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?

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 33 by iamtaka]
There is some value, for philosophers, in the close study of how people use language. (Compare, for example, Wittgenstein and Chomsky).
But speaking is primary. Language is a means of social exchange, depending on agreed (and shifting) signifiers.
It is not for the analysts to lay down rules for the native users of a language. Linguistics is analytical, not prescriptive.
If I tell you I don't have a belief in God, there is not sufficient information there for you to draw any further conclusions. You need to ask me, not tell me, what my answer signifies!

[Nickman]

Both sentences are the same. If a person does not believe that God exists, they are saying that they don't believe that God exists. The agnostic says we cannot know. An agnostic doesn't say either way. They make no claim. If you say you do not believe or you do believe, you have made a soft claim. One that doesn't require support. The only claim that an agnostic makes is that we cannot know either way.

1 - "I do not believe that God exists"
2 - "I believe God does not exist"

1) Sorry to nitpick, Nick, but let me repeat; an agnostic can say 1) but not 2) so the phrases cannot be precisely the same in meaning.

2) But what significant point remains of this thread has me baffled.

1) An agnostic CANNOT say they "do not believe a God exists." Agnosticism says that there is no way that we can know whether a God exists or not.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

2)I know, I am trying to figure out the "hidden" point that the OP implies.

[keithprosser3]

IOW, if you ask me whether I believe in God and I answer 'No', you are not yet in a position to tell me what my answer means.

I am reliably informed that 'No' means 'No'.

An agnostic CANNOT say they " do not believe a God exists."

Perhaps we need an agnostic to tell us whether they can say it or not. Bet you 100 points they can!

I know, I am trying to figure out the "hidden" point that the OP implies.

I think there isn't one. Or do I mean I don't think there is one? Who cares anyway?

[Jax Agnesson]

IOW, if you ask me whether I believe in God and I answer 'No', you are not yet in a position to tell me what my answer means.

I am reliably informed that 'No' means 'No'.

Is that 'No' as in:
'No, I don't have a belief that God exists'
or "No' as in:
'What I believe is 'No, there isn't a God?"
The first meaning allows the answerer to say 'No' truthfully even if he is agnostic; the second doesn't.

[Nickman]

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.

Both sentences are the same. If a person does not believe that God exists, they are saying that they don't believe that God exists. The agnostic says we cannot know. An agnostic doesn't say either way. They make no claim. If you say you do not believe or you do believe, you have made a soft claim. One that doesn't require support. The only claim that an agnostic makes is that we cannot know either way.

Suppose you ask me whether I have a fondness for haggis, and I answer 'No'. This could be for one of two reasons:
a: I have tried haggis and didn't like it, or
b: I've never tasted it so haven't had the chance to develop any such fondness.
So there are two very different sets: the people who dislike haggis, and those who have never tried it.
( I am told there may be a third set, of people who actually do like haggis. But I rule out that possibility! )

1) 'I lack a liking for haggis' and 'I have a dislike for haggis' are not the same.
2) 'I lack a belief in God.' and 'I have a disbelief in God' are also different.

1) and 2) How so? You have changed the wording to your liking. Lets focus on the exact words at hand. My scenario used the exact same words with a different object. You are using words that are not even synonyms.

You have changed the goal posts.

"I do not believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist" are exactly the same statement.

You have 6 words here. There are placed in two ways that say the same thing. Just because you put "do not" before "believe" does not imply an absence of belief. It reveals that you believe that God does not exist.

Does a person who "believes that God does not exist" not also say "I do not believe god exists?" The two statements are synonymous. You are adding agnosticism into it.

[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.

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.

Thank you for the reference. I suspect the history and subtlety of the grammar passes most of us by. At which point I'll say I am a strong atheist and happy to say there is no God without trying to soften how that sounds. But it does seem to me there is a distinction at work. A strong atheist vehemently disagrees with the all the evidence, arguments and reason put forward for the existence of God finding them all false whilst a weak atheist may find some false and others unconvincing.

What we need here is modal logic (I think) in which ¬□¬A ↔ ◊A is a theorem, and we need to give the box and diamond an epistemic interpretation. Just trying out an idea here. If the box □ is interpreted as Convinced and the diamond ◊ Contemplates, and A = "there is a God, ¬A = "there is no God", and if we follow the standard modal oppositions we get four possibilities:

• 1] a strong atheist is convinced there is not a God (□¬A), and this is equal not contemplating there is a God (¬◊A) 1000
  
  2] an agnostic is not convinced there is not a God (¬□¬A), and this is equal to contemplating there is a God (◊A). 0111
  
  3] a weak atheist is not convinced there is a God (¬□A), and this is equal to contemplating there is not a God (◊¬A). 1110
  
  4] a theist is convinced there is a God (□A), and this is equal to not contemplating there is not a God (¬◊¬A). 0001

Maybe this could be improved with a more thought regarding the choice of terms but I think it kind of works, and it allows us to distinguish the strong atheist who is convinced there is not a God from the weak atheist who is not convinced there is a God, and so when a weak atheist says they do not believe there is a God what they are struggling to say is that they are not convinced there is a God. But the point is we can carve out a logically distinct position for them.

What is interesting is that on this square of opposition the negation of an atheists is an agnostic, and the negation of a theist is a weak atheist. So weak atheism is correctly associated with non theism i.e. not theism. Whilst strong atheism and theism are contrary terms.

[Edit: I added the binary strings if they help. These show how the four terms are opposed, and also reveal we are entertaining a 16 valued logic. In this logic it is possible to be both an agnostic and a weak atheist at the same time without contradiction. But someone who is a weak atheists and a strong atheist is just a strong atheist. But someone who is a strong atheist or a weak atheist is a weak atheist. Strong Atheism implies weak atheism but the implication does not run both ways.)

[Nickman]

IOW, if you ask me whether I believe in God and I answer 'No', you are not yet in a position to tell me what my answer means.

I am reliably informed that 'No' means 'No'.

This is not me is it?

Perhaps we need an agnostic to tell us whether they can say it or not. Bet you 100 points they can!

Im sure anyone can say anything. You are not debating. You know what I was saying. I provided a definition of agnosticism. If an "agnostic" says they don't believe God exists, they are now an atheist. If they say they "believe that God does not exist" they are now an atheist.

I think there isn't one. Or do I mean I don't think there is one? Who cares anyway?

You are too tied up in Dawkin's logic. He is logically, and grammatically wrong. You just said the same thing in two different ways, using the same words.

[Jax Agnesson]

Does a person who "believes that God does not exist" not also say "I do not believe god exists?" The two statements are synonymous. You are adding agnosticism into it.

I think an explicit consideration of the agnostic position might help us here.
As well as the choice of words, the sequence of words is important. Try this: (re-arranging the sequence of the two statements in your question above)
Does a person who says "I do not believe that god exists?" also say "I believe that God does not exist"?
The first statement could be spoken by an agnostic, in that agnostics do not 'believe that God exists'.. The second statement could not be spoken by an agnostic.
Try placing it in the third person:
'My uncle Jack is an agnostic.'
'Does he have a belief in God?'
'No."
"Does he have a belief that God does not exist?"
"No."
In this scenario, my uncle Jack
a. Does not have a belief in God.
b Does not have a belief that God does not exist.
Thus it becomes clear that, "I do not have a belief that God exists" is not the same as "I believe that God does not exist."
The first statement is true for both the agnostic and the 'weak' atheist; the second is only true for the 'strong' atheist'.

[Nickman]

I think an explicit consideration of the agnostic position might help us here.
As well as the choice of words, the sequence of words is important. Try this: (re-arranging the sequence of the two statements in your question above)
Does a person who says "I do not believe that god exists?" also say "I believe that God does not exist"?
The first statement could be spoken by an agnostic, in that agnostics do not 'believe that God exists'.. The second statement could not be spoken by an agnostic.

An agnostic doesn't believe either way. An agnostic CANNOT say I do not believe that God exists. If they did, they would be atheist. An agnostic says "we cannot know the answer to this question." The supernatural is off limits.

Try placing it in the third person:
'My uncle Jack is an agnostic.'
'Does he have a belief in God?'
'No."
"Does he have a belief that God does not exist?"
"No."
In this scenario, my uncle Jack
a. Does not have a belief in God.
b Does not have a belief that God does not exist.
Thus it becomes clear that, "I do not have a belief that God exists" is not the same as "I believe that God does not exist."
The first statement is true for both the agnostic and the 'weak' atheist; the second is only true for the 'strong' atheist'.

a. and b. Both are claims. "I do not believe God exists" is the same as "I believe God does not exist." I cannot see how you cannot see this simple grammatical truth. Both sentences are claims of belief, and mean the same thing. They provide the exact same conclusion.

[Nickman]

If we examine the claims "I do not believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist," we all can get the same conclusion. This person doesn't believe in the existence of God.