The Negation in 'Do Not Believe' Statements

[iamtaka]

Atheists often claim, "I do not believe God exists." When asked to clarify what they mean, they point out that they lack belief in God's existence. When they read the sentence provided, they see the negation as being applied to the verb believe and not the content of belief (i.e., God exists). That is, "do not believe" means simply "lacking belief."

Alternatively, if the negation applied to the content of belief, then the statement could be rephrased as "I believe no God exists." or "I believe God does not exist." This means the atheist would not "lack belief in God's existence" but would rather hold a belief about the non-existence of God.

Question for debate:
Q. Within a linguistic context, does the negation apply to the verb believe or the content of belief?

[Furrowed Brow]

As to exactly what someone means by a sentence is not a matter of linguistics. If someone said "I do not believe there is a God" but persistently offered arguments that clearly demonstrated they believed there was no God, then their arguments give the meaning of their words, whichever which way the linguist parses the sentence. The linguist might be able to teach them to better phrase themselves.

If someone says "there are no gods" this is succinct and the clearest declaration of a strong atheism. Not so many atheists are so bold because the position is fraught with problems that most atheists are knowing enough to avoid. As a result there are many fewer strong atheists than some might paint.

An absolutely clear expression of softer versions of atheism are not so succinct. I think most softer atheists when they say "I don't believe there is a God" mean something like "yet to find sufficient evidence or argument to enable me to entertain the idea God is real" or "everything I've seen and heard tells me there is no God". So yes the emphasis is on negating the belief in God.

Atheist are also fond of the phrase "unbelief" but really I think it is just plain old fashioned "disbelief", often with gaping mouth and rolled eyes. Infants have unbelief, grown ups know too much.

[iamtaka]

What 'Deeper level' is there?

It's kind of like the difference between a competent English speaker recognizing an error and a grammarian explaining the mistake.

[keithprosser3]

there are no gods

Any atheist who said that on here would be pulled up for making an unsupported assertion, which is why I am not going to say it, even though I would like to!

As you say, saying there are no gods is fraught, because all human knowledge is provisional. I can imagine the clouds parting, angels descending in their millions and a loud voice proclaiming to the word 'Oh, yes I do'.

I can imagine it, but I don't take it as a serious possibility. It is possible a solid gold meteorite will land in my garden and I will be rich for life, but I'd be a real fool to max out my credit cards on the basis of it actually happening.

So technically I don't know I am not going to get a golden meteorite in my garden, but on the other hand I know dam' well I'm not going to get one. And that is how I feel about God, or gods. Technically, perhaps, I don't know there is no God, but really I know dam' well there aren't any.

So iamtaka can phrase it either way as far as I am concerned.

It's kind of like the difference between a competent English speaker recognizing an error and a grammarian explaining the mistake.

'Kind of like' being what a competent English speaker or a grammarian would say? You didn't answer my question, but I don't really want you to any more.

[iamtaka]

As to exactly what someone means by a sentence is not a matter of linguistics. If someone said "I do not believe there is a God" but persistently offered arguments that clearly demonstrated they believed there was no God, then their arguments give the meaning of their words, whichever which way the linguist parses the sentence. The linguist might be able to teach them to better phrase themselves.

Within the English language, the statement "I do not believe there is a God." is equivalent to "I believe there is no God." By which I mean, a native and/or highly proficient speaker of English that heads "I do not believe there is a God." will understand the statement to mean "I believe there is no God."

The reason for this has to do with the history of the English language. A few hundred years ago, the negator, in belief statements, was contained within the object of the sentence. There was a shift in English where the negator was lifted from the object to before the verb phrase. This is called "the rise of do-support" (c.f., Culicover). However, even with the syntactical change, the negation is still considered by English speakers to rest within the object. To be more precise, the scope of negation is the object and not the verb phrase. This can be seen in my previous examples. The negation is actually being applied semantically/pragmatically.

[iamtaka]

'Kind of like' being what a competent English speaker or a grammarian would say? You didn't answer my question, but I don't really want you to any more.

I did answer the question. I just didn't answer it in the way you wanted me too. However, you see my response to Furrowed Brow. It demonstrates the "deeper level" of agreement.

[Nickman]

As to exactly what someone means by a sentence is not a matter of linguistics. If someone said "I do not believe there is a God" but persistently offered arguments that clearly demonstrated they believed there was no God, then their arguments give the meaning of their words, whichever which way the linguist parses the sentence. The linguist might be able to teach them to better phrase themselves.

Within the English language, the statement "I do not believe there is a God." is equivalent to "I believe there is no God." By which I mean, a native and/or highly proficient speaker of English that heads "I do not believe there is a God." will understand the statement to mean "I believe there is no God."

The reason for this has to do with the history of the English language. A few hundred years ago, the negator, in belief statements, was contained within the object of the sentence. There was a shift in English where the negator was lifted from the object to before the verb phrase. This is called "the rise of do-support" (c.f., Culicover). However, even with the syntactical change, the negation is still considered by English speakers to rest within the object. To be more precise, the scope of negation is the object and not the verb phrase. This can be seen in my previous examples. The negation is actually being applied semantically/pragmatically.

I have already stated that your logic is correct. I know many atheists who hold to the idea that "I do not believe that God exists" and "I believe God does not exist" are different. They are infact the same statement and claim. My question is;

What are you trying to get at if a person admits that belief is involved?

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 24 by iamtaka]
So if someone asks me 'Do you believe that x?' and I answer 'No.' how does that fit into your liguistic schema?
Normally, I would expect the negator to attach to the verb. 'No, I don't believe that x'.
But if someone asks 'Is x the case?' I can either answer 'No' (as if stating a fact) or I can answer 'I don't believe so'. (as if stating an opinion or estimation.)
The first option attaches the negator to the object 'x', the second to the belief. The really significant difference is that the first option 'No.' does not make explicit that knowledge is a degree of belief.
Again we see the flexibility of modern English. We can apply the negator either to the belief or to the object of belief, giving exactly the same information factually, but allowing a range of nuance.
'I do not believe that x' and 'I believe that not x' are subtly different in usage, but semantically they are equivalent, to the extent that either can be correctly logically deduced from an exchange such as:
Q: 'Do you believe that God exists?'
A: 'No.'

[iamtaka]

What are you trying to get at if a person admits that belief is involved?

There is a particular subset of atheists on the Internet who use the "I do not believe" construction to defense the weak definition of atheism. They point out that negation is applied syntactically to the verb phrase. This means the statement is simply a statement of lacking belief and not one of belief. I am cutting off the legs of that argument by demonstrating that negation is applied semantically/pragmatically to the object.

If there should be some additional outcome from this, I would hope that this subset of atheists would realize either (a) they are expressing themselves poorly or (b) they should not be surprised when others fail to understand their "do not believe" statements as they do.

[keithprosser3]

I know many atheists who hold to the idea that "I do not believe that God exists" and "I believe God does not exist" are different. They are in fact the same statement and claim.

Hang on a tick, Nick.

The first phrase could be said by an agnostic, the second one could not; so there is a difference somewhere.

[Nickman]

What are you trying to get at if a person admits that belief is involved?

There is a particular subset of atheists on the Internet who use the "I do not believe" construction to defense the weak definition of atheism. They point out that negation is applied syntactically to the verb phrase. This means the statement is simply a statement of lacking belief and not one of belief. I am cutting off the legs of that argument by demonstrating that negation is applied semantically/pragmatically to the object.

If there should be some additional outcome from this, I would hope that this subset of atheists would realize either (a) they are expressing themselves poorly or (b) they should not be surprised when others fail to understand their "do not believe" statements as they do.

I understand this because I agree with you, but what is the further, hidden goal of your post? If you establish that atheists have belief, that means nothing, unless you have a further goal.