Is there a 'default' stance on theism?

[Mithrae]

On consultation with the moderation team, I've learned that a recent thread intended to open up debate about certain views contained "pejerotive rhetoric" about those views in the title - unlike Why do Christians hate women? or Non-believers to BURN IN HELL!

As I read it I thought the thread had a lot of potential and was proceeding quite civilly, so I was a little disappointed when I reached the end. But since an offer has been made to 'consider' allowing an alternative thread to proceed with a new title and OP, I've taken the liberty of making a few small changes which I hope EduChris does not mind.

• EduChris wrote:
  Many non-theists have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves. So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, few arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."
  
  Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.
  
  However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.
  
  Question for debate: should this notion of a 'default' stance on the ultimate nature of reality be abandoned? Why should anyone be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?
  
  Isn't it time for these non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

[Mithrae]

This makes sense to me. The idea that there is some "default position" for human belief seems very dubious. That human reasoning will automatically go towards some conclusion, unless some other non-normative human process gets in the way, is highly controversial and requires some argumentation to demonstrate that this is the case. The claim relies on indefinite terms (for example, what is this "non-normative human process," and why should it be considered as "getting in the way" at all?) and seems culturally conditioned more than objective.

---------------------------------------------

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?

EduChris wrote:
Isn't it time for the non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

Religion seems to be the lazy road if you ask me, not atheism. For example:
I don't know how life got here.
Chris says a god did it.
That seems lazy when compared to:
I don't know how life got here, I better study that more.

You seem to be confused.

---------------------------------------------

Clownboat wrote:
...Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?...

I need not explain that which I have not claimed. Your preconceived dogmas are preventing you from understanding my actual claim.

What I am saying is that the standard non-theist arguments work well only against the obsolete, philosophically naive concept of "accidental" or "logically contingent" gods. But since no one today seriously argues for such "gods," the debate needs to move on; non-theists need to abandon their worn-out strawman arguments.

We need to debate the type of theism that lies at the source of all the major world theisms, and here the question is not "Does God exist?" but rather, "Does Ultimate Reality involve some element of volition, or is Ultimate Reality limited solely to some admixture of chance & necessity?" You can argue whatever way you wish, but you have to present an actual argument, for there is no obvious "default position" here.

---------------------------------------------

I voted yes.

I don't really care about the default position, cream usually rises to the top, IMO.

I do think that atheist argument should evolve.
Nothing wrong with that.

---------------------------------------------

Clownboat wrote:
...Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?...

EduChris wrote:
I need not explain that which I have not claimed. Your preconceived dogmas are preventing you from understanding my actual claim.

I did not say that you made a claim. I "asked" if you could explain. I will assume you cannot.

EduChris wrote:
What I am saying is that the standard non-theist arguments work well only against the obsolete, philosophically naive concept of "accidental" or "logically contingent" gods. But since no one today seriously argues for such "gods," the debate needs to move on; non-theists need to abandon their worn-out strawman arguments.

We need to debate the type of theism that lies at the source of all the major world theisms, and here the question is not "Does God exist?" but rather, "Does Ultimate Reality involve some element of volition, or is Ultimate Reality limited solely to some admixture of chance & necessity?" You can argue whatever way you wish, but you have to present an actual argument, for there is no obvious "default position" here.

How is your god different than Thor, Allah, Zeus and so on? If the arguement works against them, it works against yours. Unless you are using special pleading.
Is being a stamp collector the default possition or not being a stamp collector?

I still think that my opinion about god claims being lazy is accurate and you certainly did not refute it.

---------------------------------------------

Clownboat wrote:

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.

It is true that in this case we would not call John a non-stamp collector. We would call him something else entirely. We might call him a coin collector. Or a basketball player. Or a biker. Or a guy-who-sits-quietly-and-moves-as-little-as-possible.

Not collecting stamps is not the default. It is not anything. As long as John is alive then he is doing something, and if we are starting from scratch then there is no default.

Clownboat wrote:

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?

If I understood EduChris argument, then I dont think that he claimed that the Christian God should be the default. It appears that he is saying that there should not be any default. Everyone who enters a debate must have a position, must defend that position, and must hold their own position to the same standards that they put on other positions.

---------------------------------------------

Clownboat wrote:
...How is your god different than Thor, Allah, Zeus and so on?...

I am not arguing about "my God" vs. "some other God." Instead, I am arguing that the entire debate about God has changed, and the non-theist's arguments have not kept pace with the changes.

Clownboat wrote:
...If the arguement works against them, it works against yours. Unless you are using special pleading...

Standard non-theist arguments work well against the philosophically naive, primitive conceptions found in ancient mythology. Zeus and Thor are not presented as the source and ground of all existence--they are contingent beings not much different from you and me, except in power. Since these "gods" are contingent, their existence can be questioned, and in fact no one (other than the inevitable gadfly) takes such "gods" seriously any more. Atheist arguments vs. contingent "gods" have won out; that debate has, for all practical purposes, ended long ago.

Clownboat wrote:
...my opinion about god claims being lazy is accurate and you certainly did not refute it.

Let's discuss the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which stands as the Source of all contingent existence. Let's debate what attributes might reasonably pertain to Ultimate Reality. Let's compare your thoughts with mine and with the thoughts of others.

But let's stop with the obsolete strawman arguments that fail to address the claims of today's modern theisms.

---------------------------------------------

Clownboat wrote:

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.


bjs wrote:
It is true that in this case we would not call John a non-stamp collector. We would call him something else entirely. We might call him a coin collector. Or a basketball player. Or a biker. Or a guy-who-sits-quietly-and-moves-as-little-as-possible.

Not collecting stamps is not the default. It is not anything. As long as John is alive then he is doing something, and if we are starting from scratch then there is no default.

I disagree. Not collecting stamps is default. Collecting them is not. Oh well.

Clownboat wrote:

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?


bjs wrote:
If I understood EduChris argument, then I dont think that he claimed that the Christian God should be the default. It appears that he is saying that there should not be any default. Everyone who enters a debate must have a position, must defend that position, and must hold their own position to the same standards that they put on other positions.

Of course you guys would like to claim that there should be no default possition.
Face it, when you were born, you did not believe in any gods. Sometime throughout your life, you decided to accept a god, just like a stamp collector has to do. They are born not collecting stamps, they decide to collect stamps and only then do they become known as a stamp collector.
Everyone is born an atheist.

---------------------------------------------

bjs wrote:
Clownboat wrote:

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.


It is true that in this case we would not call John a non-stamp collector. We would call him something else entirely. We might call him a coin collector. Or a basketball player. Or a biker. Or a guy-who-sits-quietly-and-moves-as-little-as-possible.

Not collecting stamps is not the default. It is not anything. As long as John is alive then he is doing something, and if we are starting from scratch then there is no default.


Clownboat wrote:

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?


If I understood EduChris argument, then I dont think that he claimed that the Christian God should be the default. It appears that he is saying that there should not be any default. Everyone who enters a debate must have a position, must defend that position, and must hold their own position to the same standards that they put on other positions.

My position is.. Until something that is claimed to have existence has actual evidence, it is reasonable to not believe in that thing. I do not believe in the Yeti, I do not believe in big foot, I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri , and I don't believe in any supernatural deity that created the universe.

I don't believe that something can be proven by adding adjectives to another word, and playing word games.

---------------------------------------------

EduChris wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
...How is your god different than Thor, Allah, Zeus and so on?...

I am not arguing about "my God" vs. "some other God." Instead, I am arguing that the entire debate about God has changed, and the non-theist's arguments have not kept pace with the changes.


Clownboat wrote:
...If the arguement works against them, it works against yours. Unless you are using special pleading...

Standard non-theist arguments work well against the philosophically naive, primitive conceptions found in ancient mythology. Zeus and Thor are not presented as the source and ground of all existence--they are contingent beings not much different from you and me, except in power. Since these "gods" are contingent, their existence can be questioned, and in fact no one (other than the inevitable gadfly) takes such "gods" seriously any more. Atheist arguments vs. contingent "gods" have won out; that debate has, for all practical purposes, ended long ago.


Clownboat wrote:
...my opinion about god claims being lazy is accurate and you certainly did not refute it.

Let's discuss the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which stands as the Source of all contingent existence. Let's debate what attributes might reasonably pertain to Ultimate Reality. Let's compare your thoughts with mine and with the thoughts of others.

But let's stop with the obsolete strawman arguments that fail to address the claims of today's modern theisms.

I would discuss Ultimate Reality with you, but we have been through that before. Unless Ultimate Reality has some descriptive power, you might as well make up a new word and use it in place of Ultimate Reality.

Let's discuss the logically necessary Blooger which stands as the source of all contingent existence. Shall we? You go first.

What god did you believe in when you were born, or will you answer truthfully and say none?

You try to separate your god ideas from god ideas of Thor and Allah. My point is that I think your god in time, will be just as irrelevant as those. (Edit - Allah is not yet irrelavant obviously)

---------------------------------------------

Moderator Action


Locking the thread at least temporarily pending further discussion among the moderators.

EduChris: Feel free to PM otseng or myself on this if you have questions.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been moved, merged, or split. Such actions are taken at the discretion of a moderator.

[Mithrae]

My position is.. Until something that is claimed to have existence has actual evidence, it is reasonable to not believe in that thing. I do not believe in the Yeti, I do not believe in big foot, I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri , and I don't believe in any supernatural deity that created the universe.

I don't believe that something can be proven by adding adjectives to another word, and playing word games.

But you've played a word game of your own just there: The whole concept of the super-natural implies a conception of natural reality by which to contrast it. I think this is part of the fundamental issue Chris is getting at - that non-theism is not an absense of belief in distinction from, for example, agnostic theism. It's essentially belief that the fundamental character of the universe is non-volitional and 'natural' - until proven otherwise, of course.

I was interested in this thread because it touches somewhat on issues which I myself raised in the past, with considerably less interest shown Our minds are not a 'blank slate' and I suggest that it's rather self-deceptive to pretend that this is the case:

• In The nature of 'belief' Mithrae wrote:
  There's a lot of merit in avoiding fundamental truths and indoctrination, but I wonder whether we can't take the 'grand goal' of objectivity too far?
  
  Suppose we take it as axiomatic that it's best to accept a new concept only on the basis of sufficient reason/evidence. Does that mean that we should pretend our minds are a blank slate, or does that mean that a theist should require sufficient reason/evidence before accepting the concept that their religion is wrong? I'd suggest that we can't all start out from Descartes' first meditations - and if we did we like Descartes would probably start having trouble after "I am."
  
  To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

What I am saying is that the standard non-theist arguments work well only against the obsolete, philosophically naive concept of "accidental" or "logically contingent" gods. But since no one today seriously argues for such "gods," the debate needs to move on; non-theists need to abandon their worn-out strawman arguments.

We need to debate the type of theism that lies at the source of all the major world theisms, and here the question is not "Does God exist?" but rather, "Does Ultimate Reality involve some element of volition, or is Ultimate Reality limited solely to some admixture of chance & necessity?" You can argue whatever way you wish, but you have to present an actual argument, for there is no obvious "default position" here.

Standard non-theist arguments work well against the philosophically naive, primitive conceptions found in ancient mythology.

I don't understand. EduChris speaks of the gods of today's "major world theisms." My understanding is that these would include Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism. My understanding is also that all of these "major world theisms" posit the existence of gods found in ancient mythology and base their understandings of their gods on the philisophical conceptions found in ancient mythology.

Which major world theism does not posit a god sourced in primitive ancient mythology?

[Goat]

My position is.. Until something that is claimed to have existence has actual evidence, it is reasonable to not believe in that thing. I do not believe in the Yeti, I do not believe in big foot, I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri , and I don't believe in any supernatural deity that created the universe.

I don't believe that something can be proven by adding adjectives to another word, and playing word games.

But you've played a word game of your own just there: The whole concept of the super-natural implies a conception of natural reality by which to contrast it. I think this is part of the fundamental issue Chris is getting at - that non-theism is not an absense of belief in distinction from, for example, agnostic theism. It's essentially belief that the fundamental character of the universe is non-volitional and 'natural' - until proven otherwise, of course.

No, not at all. I don't believe that the concept of the 'supernatural' is a valid concept. Either something can happen, or it can't... under any circumstances. If it can happen, by what ever means, then it is natural.

My definition of 'natural' is 'if it can happen, it is natural'. Often though, the tricky part is trying to find out if something can happen.

That is not word games, that is a straight definition. Word games happen when you make vague statements that can not be shown to be proven, to support other statements that can not be shown to be proven. Either that, or when asked to support your thesis, you provide definitions, but can not back up your claims with examples.

I was interested in this thread because it touches somewhat on issues which I myself raised in the past, with considerably less interest shown Our minds are not a 'blank slate' and I suggest that it's rather self-deceptive to pretend that this is the case:

• In The nature of 'belief' Mithrae wrote:
  There's a lot of merit in avoiding fundamental truths and indoctrination, but I wonder whether we can't take the 'grand goal' of objectivity too far?

There are many things that are not objective. That's perfectly fine. However, some people use as 'proof' the claim that their preconceptions are 'objective'. There are many people who make claims that have an 'independent existence' for things that exist only in the realm of concepts.

Suppose we take it as axiomatic that it's best to accept a new concept only on the basis of sufficient reason/evidence. Does that mean that we should pretend our minds are a blank slate, or does that mean that a theist should require sufficient reason/evidence before accepting the concept that their religion is wrong? I'd suggest that we can't all start out from Descartes' first meditations - and if we did we like Descartes would probably start having trouble after "I am."

That might (or might not) be fine, depending on the concept. That does not mean that that concept of 'objective', or can be used to prove anything. It might provide some useful personal inspiration, but unless it can be independently confirmed, it can not be shown to be 'objective reality'.

To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?[/list]

Childhood knowledge?? You mean, like the belief in Santa Claus? Fairies?? And monsters under the bed?

If you are making a statement about 'what objectively exists'.. then things should have independent verification.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with examining anything else too.

[LiamOS]

I don't think that EduChris' distinction between the types of Gods described is sufficient to warrant an alteration in what is taken to be a 'default' position. The idea that there is such a God, or even a necessary entity upon which existence is contingent is making as many assumptions about the nature of the universe as almost any other theories as to the origins of the universe.
While it is true that EduChris' definition of such an entity is required(Assuming all his postulates), it remains to be determined whether his postulates are indeed correct and whether or not logic is applicable to the set of all things we know to behave logically.

[Baz]

I dont think that there should be a default to; If you have no proof you are wrong, when debating religion. Yes. I know its in the rules, but how can that work?
As defined by wiki (a popular site with many posters) Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Where is the objective in; culture, belief, worldview, symbolism, humanity, spirituality and morals?


And.....

If the vast majority of people on the planet where stamp collectors it would be quite normal to describe somebody as a none stamp collector. Yes, Yes, I know thats against the rules as well.

[EduChris]

..."pejerotive rhetoric"...unlike Why do Christians hate women? or Non-believers to BURN IN HELL!...

The mods work in mysterious ways...

...I've taken the liberty of making a few small changes which I hope EduChris does not mind...

I don't mind at all, but I'm not sure the original debate was headed anywhere. Starboard Tack phrased something like, "Whispering into a hurricane," and that's the way I feel around here most of the time. No matter how carefully I phrase my position and delineate my arguments, the run-of-the-mill non-theists here simply ignore everything I've said and proceed to demolish their own old strawman arguments. "Pursuit of truth" can't seem to find any foothold when zealous folks do nothing but parrot the talking points of yesterday's arguments.

Anyway, Mithrae, you appear to be a notable exception to the norm here, and I hope something can come of this thread as a result of your efforts.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Many non-theists have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves.

When one offers a statement of fact, it is my contention they should support such, especially in debate. That an alternative explanation is unavailable, or not forthcoming, should have little to no bearing on whether the initial claimant can show they speak truth.

That said, where an alternative is available, it may be helpful in speaking up.

So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, few arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."

When one's argument is so "lightweight", why the need for any "heavy lifting" to begin with? I've never called in a crane to pick up a bag of Doritos.

Mental heavy lifting'd seem to be in the eye of the beholder. I find "can you show you speak truth" to be a quite robust and effective means at getting at the truth (or more often nontruth) of a claimant's statements.

Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.

"Presented as" and "well danged if they didn't turn out to be" are two different things.

However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.

They posit such. Then so many of 'em go to crying and moaning and calling folks "lazy" or "fools" when their claims are rejected.

To paraphrase one much smarter than me (and really, on that deal, who ain't), "When you understand why you reject all these other gods, then you'll understand why I'm a-sittin' here rejectin' your'n."

Question for debate: should this notion of a 'default' stance on the ultimate nature of reality be abandoned?

I see no need in abandoning the notion that for that which I don't claim I shouldn't hafta sit there and try to support.

If theists' arguments were so compelling, I propose there'd be little fuss about how some folks are "lazy non-debaters".

Why should anyone be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?

Because now there's folks carrying on about a "non-obsolete" superstition?

Isn't it time for these non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

"If you can't present a counter then my claims must be correct"? Or is it "I'd much prefer to debate claims you make, if I could only get you to make 'em, in order that I might not hafta fool with supporting my own"?

I propose if one could actually show they speak truth, they wouldn't waste their time calling folks "lazy" and asking them to support positions they may or may not hold.

I don't take this referenced claimant's G/god seriously because I don't take him or his arguments seriously. When he can show there's some need to, I'd be happy to oblige.

Until then, calling others "lazy" just because they don't debate in a manner to one's liking is to indicate that'n there doing all the lazy-calling is "stupid".

My take on this deal?

"No, but really, my god ain't like all them other gods. No, really. Why are you laughing? Stop laughing at me!"

[EduChris]

...The idea that there is...a necessary entity upon which existence is contingent is making as many assumptions about the nature of the universe as almost any other theories as to the origins of the universe...

If "nothing" is defined as the state in which no existence is ever possible, in which no existence has ever been or ever will be, then it must be the case that this "nothing" cannot represent the rock-bottom, brute "fact" on which all contingent things depend. And since this "nothing" is not the ultimate brute fact, then it logically follows that "something-which-is-not-nothing" must necessarily constitute the ultimate brute fact. This "something-which-is-not-nothing" is thus shown to be logically necessary--and I refer to this as "Ultimate Reality" in order to distinguish it from the logically contingent things which (as far as we can tell) comprise the "mundane reality" of our universe. I don't see how this logic is even controversial. If you disagree, please present your argument.

Beyond that, my claim is that this Ultimate Reality is a black box--that is, we cannot empirically know anything about it; it is not an object of empirical study. All we can do is subject the black box of Ultimate Reality to logical analysis in an attempt to rule out various possibilities.

The major world theisms all contend that God is this "black box" of Ultimate Reality. The fact of Ultimate Reality cannot be logically denied; the essential point which distinguishes the God (capital "G") of today's major world theisms from the "god" (small "g") of scientism is "volition." Theism contends that Ultimate Reality involves some element of volition; non-theism contends that Ultimate Reality involves only some admixture of chance & necessity.

From the standpoint of epistemology, theism is the preferred option because it does not arbitrarily exclude anything from the mix of the only three causal agents we know: chance, necessity, and volition. In other words, if you are a non-theist, you have made an assumption--that UR involves no volition at all--and this assumption requires some justification. Non-theism thus cannot be a "default" position.