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?

[Clownboat]

...you were not born with the prospect of being a theist...

I don't remember which beliefs I was born with. But once the developmental capacity for abstract thought has been reached (age 12 or so) questions about God become increasingly persistent, and with greater study and pursuit comes greater clarity regarding the options.

That in my mind would make weak atheism the default. Once you reach age 12 or so, you can decide to go to strong atheism or pick a religion, but from 0 - whenever, weak atheism seems to be default.

We were all weak atheist until some point in our lives when we decided to believe that there "is no god" or "X god is the true god". (Of course remaining a weak atheist is still an option too).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 67:

I asked if you were born a Christian/Muslim or atheist.

You responded with being born with the propensity to discern purpose and pattern and thus were born with the prospect of being a theist.

I only meant to show that I still have those qualities that you listed, and they do not make me a theist. That tells me that you were not born with the prospect of being a theist.

I am arguing that you were born not believing in any gods, which to me seems like the default position. From there people need to make a choice, strong atheism, or pick a religion.

Well done.

In the face of the lack of evidence, and the lack of 'compellingness' (if only to me) of this now "Volitional Ultimate Reality", my stance, as it was when the doctor slapped me there the first time, is that I have no reason to conclude there's a god involved in the creation, maintenance, or any other deal there of the universe.

My default position - the one I came kicking and screaming into this world with, is that I have no belief in the existence of a god or gods - whether accidental, on purpose, necessary, Volitional, Ultimate, or otherwise.

[EduChris]

...Why should the world be exactly the way it is?...is God truly capable of creating only one specific world? How would that world be chosen from all other alternatives?...God could have created different kinds of world, or else God is not omnipotent...to be able to create some worlds but not to do so would imply unfulfilled potential, making God less than perfect...If there is a God who created this world, then that God necessarily created all possible worlds. The idea of volition would seem to be inapplicable here. God had no choice...

I don't see why a failure to create all possible worlds should entail "unfulfilled potential." If God is free, then God can create as many or as few worlds as God desires. An artist is not judged on the basis of quantity, but rather on the quality of the finished product (rather than the work-in-process). It may even be that the rarity of the art enhances its value, in the same way that ubiquity deprecates value (think Terry Redlin or Thomas Kincaid, who have almost worn out their appeal due to overmarketing).

At this point I don't see how you have made a logical case for the removal of volition, but I do appreciate your willingness to tackle the issues raised in this thread.

[EduChris]

...from 0 - whenever, weak atheism seems to be default...

Weak atheism then falls into the same category as "incapacity for abstract thought," which is also the default for ages 0 to 12 (or whenever).

[AquinasD]

My default position - the one I came kicking and screaming into this world with, is that I have no belief in the existence of a god or gods - whether accidental, on purpose, necessary, Volitional, Ultimate, or otherwise.

Such a species of lack of belief is trivial, however. There is something substantially different from being an infant, who could be asked "Do you believe God exists?" and we would have to determine that they do not simply because they show no sign of having any sort of belief (in fact, infants may not even believe they exist!), as opposed to asking the question of a rational adult capable of understanding concepts, reasoning, and forming beliefs.

If your answer to the question is "The default is the lack of belief in God" because you mean that as just a stipulation of "At the moment of birth one has no beliefs," then this whole discussion is just inane.

The question only makes sense if we ask it from the perspective of a self-conscious and rational adult with a view to forming belief about something that is the case.

(Atheism, 'there is no God,' only makes sense as a negation of the concept of God, and it is only meaningful if that concept can be both understand and rejected. But to act as if one's default towards the idea should be the same as one's default stance towards the existence of unicorns or some other accidental phenomena is to simply misunderstand the concept.)

[bernee51]

My default position - the one I came kicking and screaming into this world with, is that I have no belief in the existence of a god or gods - whether accidental, on purpose, necessary, Volitional, Ultimate, or otherwise.

Such a species of lack of belief is trivial, however. There is something substantially different from being an infant, who could be asked "Do you believe God exists?" and we would have to determine that they do not simply because they show no sign of having any sort of belief (in fact, infants may not even believe they exist!), as opposed to asking the question of a rational adult capable of understanding concepts, reasoning, and forming beliefs.

If your answer to the question is "The default is the lack of belief in God" because you mean that as just a stipulation of "At the moment of birth one has no beliefs," then this whole discussion is just inane.

The question only makes sense if we ask it from the perspective of a self-conscious and rational adult with a view to forming belief about something that is the case.

(Atheism, 'there is no God,' only makes sense as a negation of the concept of God, and it is only meaningful if that concept can be both understand and rejected. But to act as if one's default towards the idea should be the same as one's default stance towards the existence of unicorns or some other accidental phenomena is to simply misunderstand the concept.)

Indeed...at as the concept of god has changed so have the opinions of some believers. For example I note that in the OP EduChris is quoted as saying something along the lines of ...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?. The writer is expressing a non-theist view of the earlier evolutions of the concepts and , understandably, living as he does in a scientific age, an attachment to a rational view of theism.
[An aside: though the original OP expressed the view of another I am unsure whether he will see this as for some reason known only to himself he has placed me on ignore. ]


One of the reasons I conclude that various god beliefs do not reflect extant an reality is encapsulated in that statement. The god concept as evolved in concert with, perhaps even been dragged along by, the evolution of society. In pre-history, when the society manifested as survivalistic and instinctive god belief, reflected this in animism, which primarily addressed the physiological needs.

As society evolved and manifested in more complex manners so too has the god concept with the monotheisms emerging around 5000 years ago along with societal themes of the authoritative and purposeful where reward came from obedience to a rightful authority

More recently, with the emergence of scientific rationalism, the earlier concepts have lost favour and god has emerged as not only a logically necessary ultimate reality but a purposeful one to boot. The old gods no longer satisfy, though , as the include and transcend nature of evolution expresses, scratch deep enough into this PUR and it is likely to find traces of these earlier concepts.

For this UR to have P some P has to be demonstrated in the terms of some end to be achieved as a result of that P. Perhaps what is envisaged is some form of Christofication as Teilhard imagined. Some ultimate Omega Point where the complexification of existence which has resulted in the emergence of consciousness comes together as a supreme consciousness of the godhead.

My view is that the only thing that can be demonstrated, the default, is and can only be, that all these concepts, these ideas, thoughts and beliefs, all which goes to make up the sense of an individual self are mental constructs.

[Lux]

Moderator Warning

Funny thread.

There aren't many non-theists who engage in the pathetic debating style outlined by the topic creator. I'm thinking right now, and only two users pop into my head. I mean, just look at this thread. You have the majority of atheist/non-theist participants logically and substantively arguing the topic, and you really only have one who.....isn't . The vast majority of atheists and non-theists on here are intelligent and can actually argue a position despite the fact that they aren't required to do so by the forum rules.

Even if you (cleverly) avoid using names, a personal comment is a personal comment. Read back on this post and ask yourself if it adds to the debate or to the seemingly eternal beating of a dead horse around here.

Please review our Rules.


As a note to the general public: the interesting debate going on here will unfortunately be lost if I see one more personal attack, comment or stab.



______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

Weak atheism then falls into the same category as "incapacity for abstract thought," which is also the default for ages 0 to 12 (or whenever).

There are some of us though who have just enough intelligence to know that questioning the intelligence of others is to risk exposing our own lack thereof.

Moderator Intervention

Comments like these are just adding fuel to the fire. Please avoid comments like these if you wish to avoid getting moderator warnings and threads getting locked.

Locking the thread for now.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.