The Fixation of Belief (thread for nonbelievers)

[Leela]

Hi all,

I’d like to address my fellow atheists in this thread.

I see a lot of maneuverring with regard to the definition of atheism as “a lack of belief” instead of a positive assertion of disbelief or belief in nonexistence. This sort of maneuvering generally seems to be done to try to shift the burden of proof. I agree with many of the believers on this forum who find it hard to see any pragmatic difference between these positions. As for the burden of proof, I think it always lies with whoever wants to convince someone of something else. In discussions on this forum, the burden of proof is shared.

I suspect that one of the reasons that atheists avoid saying that they positively assert that God does not exist is because saying so seems meaningless when detached from any conception of what God is like. Once someone is willing to say what they think God is like, atheists will then generally be glad to argue why they think that such a God does not exist or is at least is not like it is climed that God is. But in the abstract ,“God does not exist” is an assertion that many of us “atheists” can make no sense of any more than we can imagine what it means to say the reverse in the abstract.

If someone says, “God is love,” many of us “atheists” will say, ok, if that is all you mean, then certainly love exists and therefore God, in that particular conception, also exists, but why not just call it love instead of God? But if you claim that God wrote certain of our books, atheists as a rule should not shy away from positively asserting that this claim is false (assuming that they think so) rather than maneuvering to shift the burden of proof by simply being skeptical.

If one is so radically skpetical as to not be certain whether or not he is a brain in a vat, no one need be so concerned about their inability to break through his person’s skepticism toward religious beliefs. The skeptic who just keeps shaking his head and saying “nope, still not convinced” has a duty in conversation to provide good reasons for doubt. If he has no reason to doubt then his doubts need not be taken seriously. After reading Pierce’s “The Fixation of Belief” peirce.org/writings/p107.html I have become convinced that doubts must be defended. Doubt is no default position to rest upon as many “skeptics” seem to think. Ignorance is the only default. Once ignorance of a question gives way to doubt, we have a duty to ourselves and our conversation partners to try to resolve them into some belief or other.

Skepticism must have its limits. It is simply impossible to doubt every belief at once. We shouldn’t pretend to be doing it. Instead of radical (Cartesian) skepticism, we should adopt a more modest skepticism. We ought to temper our skepticism by recognizing that we can only hold a belief or set of beliefs in doubt with respect to some other beliefs that we remain committed to. Yet as fallibilists (rather than dogmatists) we assert that there is no belief whatsoever that ought to be held as immune to inquiry. We can question ALL of our belief commitments–just not all at the same time.

We hear the voice of the Radical Skeptic in such common refrains as, “there is no evidence for God.” Certainly evidence has been presented for God’s existence time and again on this forum. The atheist has just found this evidence unconvincing, and unconvincing (presumably) for some good reasons that ought to be articulated in defense of disbelief instead of presuming to be able to rest on doubt.

Best,
Leela

 

[Call_Me_V]

I think I agree with most of what you said, I’m just trying to clarify…

If one is so radically skpetical as to not be certain whether or not he is a brain in a vat, no one need be so concerned about their inability to break through his person’s skepticism toward religious beliefs. The skeptic who just keeps shaking his head and saying “nope, still not convinced” has a duty in conversation to provide good reasons for doubt.

When you say that we have to provide good reasons for our doubt, are you saying that we have to provide negative evidence against the proposition, or are you simply saying we have to explain why the positive case made by the other person is unconvincing? As an example, are you saying that in order to doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, we have to provide evidence the it doesn’t exist, or are you simply saying that we have to be able to explain why we’re unconvinced by the positive case made by those who claim it does exist?

Thanks,
V

 

[lynx]

I think I agree with most of what you said, I’m just trying to clarify…

When you say that we have to provide good reasons for our doubt, are you saying that we have to provide negative evidence against the proposition, or are you simply saying we have to explain why the positive case made by the other person is unconvincing? As an example, are you saying that in order to doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, we have to provide evidence the it doesn’t exist, or are you simply saying that we have to be able to explain why we’re unconvinced by the positive case made by those who claim it does exist?

Thanks,
V

I would suspect they mean the logical fallacies you see about God since proving a universal negative (God does not exist) is impossible.

 

[AntiTheist]

As for the burden of proof, I think it always lies with whoever wants to convince someone of something else. In discussions on this forum, the burden of proof is shared.

No. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. In the absence of evidence in support of the claim, the correct option is always to reject the claim.

If I’m trying to argue that there’s no good reason to think that Bigfoot is real, it is sufficient for me to point out that there is zero evidence for the existence of Bigfoot and to demonstrate the problems with the supposed “evidence” for Bigfoot. [Note: Obviously, I’m not comparing gods to Bigfoot – I’m aware that the claims are different. I’m comparing standards of evidence in each case]

The problem here is that it is more or less impossible to conclusively “prove” that “X does not exist,” regardless of what X is. But that’s not how we operate. We don’t go around believing in things until we can prove that they don’t exist – we simply believe in things for which there is evidence and doubt the existence of things for which there is no evidence.

But if you claim that God wrote certain of our books, atheists as a rule should not shy away from positively asserting that this claim is false (assuming that they think so) rather than maneuvering to shift the burden of proof by simply being skeptical.

There are different levels of context here.

Let’s pretend we’re talking about leprechauns. Strictly speaking, I cannot “prove” that there are no leprechauns, so in that context, I wouldn’t say, “I believe there are no leprechauns,” because in that context I don’t. I’d simply say, “I don’t see any evidence or any good reason to believe in leprechauns.”

But let’s change the context: day to day life. Not only am I comfortable in a day to day context of saying, “I believe there are no leprechauns,” I would go a step further and say that in the context of practical knowledge that is useful and applicable in day to day life that I “know” there is no such thing as a leprechaun.

In that same day to day context, I would say that the claim that the Bible was written by the inspiration of a supernatural being is false, but in a stricter context, I would have to admit that I simply have no good reasons or evidence to accept the claims of divine authorship.

Doubt is no default position to rest upon as many “skeptics” seem to think.

It is the default in the face of extraordinary claims.

If I come to you and say that I own a flying car that travels through time, do you have to give me good reasons to doubt my claim in order to reject it? Or is it my responsibility to demonstrate my extraordinary claim before I can expect anyone to accept it?

Skepticism must have its limits. It is simply impossible to doubt every belief at once.

No one’s suggesting that we must “doubt every belief at once.” What we should do is to doubt extraordinary claims until there is evidence for them.

We hear the voice of the Radical Skeptic in such common refrains as, “there is no evidence for God.” Certainly evidence has been presented for God’s existence time and again on this forum. The atheist has just found this evidence unconvincing, and unconvincing (presumably) for some good reasons that ought to be articulated in defense of disbelief instead of presuming to be able to rest on doubt.

If all you’re saying here is, “people should clearly explain why they find supposed ‘evidence’ to be not evidence at all,” then all I can say is, duh. I’m all in favor of that, but that has nothing to do with switching the burden of proof.

I don’t see the point you’re making here.

 

[flyingfish]

I think an absence of evidence is all the reason I need to disbelieve. I agree that atheists should be able to justify why they hold the position of atheism, but I don’t think anything more than “there is no evidence to believe in God” is needed.

But I see your point, for this precise reason I say that I am an agnostic rather than an atheist. I would say I am a negative atheist (lack of belief in the absence of evidence), but I definitely would not make a positive claim that God does not exist. I would say there is no evidence that God exists, and for this reason I don’t believe. I don’t claim to know for sure that God does not exist.

(Just like I don’t claim to know for sure that aliens are not abducting people and killing cows, just like I don’t claim to know for sure that I’m not hallucinating this conversation. But since I don’t have evidence for these beliefs, I don’t hold them.)