept of death at an early age, and so they would never think about murdering someone. Yet, adults not only have the concepts of death and murder–they make those concepts a reality. So does the fact that some people want to murder now when they didn’t as children imply that the desire to murder is “natural”?

No, it implies ignorance of the concept of God. Atheism, is a conscious rejection of the existence of God, and it has always been understood as that. You merely want to redefine the word to suit your agenda.

This definition of atheism existed long before I came into the picture. The version of atheism you describe is often called “positive atheism”, “hard atheism”, or “strong atheism”. It is understood as a type of atheism. However, to be an atheist, a person need only be a negative, soft, or weak atheist (take your pick). Both of these positions encompass all of atheism, and they have one thing in common: they both require lack of belief in a deity. That is the only criterion you have to meet to fall into one of these two categories of atheism.

See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

As you can see, these definitions cropped up as early as 1976, and so you’re 35 years too late to say I have an agenda, I’m afraid. Try again later.

A very small child does not have a concept of humanity, does that mean they don’t believe in humanity? No. It simply means that they are ignorant of the concept.

Actually, if your premise is true, they wouldn’t believe in it. You can’t believe in X if you don’t know what constitutes X. What you just said is like saying you can believe in the Big Bang model without knowing that its a cosmological theory. Sure, you don’t have to understand all of the terminology, but if you don’t even understand conceptually that it pertains to the origin of this form of the universe, then you definitely can’t believe in it.

Is there something wrong with you?

Somebody seems to have a short temper!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ho doesn’t believe in a deity is one who is aware of the meaning of deity. It doesn’t make sense to disbelieve in something you have never heard about!

People are using different definitions here. In one definition people use “disbelief” (or something similar). In another people are using a definition that contains “without belief”. I checked through a few dictionaries and I can find variations of these definitions in different dictionaries. The small differences in these definitions makes for a significant amount of disagreement.

So far this is the only word with the greek prefix “a-” around which there is so much disagreement that I can identify. For some other words the differences between withing and against are distinguished through the uses of the prefix “a-” vs “anti-” such as “apathy” (without feeling, doesn’t care) vs “antipathy” (having averse feelings against).

Some of the other prefixed words I considered: asexual, atypical, astigmatism, arrhythmic, acellular

 

[Oreoracle]

A person who doesn’t believe in a deity is one who is aware of the meaning of deity. It doesn’t make sense to disbelieve in something you have never heard about!

Sure it does. For example, you didn’t believe (or “disbelieved”, as you put it) in Pluto before you were taught that it exists, right?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What atheists cannot account for is the nearly universal belief in a God or gods who exercise(s) some kind of willful power over the universe and everything in it. Even some atheists who hated Christianity, such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, cannot entirely escape this instinct.

A materialistic explanation of the universe cannot account for this universal and persistent sense of the presence of design and the awesome power of a Designer.

And when one hears a cerebral atheist like Dawkins or Hawkings wax enthusiastic about a purely undesigned universe, one may have the feeling that such atheists are entirely out of their element, like the proverbial fish flapping itself in vain on dry ground.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This definition of atheism existed long before I came into the picture. The version of atheism you describe is often called “positive atheism”, “hard atheism”, or “strong atheism”. It is understood as a type of atheism. However, to be an atheist, a person need only be a negative, soft, or weak atheist (take your pick). Both of these positions encompass all of atheism, and they have one thing in common: they both require lack of belief in a deity. That is the only criterion you have to meet to fall into one of these two categories of atheism.

I simply reject that description as nonsensical and ideological in its agenda, since ignorance of a concept does not mean one would not believe in God if they were given knowledge of the concept by which they are being defined. It doesn’t seem fare to me that i should have been defined as an atheist when i was a baby, simply because i was too ignorant to make a decision of my own. Should i be necessarily treated as an atheist just because i can’t express beliefs to the contrary? I don’t think thats fare; i don’t see why atheism should have a monopoly over those ignorant of the concept of God. Neither would it be fare to call a child theist without out their acknowledgement. I simply define babies as ignorant of world views or ideologies in general irrespective of the nature of those world-views. I don’t see why ignorance of God in particular should get special definitions or special treatment.

Its seems very suspect to me.

Individual atoms don’t have knowledge of God. Should we call them atheist? They have an absence of theistic belief. It seems to me they fit the criteria if lack of knowledge is all that is necessary to deserve that description.

To define atheism as implicit, is just an attempt to swell the ranks of atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure it does. For example, you didn’t believe (or “disbelieved”, as you put it) in Pluto before you were taught that it exists, right?

I neither believed nor disbelieved because I hadn’t even thought about planets. I was in a state of blissful ignorance…

 

[Oreoracle]

I simply reject that description as nonsensical and ideological in its agenda, since ignorance of a concept does not mean one would not believe in God if they were given knowledge of the concept by which they are being defined.

Sure, but what you’re saying could be applied to nearly any belief. For example, I’m sure many people wouldn’t believe in a deity if they were given knowledge of the sciences.

It doesn’t seem fare to me that i should have been defined as an atheist when i was a baby, simply because i was too ignorant to make a decision of my own.

I don’t think it’s fair for children to be counted among the ranks of theists simply because their parents told them a deity exists and they’re too young to question that assertion. In fact, unless I’m quite mistaken, the Catholic Church counts baptized children among its members. Why is it fair for them to be considered theists but unfair for them to be considered atheists? You guys are the ones employing special treatment.

Should i be necessarily treated as an atheist just because i can’t express beliefs to the contrary?

Expression isn’t the issue; possession is. You simply didn’t possess beliefs to the contrary at that age.

I don’t think thats fare; i don’t see why atheism should have a monopoly over those ignorant of the concept of God. Neither would it be fare to call a child theist without out their acknowledgement. I simply define babies as ignorant of world views or ideologies in general irrespective of the nature of those world-views.

Interesting. So you’re saying that children don’t have the mental capacity to be theists? If that’s what you’re saying, that’s fair, I suppose.

But I suspect that isn’t quite what you’re saying. Would you say that a 9-year old, for example, couldn’t qualify as a Christian no matter how fervently they declared that they believed in God? If it’s fair to count them as a theist, then it’s fair to count other 9-year olds as atheists.

 

[tonyrey]

People are using different definitions here. In one definition people use “disbelief” (or something similar). In another people are using a definition that contains “without belief”. I checked through a few dictionaries and I can find variations of these definitions in different dictionaries. The small differences in these definitions makes for a significant amount of disagreement.

So far this is the only word with the greek prefix “a-” around which there is so much disagreement that I can identify. For some other words the differences between withing and against are distinguished through the uses of the prefix “a-” vs “anti-” such as “apathy” (without feeling, doesn’t care) vs “antipathy” (having averse feelings against).

Some of the other prefixed words I considered: asexual, atypical, astigmatism, arrhythmic, acellular

Atheism is distinct from all these terms because it is a metaphysical view. It is absurd to regard young children as atheists because they haven’t delved into such abstract subjects - unless they are prodigies!

 

[Perplexity]

What atheists cannot account for is the nearly universal belief in a God or gods who exercise(s) some kind of willful power over the universe and everything in it. Even some atheists who hated Christianity, such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, cannot entirely escape this instinct.

A materialistic explanation of the universe cannot account for this universal and persistent sense of the presence of design and the awesome power of a Designer.

And when one hears a cerebral atheist like Dawkins or Hawkings wax enthusiastic about a purely undesigned universe, one may have the feeling that such atheists are entirely out of their element, like the proverbial fish flapping itself in vain on dry ground.

hmm, this is an interesting objection to atheism. What is it really saying? Here’s how I can understand it:

(i) It seems like you’re saying because there is an almost universal belief in some kind of deity, and an almost universal sense of design and power of the designer, this constitutes reason to think this belief and this sense are rationally justified.

(ii) Or, perhaps you’re making the claim that the probability that we were created is significantly raised given this near universal belief and sense.

Let’s look at (i). I’m not going to write this inference off as an appeal to majority since it could still adduce considerable inductive force. Given that these folks are fairly intelligent and educated would it be reasonable to accuse them all of being irrational? No. But, a good argument can be denied by a rational person. So, I’ll assume all of these folks are rational in their belief and sense (something most wouldn’t). I still hold that my reasons for thinking they’re mistaken are good. Suppose there is some erroneous position (p). Let’s say one person holds (p), and this person is rational. We shouldn’t really feel and inductive strength from this person’s holding (p). Now suppose 10 rational people held (p). I’d still say we shouldn’t feel anything. Suppose a billion people held (p). You may wonder why so many would hold an erroneous position, but would that change the fact that (p) is erroneous? I don’t think so.

What about (ii)? I would grant this. (ii) basically says theism has a high explanatory power over this observation. Sure. But, I’d say my prior for theism is quite low. So, when you combine the prior with the explanatory power to figure out the probability of theism given this evidence, you’ll get something < .5. In other words, (ii) doesn’t make theism probable, although it raises its probability.

 

[Oreoracle]

I neither believed nor disbelieved because I hadn’t even thought about planets. I was in a state of blissful ignorance…

There are two definitions of “disbelieve”: a) lacking belief, or b) asserting that something is untrue. I am using (a).

 

[tonyrey]

hmm, this is an interesting objection to atheism. What is it really saying? Here’s how I can understand it:

(i) It seems like you’re saying because there is an almost universal belief in some kind of deity, and an almost universal sense of design and power of the designer, this constitutes reason to think this belief and this sense are rationally justified.

(ii) Or, perhaps you’re making the claim that the probability that we were created is significantly raised given this near universal belief and sense.

Let’s look at (i). I’m not going to write this inference off as an appeal to majority since it could still adduce considerable inductive force. Given that these folks are fairly intelligent and educated would it be reasonable to accuse them all of being irrational? No. But, a good argument can be denied by a rational person. So, I’ll assume all of these folks are rational in their belief and sense (something most wouldn’t). I still hold that my reasons for thinking they’re mistaken are good. Suppose there is some erroneous position (p). Let’s say one person holds (p), and this person is rational. We shouldn’t really feel and inductive strength from this person’s holding (p). Now suppose 10 rational people held (p). I’d still say we shouldn’t feel anything. Suppose a billion people held (p). You may wonder why so many would hold an erroneous position, but would that change the fact that (p) is erroneous? I don’t think so.

That argument would also apply to belief in the reality of material objects! Solipsism may well be true if the majority view counts for so little…

What about (ii)? I would grant this. (ii) basically says theism has a high explanatory power over this observation. Sure. But, I’d say my prior for theism is quite low. So, when you combine the prior with the explanatory power to figure out the probability of theism given this evidence, you’ll get something < .5. In other words, (ii) doesn’t make theism probable, although it raises its probability.

What is the reason for your low opinion of theism?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Perplexity

**(ii) Or, perhaps you’re making the claim that the probability that we were created is significantly raised given this near universal belief and sense. **

Sometimes numbers do count. If one hundred people tell me they believe a bridge has not been washed out because the enormous flooding nearby is not great enough to wash it out, I am inclined to believe they are onto something. If one person says, “Yes, the bridge is washed out because, even though I have not seen it, I have not seen any evidence that it’s still there,” I am not inclined to accept that argument over the argument of the one hundred. I am more inclined to get up close as I can to the bridge and see for myself. That is the sensible view about the bridge, and it is the sensible view about God. Most people who try to get up close to God and experience Him are satisfied there is Someone to experience. But I have yet to see an atheist trying to get up close and personal to experience God. And why, from the distance, he should even shout a warning to people to stay away from the bridge to God is more than I can understand.

 

[Candide_West]

akasseb

Regardless of whether your premise is true or not, I do not think it is in an atheist’s best interest to class his beliefs with the lack of belief in children who have not yet reached the age of reason.

Yet I would wager that most atheists arrived at their atheism before reaching their full mental and emotional adulthood. Many atheists freely admit this, identifying the year of adopting atheism as somewhere in their mid to late teens. What that suggests to me is that atheism is not an infantile, but rather a juvenile, psychological condition … tied up in many instances with rebellion against authority of any kind. This view is held by many people who have analyzed the genesis of atheism, including Dr. Paul Vitz in his excellent book Faith of the Fatherless. That doesn’t mean it’s true in every instance, but it certainly suggests that it’s not an absurd conclusion to draw.

So are you suggesting that theism is an infantile psychological condition while atheism is a juvenile psychological condition?*

This seems reasonable given using the above logic and the fact that most theists acquire their belief while young children.

 

[tonyrey]

There are two definitions of “disbelieve”: a) lacking belief, or b) asserting that something is untrue. I am using (a).

If the phrase “lacking belief” is applied to young children it applies to almost everything and is therefore insignificant when applied to atheism. You can also call them amoral but it is misleading to do so… Atheism is supposed to be a rational interpretation of reality, not the consequence of a lack of rational development!

 

[Perplexity]

That argument would also apply to belief in the reality of material objects! Solipsism may well be true if the majority view counts for so little…
What is the reason for your low opinion of theism?

I don’t think the majority counts for little, hence why I said it could adduce considerable inductive strength. If I didn’t have good reason to be atheist, it could very well be enough to sway me to theism. On the same hand, your reasoning could justify solipsim If everyone is a solipsist, should I be to?

My prior for theism is extremely low for a number of reasons, I suppose. I find certain versions of the problem of evil and divine hiddeness to be particularly compelling. And, I find physicalism compelling which precludes theism. I’d say this (and perhaps other reasons) give me something like this: P(T | K) << .5. Where T = Theism, and K = background knowledge

 

[Perplexity]

Charlemagne II: I’m not sure I’d disagree with you. Whether we should follow the majority depends on what the majority is advocating. In God’s case, it’s quite sensible to come to God through prayer and earnestness. I think this is how divine hiddeness derives its strength

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide West

*So are you suggesting that theism is an infantile psychological condition while atheism is a juvenile psychological condition?

This seems reasonable given using the above logic and the fact that most theists acquire their belief while young children. **

To the extent that children acquire religion in childhood they usually acquire it from adult parents who have passed it on to them, rather than as an invention of their own. Most children welcome their experience of religion, as they flocked to be near Jesus himself.

The teenage atheist acquires his atheism, I would say in most cases, either from atheist parents, or as a self-developed philosophy that has not been thought through because the person is still in a juvenile stage of mental and emotional development. Atheism is the truncation of religion. Atheists who find religion later in life generally admit that their former state was one of youthful rebellion and willful ignorance of the true experience of God.

That is what I understand from most of the former atheists at CA. I would say it is also true of my own experience as a former atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

So are you suggesting that theism is an infantile psychological condition while atheism is a juvenile psychological condition?*

This seems reasonable given using the above logic and the fact that most theists acquire their belief while young children.

"Have ye never read, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?”

The innocence of young children is not to be despised. Many adolescents are more likely to believe what suits them, other things being equal…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Perplexity

**Whether we should follow the majority depends on what the majority is advocating. **

That is certainly true!