Perhaps we should clearly define belief.
Offline One thing that the RRS wants is to get agnostics to admit that they are atheists, that they don't believe in God. Many 'moderates' could also be described as 'not really believing'. I think a look into what we mean when we say we 'believe' could be beneficial.
With me, I always associated belief to that 'affirmative feeling'.
It's difficult to describe what this feeling is, but I think the important thing is that it was a 'feeling'. Perhaps the same kind of feeling you get from your gut intuition.
When belief is defined like this, agnostic makes the most sense as it's difficult to get an absolute feeling on there being a, or a lack of a, God. You get the "I don't really know" feeling.
However, when you get this feeling you could also call it 'toying with the idea'.
Sometimes I feel like I could fly, sometimes I get the feeling I could use the force or go Super-Saiyan... it's easier to think of myself as an atheist when I compare my 'belief' in God to these.
One good definition of belief (that Topher gave me once) was something along the lines of:
"You believe X if you would act on X."
So I might toy with the idea of being able to fly but I'd never be careless near the edge of a building/cliff. I might toy with the idea of being Super Saiyan but I'd never pick a fight where I had to rely on such powers. I might toy with the idea of there being a God, maybe even be able to have conversations with 'it', but would I rely on them to bail me out of life's problems?
Most people have "don't put the lord to the test" as part of their theology, so they're not supposed to rely on God anyway...
How would you best distinguish belief in God from non-belief?
- Login to post comments
B = Belief
G = God
K = Knowledge
~ = Negation
Exhaustive list (individually listed):
B(G)
B(~G)
~B(G)
~B(~G)
K(G)
K(~G)
~K(G)
~K(~G)
Exhaustive list (B/K combinations, but without combining multiple B's or K's): For example, weak atheist will not be listed as it comprises ~B(G) and ~B(~G). Why? Two B's
01 = B(G); K(G)
02 = B(G); K(~G)
03 = B(G); ~K(G)
04 = B(G); ~K(~G)
05 = B(~G); K(G)
06 = B(~G); K(~G)
07 = B(~G); ~K(G)
08 = B(~G); ~K(~G)
09 = ~B(G); K(G)
10 = ~B(G); K(~G)
11 = ~B(G); ~K(G)
12 = ~B(G); ~K(~G)
13 = ~B(~G); K(G)
14 = ~B(~G); K(~G)
15 = ~B(~G); ~K(G)
16 = ~B(~G); ~K(~G)
An inside look at each individual combination
01 = B(G); K(G)
The person holds a belief in God. Additionally, the person claims to know God exists. This person is a theist who doesn't understand the difference between belief and knowledge, or at least doesn't distinguish between the terms like I do. If K cannot be substantiated and confirmed, then it's not K in my book. If someone picks their booger out of their nose, he may very well have personal knowledge, but unless it can substantiated before the world, then it's not the kind of knowledge to which I refer.
02 = B(G); K(~G)
Houston, we have a problem. This person claims knowledge that there is not a God, yet believes contrary to their purported knowledge. If a person 'knows' something to be true, then it only follows that they believe it too. Because of this apparent contradiction, any claims surrounding the issue of God by this person ought to be considered circumspect, in my opinion.
03 = B(G); ~K(G)
This is what I'd call an agnostic theist. He doesn't know, but he believes. This position (though theistic) at least acknowledges the truth regarding the mindset of what theism is. There is no knowledge as a basis for the belief thus it's faith-based.
04 = B(G); ~K(~G)
This is actually a quite impressive position for a theist to take against a strong atheist. There is neither knowledge for or against the existence of God that can be traced back to physical evidence. How strong atheists can pull ahead is by using logic to show there is no God. This is of course assuming that a strong atheist is willing to take up the burden of proof (or better yet back up what they are saying despite the burden of proof issue). Either way of course, belief in God does not have a basis in physical reality, so the position is still in error, in my opinion.
05 = B(~G); K(G)
The weed has gotten to their minds. It's another contradictory position. The person claims to know yet believes otherwise. Not good. Seek help.
06 = B(~G); K(~G)
This person is claiming knowledge and has a sensible belief that follows (assuming it is true knowledge). Disregarding the burden of proof mantra, I think it's a good thing for a person to support claims that they themselves make. Any claim of any variety that is called into question should either be substantiated or reworded so that it's not an actual claim. One way to do this is by simply saying it's a belief. A person can justify their beliefs (if they so choose), but they do not have to because a statement regarding one's belief is a statement about one's belief and thus not a declaration before the world about THE WORLD.
07 = B(~G); ~K(G)
Lacking knowledge that there is a God ought to lead a rational person to lack belief there is no God, but after introducing logical evidence, it shouldn't take long (assuming the logic is flawless) that the person can believe there is no God. Remember though: we cannot control our beliefs, so they will naturally form from either faith or reason, depending usually on which is stronger within the person.
08 = B(~G); ~K(~G)
This is interesting, isn't it. The person lack knowledge that there isn't a God yet believes there isn't. A person that reasons and uses logic can most certainly come to hold that belief.
09 = ~B(G); K(G)
If a person knows, they therefore believe. Notice that this lack of belief will come from knowledge and not faith. Since it's about knowledge, then I fully expect for this person to substantiate their claim--which I do submit is implicit with claims of knowledge (but not with claims of belief). This person will not be able to support their claim.
10 = ~B(G); K(~G)
Puzzling. You KNOW it? Support that which you say you know. Never mind the burden of proof crap. SUPPORT IT IF YOU SAY IT! Plus, it doesn't make sense to know yet not have a belief. I'm saying that belief is a naturally occurring aspect of having actual knowledge, despite the fact that not all beliefs are grounded on knowledge.
11 = ~B(G); ~K(G)
Hey, this sounds like me. I have absolutely no knowledge of a God that exists. This plays on my mind. It's no wonder why I have yet to form a belief THAT THERE IS a God.
12 = ~B(G); ~K(~G)
Notice that I almost always talk about knowledge before I talk about belief. Can anyone guess why? I'm not prone to take things on faith. Reason has more to do with why or how I form or fail to form beliefs.
13 = ~B(~G); K(G)
If you know there's a God, then it ought to trump belief. One ought to believe if they know.
14 = ~B(~G); K(~G)
Again, if you know that a proposition is true, then it does not follow that belief doesn't.
15 = ~B(~G); ~K(G)
If you lack knowledge that there is, then you ought to lack belief that there is. This person lacks belief there is not. Wonder where that came from? This is the thing about beliefs you have to be weary of. Belief has no bounds. We must be very careful talking about them.
16 = ~B(~G); ~K(~G)
The end.
God had no time to create time.
I'd be somewhere between 6 and 7.
Lovely stuff Pika, although it wasn't quite what I was looking for.
I was asking what we meant by the belief predicate, i.e. How do I tell which of:
B(G)
B(~G)
~B(G)
~B(~G)
Applies to me?
While we're on this tangent, I thought I'd bring this up:
Some Christians actually hold that this is the position of atheists. They say that everyone has innate knowledge of God but atheists make a choice of refusing to believe. Again, I think this is a matter of them misunderstanding what it is to 'know' something, their misunderstanding of the 'K' predicate.
Strong atheism have B(~G) and is certainly not agreeing with ~B(~G). Weak atheism typically hold ~B(~G) as well as ~B(G), those two are not contradictory. Compare this with B(G) and B(~G) which IS contradictory, another reason why ~B(G) and B(~G) are notably different and not at all equivalent no matter how many times christians tries to claim that.
If ~B(G) is equivalent to B(~G) (popular christian claim) then we have
~B(G) and ~B(~G) is equivalent to B(~G) and ~B(~G) which is contradiction.
That is the same as to assert that it is impossible to not believe in X and at the same time not believe in not-X, that you somehow MUST believe in one or the other even if you have never heard of X before or have no idea what X might be.
God had no time to create time.
I really like that as a test for belief. And I think most theists would fail it. Atheists, on the other hand, pass with flying colors - witness the Blasphemy Challenge.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Actually Strafio, I think Pikachu hit the nail of what you were getting at on the head.
That was superb, Pikachu. Was that something you contructed here or something you'd written down beforehand?
The point of Pikachu's list is that it truly is exhaustive in regard to belief and knowledge re god. The interesting thing to me is that the formula can be used to exhaust all possible belief/knowledge positions about anything, not just about god.
This also points at the agnosticism thread going on beside this one. Knowledge and belief are 2 different things, though they are related. As it's often put, atheism is a belief stance, whereas agnosticism is a knowledge stance. This is why agnosticism does not (philosophically) fall between theism and atheism. To do so is confuse the apple of belief with the trombone of knowledge.
In common parlance however, the word agnostic is not used logically. I think Todangst is right that agnostics are usually weak atheists. But I think Trout is part right that some people use it to mean that they are not sure. Even then, one can be unsure whether there is life on Mars or not (for example)...but still believe there is or isn't.
God had no time to create time.
God had no time to create time.
That would be an experiment, not acting on a fully formed belief. The point is, if you were a theist and you decided to take it on faith that you could fly, that should be all you'd need to try the jumping-off-the-roof thing. A rational person would want to see some evidence before they came to the belief that they could fly.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
It certainly nailed half of it, perhaps the half I'd taken for granted.
There's still more to be asked:
How do we define belief and does it 'behave' like Pika's predicate 'B'?
Once you convince someone that belief is binary (either you do or don't) rather than a broad spectrum then the 'atheist or theist' dichotomy holds better. If it is a binary believe/disbelieve then how does one judge which one applies to their position on God?
In another topic I was talking with Hambydammit over the definition of belief. He said that the "Bob believes X if he would act on it" might come under problems as a definition, but I was probably going too far in looking for a definition...
The idea of a 'test' is much better.
The sort of problems that Hambydammit brought up over the definition wouldn't apply to a 'rule of thumb'. The "would you act on it?" makes a good litimus test to work out if someone really believes in something.
I'm curious what you mean when you say a "rule of thumb" approach would do away with the problems in the "act on it" test.
For those who didn't read that thread, basically I was saying that the statement:
1) If Bob believes X, he will act on it.
...doesn't necessarily work in reverse. In other words, Bob may act as if he believes X, but does not, and this statement doesn't logically preclude that behavior. So... all we really can learn if 1) is true is that...
2) If Bob does NOT act on X, then he doesn't believe it...
...except that there might be external forces (cultural pressure, for instance) that lead Bob to conclude that acting as if he believes X is against his best interests, so we know that 1) is not always true. So... the true statement is:
3) If Bob believes X, sometimes he will act on it...
...which isn't very helpful as any kind of test.
I further suggested that 2) is useful as an internal litmus test only, but that it isn't completely reliable because it is possible for a person to deceive himself as to the nature of his own beliefs.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
A rule of thumb is allowed to have counter examples and little niggles because it's a rough measure that works in general. A definition has to be absolutely literally perfect.
If you wonder whether you really believe something, you can ask yourself whether you really act on it. I think the most common one for normal people is morals, especially PC-based ones. "Do I really think that I should X or do I just tell myself that I should to appease peer pressure?"
This is kind of what we're talking about.
Like you say, it's not perfect but it generally works as a rule of thumb.
Aha. I get you.
Thanks for clarifying. I can't remember who said it, or even the exact wording, but there is a quote floating around somewhere that essentially says, "A decision is the same as an action." The point, of course, is that when someone really decides something, it becomes an action immediately, as in someone who genuinely decides to quit smoking and then quits. In my life, I've found that many people who say they've decided something really mean that they wish they could decide it.
Just some more gristle for the mill.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism