Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[QED]

I just need to interrupt this fascinating conversation to apologise to tselem who's OP has been somewhat misunderstood and overlooked in our zeal to thrash out all our usual arguments. I seriously doubt if any studies have ever been conducted on specially raised children to see if a belief in God is "built in" from birth. Ethically speaking this would probably be too controversial and impractical to execute seeing as it would involve long-term educational isolation. But it wouldn't half be interesting.

[Bugmaster]

God may or may not have free will, but I believe God has free will... Of course God is restricted by the laws in which God labelled as "true" because God wouldn't have labelled them as "true" if they were not binding.

This is in contradiction to your previous statements, where you've stated that God is personally involved in the execution of all natural laws, which are, presumably, all "true" (whatever that means). So, if God is obligated to maintain every single law, then he cannot break any law at all, which means that he does not have free will (for example, he cannot prevent ice from melting).

Flexibility of God's decisions can come within those boundaries. So, for example, if there are two possible interpretations of a situation and neither is a law, God can freely choose a particular interpretation for reasons that God favors (versus reasons that are the only possible rational choice in that given situation).

What do you mean by "interpretations of a situation" ?

So, for example, if a Christian prays for God's intervention, and that intervention does not mean the violation of some law...

By definition, meaningful divine intervention in response to prayer always violates some physical law. I realize that the Christian can pray for something trivial, such as "oh Lord, please make sure gravity still works tomorrow !". However, if the Christian prays for something non-trivial, such as "please heal my cancer", or "please make my inferior football team win", or "please turn the sky green with purple polka dots", then, in order to fullfill the prayer, God would need to break some physical laws. Otherwise, the cancer will kill the patient, the football team will lose, and the sky will remain blue.

Again, this is the whole point of divine intervention: changing the way the world works in order to fullfill a prayer (or just the god's own selfish desire, depends on the deity).

[bernee51]

Understanding the concept of god, however, doesn't make the belief in an actual deity immediatly follow - as you appear to assume to be the case.

This is not the case.

Ooops - your reply prompted me to re-read my post - I noted a typo (omission) - bolded above.

What is being claimed by the lack-of-belief, as I understand it, is neither (a) nor (b). Rather, it's appealing to some "default position." This default position, as best I can reason, is not really a position but a state of total ignorance on the concept.

I have yet to meet (or talk with) an atheist who does not have a concept of god or gods.

That said...by your argument if I was to talk to you about a god called Zeebathra, a god of whom you had no concept - it would be ignorant of you to claim Zeebathra did not exist.

This leads to the ignorance of claiming that there is only one god. To claim there is only one god is, by default, claiming that there are no other gods, including gods of which you may not have a concept.

I do not lack belief in a god of which I have no concept. Do you?

This runs counters to the lack-of-belief concept as it has been explained to me. Often, the proponents of lack-of-belief will argue their position is somehow default. And, because of this, babies are also atheists in that they have no belief in God. If this is the case, then how can a baby, who is fully ignorant of the concept of God, negate the belief in God?

I would agree with you on this. By the same token a five year old who accepts his parents telling him god will be angry if he does such and such and believes this is equally ignorant as a five year old can have no concept of god (Piaget's research would show this to be the case as god is an abstract concept)

To negate belief is to take no position and perform no mental action on the concept. To use the verb "negate" is actually inaccurate because there is no real action being taken.

.
To negate (to rule out or deny) belief in the existence of god (for one who previously believed) is definately taking action. Even while still allowing for the existence of the concept of god.

So, unless I have seriously misunderstood the concept of lack-of-belief then I simply do not see how it's an intellectually viable position.

Perhaps you have misunderstood.
You seem to think that lack of belief (for me at least) is some sort of decision taken - when it is really a conclusion arrived at. A decision taken allows for the possibility of two (or more alternatives). A conclusion reached allows for no other possibilites.

You have concluded (I assume) god exists. I have concluded that god does not exist. I think we both agree the concept of god continues to exists regardless of belief or non-belief.

[theleftone]

Understanding the concept of god, however, doesn't make the belief in an actual deity immediatly follow - as you appear to assume to be the case.

This is not the case.

Ooops - your reply prompted me to re-read my post - I noted a typo (omission) - bolded above.

Heh, I do this far more often then I'd like.

What is being claimed by the lack-of-belief, as I understand it, is neither (a) nor (b). Rather, it's appealing to some "default position." This default position, as best I can reason, is not really a position but a state of total ignorance on the concept.

I have yet to meet (or talk with) an atheist who does not have a concept of god or gods.

That said...by your argument if I was to talk to you about a god called Zeebathra, a god of whom you had no concept - it would be ignorant of you to claim Zeebathra did not exist.

The concept I'm attempt to express above is not limited to one deity. It could be applied to any deity real (i.e., real in the sense that it's an actual concept) or fictional. In fact, the concept could just as well be applied to non-deity objects. Peeps living in a dark crater on the moon could be an example.

I do not lack belief in a god of which I have no concept. Do you?

Actually, I do lack belief. The reason I lack belief is the result of my ignorance. I am incapable of formulating a belief (consciously or subconsciously) regarding the actuality of some "unknown god." My ignorance prevents me from belief. Hence, I lack belief.

To negate belief is to take no position and perform no mental action on the concept. To use the verb "negate" is actually inaccurate because there is no real action being taken.

To negate (to rule out or deny) belief in the existence of god (for one who previously believed) is definately taking action. Even while still allowing for the existence of the concept of god.

Yes, exactly. However, the action of negation is often cited by the lack-of-belief crowd as no action. This is part of why I find it so confusing. They say they're not taking action, and yet in every aspect it appears that they are.

You seem to think that lack of belief (for me at least) is some sort of decision taken - when it is really a conclusion arrived at. A decision taken allows for the possibility of two (or more alternatives). A conclusion reached allows for no other possibilites.

Hmm, perhaps you can expound a little more on the difference (in nature of) between decisions and conclusion? Maybe this will aid some of my misunderstanding. Also, it might be helpful to define what a "lack of belief" is. I fear we may be operating with different definitions.

You have concluded (I assume) god exists. I have concluded that god does not exist. I think we both agree the concept of god continues to exists regardless of belief or non-belief.

I might have confused you. My concern is not so much with the existence of the concept of God, as it is with what one does with the concept regarding it's "actuality" (truth/falsity). And, let me state again, this issue is not necessarily limited to the concept of God, it could be one's concept about gophers, aliens, sea water, football stadium seats, whatever.

[theleftone]

I just need to interrupt this fascinating conversation to apologise to tselem who's OP has been somewhat misunderstood and overlooked in our zeal to thrash out all our usual arguments.

Thank you for the apology. Of course, it's not really needed. I realized after asking, it's a far more complex question than it first appeared. I understand why most people understand it to be a how-why question rather than a how-how. And even when it's the latter, I found it a rather difficult question to wrap my mind around.

Well, all that plus I've become so used to my questions on this topic being misunderstood it's become expected. That's why I appreciate the few here who are actually attempting to work through the issue. I think, at least some here, understand my question is about understanding atheism -- at least one form -- and not about arguing for Christianity or against atheism.

I seriously doubt if any studies have ever been conducted on specially raised children to see if a belief in God is "built in" from birth. Ethically speaking this would probably be too controversial and impractical to execute seeing as it would involve long-term educational isolation. But it wouldn't half be interesting.

I don't know if there have been any either. Though, it could be debated, this is not so much of a concern of mine. I usually concede this point if for nothing other than the sake of argument. Though, this is merely a side note of the larger discussion.

[Bugmaster]

Well, all that plus I've become so used to my questions on this topic being misunderstood it's become expected.

Sorry :-(

To answer the original question again (as I understand it), my lack of belief in God is not a conscious decision; it's an automatic process. I've had a discussion with Harvey1 about it (of course); the gist of it is that I cannot make myself believe things that I know to be most probably false. For example, I can't make myself believe that I have three legs and two heads, no matter how hard I try (though I bet I could be brainwashed into believing that, but that's another story). I feel the same way about the existence of God.

So, I personally did not reject God as an act of rebellion, or because I thought it would be more convenient, or whatever. I am simply unable to believe in God until some evidence comes along -- no matter how much I'd like to.

[harvey1]

God may or may not have free will, but I believe God has free will... Of course God is restricted by the laws in which God labelled as "true" because God wouldn't have labelled them as "true" if they were not binding.

This is in contradiction to your previous statements, where you've stated that God is personally involved in the execution of all natural laws, which are, presumably, all "true" (whatever that means). So, if God is obligated to maintain every single law, then he cannot break any law at all, which means that he does not have free will (for example, he cannot prevent ice from melting).

I don't see any contradiction with my previous statements. God is involved in the execution of all natural laws every moment the universe exists (i.e., God sustains the universe). And, God is bound by the laws up to the point that the laws are in effect. However, the laws of nature are mainly approximations, and as approximations they can be brought to the point to where the old law no longer applies and the new law begins to apply (i.e., at the phase transition). However, this gives God a great deal of free will because once the system moves to criticality, the old laws no longer restrict God's hand. This is why, I believe, Christians are told to wait on God. God needs time to let the system move toward criticality, and then God can favor an interpretation of nature that favors those whom God wishes to favor.

Flexibility of God's decisions can come within those boundaries. So, for example, if there are two possible interpretations of a situation and neither is a law, God can freely choose a particular interpretation for reasons that God favors (versus reasons that are the only possible rational choice in that given situation).

What do you mean by "interpretations of a situation"?

When there are no laws for a situation, there exist competing interpretations of what is true. God allows different interpretations to play themselves out (e.g., as a metaphor think of God allowing Job to suffer to see if Satan is right about Job's heart that he would curse God if his wealth were taken away).

I realize that the Christian can pray for something trivial, such as "oh Lord, please make sure gravity still works tomorrow!". However, if the Christian prays for something non-trivial, such as "please heal my cancer", or "please make my inferior football team win", or "please turn the sky green with purple polka dots", then, in order to fullfill the prayer, God would need to break some physical laws. Otherwise, the cancer will kill the patient, the football team will lose, and the sky will remain blue.

Not necessarily. As I mentioned, second order phase transitions are spontaneously broken symmetries that are broken without being specified by what came before. What determines what does happen in these spontaneous broken symmetries is based on what is actually possible in our universe. Possibility for the universe is intrinsically tied to God's will. So, for example, if God rules out the possibility that evil doers win in the end, then spontaneously broken symmetries will not occur which would allow evil doers to win in the end. This is how I think God's will is accomplished in the world.

Again, this is the whole point of divine intervention: changing the way the world works in order to fullfill a prayer (or just the god's own selfish desire, depends on the deity).

It depends not on the deity but God's will. God's will is to bring about certain harmony and unity in the world, so those who express this kind of harmony and unity will be instruments of God and their desires and will has an influencing effect on what God allows to happen in the world.

Perhaps it is better you start another thread if you wish to discuss this subject. It's really a disadvantage for both of us discussing these topics under this kind of thread since, in a few weeks, we'll never remember where this topic was discussed.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I took the initiative and put this response here in a more appropriate thread.

[theleftone]

To answer the original question again (as I understand it), my lack of belief in God is not a conscious decision; it's an automatic process.

I'm guessing this is similar to bernee51's "conclusion," correct?

I've had a discussion with Harvey1 about it (of course); the gist of it is that I cannot make myself believe things that I know to be most probably false. For example, I can't make myself believe that I have three legs and two heads, no matter how hard I try (though I bet I could be brainwashed into believing that, but that's another story). I feel the same way about the existence of God.

Would it be fair then to say you believe God does not exist?

So, I personally did not reject God as an act of rebellion, or because I thought it would be more convenient, or whatever. I am simply unable to believe in God until some evidence comes along -- no matter how much I'd like to.

This is something I can comprehend. Let me see if I can better define where my struggle is.

(a) Lack belief in God's existence = Affirmative: God does not exist.
(b) Lack belief in God's existence != Affirmative: God does not exist.

I get (a). I do not get (b), except in the case of total ignorance.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

God is involved in the execution of all natural laws every moment the universe exists (i.e., God sustains the universe).

You mean like this?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Grumpy

[harvey1]

God is involved in the execution of all natural laws every moment the universe exists (i.e., God sustains the universe).

You mean like this? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Nah, that's what you are basically saying when you say there are no laws (i.e., on the odd days, on the even days you say there are laws). Instead of an "intelligent falling" theory your world without laws translates into a "random mutating falling" theory. It just happens for no reason at all.