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?

[LiamOS]

[...]
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.

I don't think this is correct. Volition as a concept is ill defined in this context. We have only ever observed what we call volition on a macroscopic level in a series of biological interactions we call life, which is ultimately a function of whatever the most basic principles you're discussing are. Your contention that volition is viable as part of the foundation of existence is a compositional fallacy at best. I suppose the same could be said for a concept such as chance/randomness(Assuming no hidden variables), but the fact that it is observable on all scales which it conceivably could be lends a reasonably strong inductive argument in its favor, which is realistically as good as we could expect. Volition, as far as I'm aware, has no more basis as a universal concept than telepathy, and can quite easily be argued to be the product of natural processes(Quite easily if you're a neuropsychologist, that is).

[EduChris]

...Volition as a concept is ill defined in this context. We have only ever observed what we call volition on a macroscopic level in a series of biological interactions we call life, which is ultimately a function of whatever the most basic principles you're discussing are. Your contention that volition is viable as part of the foundation of existence is a compositional fallacy at best...Volition, as far as I'm aware, has no more basis as a universal concept than telepathy, and can quite easily be argued to be the product of natural processes...

Volition is the one thing that we as human beings have immediate, direct, first-hand experience with every day. We also understand the inability to detect any pattern (chance) and the inability to detect variation or volition (necessity) but we have no direct, immediate, first-hand knowledge of chance & necessity. For all we know, chance does not truly exist (it could be necessity and/or volition). For all we know, necessity does not truly exist (it could be chance and/or volition). But we cannot doubt volition, since we experience it in unmediated fashion.

While it is theoretically possible that volition might be some sort of chance/necessity on steroids, so to speak, there is no way to demonstrate any such thing, even in principle, and therefore we have absolutely no basis for excluding volition, which is one of the most amazing things in the entire known universe.

[EduChris]

...Volition as a concept is ill defined...

Chance is causal activity which cannot be reduced to pattern or purpose.

Necessity is causal activity which cannot be reduced to variation or volition.

Volition is causal activity which cannot be reduced to chance or necessity.

Of the three, volition is the only one which impinges itself on our consciousness in unmediated fashion. If we know what chance & necessity are, we have an even stronger case for knowing what volition is, since it is part of our inner mental conscious life.

But I don't even need to argue that volition is involved with UR; it is enough

[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.

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.

Then it seems that a crucial question, as far as you're concerned at least, is what constitutes 'proof' in any given context - when it comes to physics or biology, for example, or when it comes to history or sociology. But as we've seen often enough, what one intelligent person might consider blatantly obvious another may well believe to be very unclear, or indeed exactly the opposite of the first view! You gave examples of Yeti, Bigfoot, green aliens and a 'supernatural deity,' the latter of which you now say was a fundamentally invalid concept, and the other three of which are not even remotely comparable to EduChris' initial comments.

Would you say that a fundamental character of the universe (the logically necessary 'Ultimate Reality' as Chris calls it) as being non-volitional (or purely random and/or deterministic) is something which can be shown to be proven? Or, being otherwise merely a presumption, would that be one of the 'word games' you're talking about?

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?

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.

It's not precisely the same as EduChris' initial point, but what I'm saying essentially is that our minds are not blank slates from which every belief or viewpoint we hold can (or should) be built up from scratch. That is impossible.

Yet that is precisely the presumption on which this notion - that theism requires justification while non-theism can be simply an absense of belief and requires no justification - is built. In the developed Western world we generally grow up with a great deal in the way of core values and attitudes, such as high regard for democracy, liberty, justice, essentially consumer-based economic views, morals, love and so on. These are personal and social viewpoints which can be accepted or rejected, but we do not consider non-democratism or a-morality to be 'default' positions from which we should always or necessarily require or demand the justification of said beliefs.

Why is it that when it comes to beliefs about the fundamental nature of the universe - as an expression solely of mechanistic behaviour, or as an expression of volitional behaviour - anyone should consider it a matter of course to require justification of the latter? EduChris is asking this question in broad, philosophical terms of the folk who frequent this forum. My comments above recognise the fact that for the majority of people, who in one way or another grow up believing the latter to be true, this question is particularly pertinent because such presumption of a 'default' stance would require first their rejection of existing beliefs!

The mind is not a blank slate, and I think Chris makes a valid point that an approach to debate which implies such a presumption is at best very dubious in the big picture. If the purpose of debate is to 'win,' then simply demanding proof of others' claims certainly makes a perceived victory much easier; but if we're interested in the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of greater knowledge, the predominance of such an approach merely invites intellectual stagnation.

[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.

Then it seems that a crucial question, as far as you're concerned at least, is what constitutes 'proof' in any given context - when it comes to physics or biology, for example, or when it comes to history or sociology. But as we've seen often enough, what one intelligent person might consider blatantly obvious another may well believe to be very unclear, or indeed exactly the opposite of the first view! You gave examples of Yeti, Bigfoot, green aliens and a 'supernatural deity,' the latter of which you now say was a fundamentally invalid concept, and the other three of which are not even remotely comparable to EduChris' initial comments.

As far as I can see, the one thing they all have in common is THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for them. Not one of them passes the 'show me' test. Theoretically, yeti, big foot, and little green men from alpha centauri can be shown to be true .. or, in the case of the little green men from Alpha Centauri, false,.. if it can be shown there are no suitable planets for life in that system.

What EduChris, or you have not done is provide a methodology to actually test for a deity..,... or prove or disprove it. Rather than show evidence, an argument that is vaguely defined, and based on unprovable elements is often given as 'evidence'. However, arguments are not evidence. When someones arguments degenerates into vague , poorly defined terminology and double talk, it is word games.

Would you say that a fundamental character of the universe (the logically necessary 'Ultimate Reality' as Chris calls it) as being non-volitional (or purely random and/or deterministic) is something which can be shown to be proven? Or, being otherwise merely a presumption, would that be one of the 'word games' you're talking about?

Well, at this point, we can show that there are probabilistic and deterministic phenomena. At this point, those items can be demonstrable... even though at the moment there is a great deal of speculation about if some phenomena is spontaneous or if it has hidden variables. Those items can be examined. So , at this point in time, we can reasonable assume there is nothing beyond that. However, if someone can provide a methodology to show volition .. and we can make tests that can be repeated.. then by all means, show me. Right now, that is not the case, and provisionally, things can be accepted as non-volitional. Do you have any evidence otherwise? If so, show me, or come up with a methodology to test the issue. If you can't, well, then the explanations for what we can observe remains. Might there be an intelligence behind everything?? Can you show me? If not, then it is reasonable and logical to be skeptical of this said intelligence.

It all comes down to a simple principle. Can you show a reasonable methodology to test what you claim to be true, and to the predictions it can logically make be born out through observation and testing?

[EduChris]

...we can show that there are probabilistic and deterministic phenomena...

We assume "probability" or "chance" when no fixed pattern or purpose can be detected. We assume determinism when no variation or volition can be detected. But these are assumptions. For all we know, everything could be volition. Or everything could be chance. Or everything could be necessity. We just don't know, and we have no way to ever know for sure, even in principle.

...at this point in time, we can reasonable assume there is nothing beyond that...

Okay, at least you are admitting your assumption. How reasonable it is, however, is another matter entirely.

...provide a methodology to show volition...

Volition is the only causal activity that we as human beings have direct, unmediated access to in our inner mental lives. Other than that, we can't "prove" volition any more than we can "prove" chance or necessity.

Chance is causal activity which cannot be reduced to pattern or purpose.

Necessity is causal activity which cannot be reduced to variation or volition.

Volition is causal activity which cannot be reduced to chance or necessity.

Of the three, volition is the only one which impinges itself on our consciousness in unmediated fashion. If we know what chance & necessity are, we have an even stronger case for knowing what volition is, since it is part of our inner mental conscious life.

...Can you show a reasonable methodology to test what you claim to be true, and to the predictions it can logically make be born out through observation and testing?...

But you are giving your own assumptions--chance & necessity--a free pass. You can't "prove" them any more than we can "prove" volition--but at least with volition we as human beings experience it directly and daily.

But I don't even need to argue that volition is actually involved with UR; it is enough for me to say that if humans are volitional--if we are more than mere needles in some cosmic VCR playing out its predetermined script--then theism is the epistemically preferred option. Non-theists must arbitrarily rule out volition in order to maintain their non-theism, but to me and to most folks, that's sort of like cutting off your face to spite your nose.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

We assume "probability" or "chance" when no fixed pattern or purpose can be detected. We assume determinism when no variation or volition can be detected. But these are assumptions. For all we know, everything could be volition.
...

Or assumed to be volition. Volition implies conscious intent, and nowhere has EduChris shown this to be a part of the cause of the universe's existence.

But I don't even need to argue that volition is actually involved with UR; it is enough for me to say that if humans are volitional--if we are more than mere needles in some cosmic VCR playing out its predetermined script--then theism is the epistemically preferred option.

If. I've never found such arguments compelling.

Your brand of theism is about the least preferred option, epistemically or not, in that this whole "volition" argument is so obviously anthropomorphic.

Non-theists must arbitrarily rule out volition in order to maintain their non-theism, but to me and to most folks, that's sort of like cutting off your face to spite your nose.

I don't arbitrarily rule out volition. I note its use by folks who can't show their god exists and conclude it's but one more failed attempt at trying to do so.

[Artie]

But I don't even need to argue that volition is actually involved with UR; it is enough for me to say that if humans are volitional--if we are more than mere needles in some cosmic VCR playing out its predetermined script--then theism is the epistemically preferred option. Non-theists must arbitrarily rule out volition in order to maintain their non-theism, but to me and to most folks, that's sort of like cutting off your face to spite your nose.

Are you saying that since I want eggs for breakfast it's therefore logical to assume that some deity/deities wanted to create the universe? But it's not logical to assume that since I want eggs for breakfast, Thor also must want to create thunder and lightning? I just don't understand the difference. What's logical to me is that since practically everybody agrees that Thor doesn't create thunder and lighting everybody should also agree that a deity/deities didn't create the universe. I also object to the discrimination of our gods. I am from Norway and I can assure you that our gods are worth just as much as those down in desert country! You have no right to reject the gods we made up in favor of some mental gymnastics! If this Ultimate Reality and Volition isn't based on deities who would be the ones who would want to create the universe? Non-deities?

[Flail]

Mithrae wrote:

Yet that is precisely the presumption on which this notion - that theism requires justification while non-theism can be simply an absense of belief and requires no justification - is built. In the developed Western world we generally grow up with a great deal in the way of core values and attitudes, such as high regard for democracy, liberty, justice, essentially consumer-based economic views, morals, love and so on. These are personal and social viewpoints which can be accepted or rejected, but we do not consider non-democratism or a-morality to be 'default' positions from which we should always or necessarily require or demand the justification of said beliefs.

As a skeptical non-theist Ignostic, I am not buying your strawman presumptions of what all non-theists stand upon as a default position. I have consistently claimed that both atheism and Christianity must be required to provide evidence of any truth claim propounded as to God.

It's pretty simple; if you claim to know a God personally and have no doubt as to this particular God's actual existence and what 'He' would have us do and think, common sense tells me that I should ask for evidence. The same is true for atheism which claims that no God exists; such a claim must have proofs to be considered serious and valid. Beyond that, anyone can believe in the possibility of anything and have a perfectly coherent right to do so...so long as no absolute truth claims are made and that what they believe is couched as metaphor or possibility or hope or faith; so long as no lines in the sand are drawn and no one judges others as hell bound or unworthy of 'their 'God' etc, I am fine with religiosity as a philosophical tradition... even though I don't share it. (Although I do object to governmental tax preferences).

[Artie]

It's pretty simple; if you claim to know a God personally and have no doubt as to this particular God's actual existence and what 'He' would have us do and think, common sense tells me that I should ask for evidence. The same is true for atheism which claims that no God exists; such a claim must have proofs to be considered serious and valid.

Of course atheism cannot be expected to provide any kind of proof that God doesn't exist. Atheism operates within the confines of logic, reason and common sense. Religion doesn't, it operates with belief and faith. Who or what would decide what constitutes proof? The atheists? Surely not the Christians. who will simply say that the Bible is the proof and will never accept anything contrary to that standpoint, logical or not. So you see, if you can't expect Christians to provide logical and reasonable arguments for their belief, and atheists can only provide logical and reasonable arguments for their position what's the point if the Christians don't operate within the same parameters?

Most every Christian have their own personal idea about God and what He is and what He does and where He is, and their own interpretation of the Bible. Some believe He's out there somewhere unreachable, some believe they talk with Him every day. Hence all the different creation scenarios for instance. How is atheism supposed to disprove something not even Christians can agree what is? Of course you cant prove that God doesnt exist " no one can even agree on what God is supposed to be. Such a proposition is completely meaningless. "I'll prove your personal God doesn't exist Bill but first you have to tell me what kind of God you believe in and you must also accept arguments based on logic and reason and scientific evidence?" Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities, no matter if they are personal or unreachable, local or global.