Atheism - The Default Position

[theleftone]

It is often claimed by some atheists that atheism is the default position for human beings to take. With all the reasoning I can muster, I have attempted to solve this riddle over the past five years of my life. I have done so to no avail. So, I am curious if anyone here can help me solve this riddle. For debate...

Is atheism the default position? If so, why? If not, why?

[OccamsRazor]

Sorry. I am aware that I am arguing with myself but since posting my comment

Surely the default position of any discussion concerning belief is the lack of belief. This, I would say constitutes agnosticism. Surely atheism requires the understanding of theism from which to take a contrary view and is therefore not the default.

I would like to completely retract this statement. I would say that atheism constitutes a lack of belief, not agnosticism. I also assert that any position (including atheism and agnosticism) requires a knowledge of theism.

I would therefore like to amend my veiw. I would say that in any discussion of belief that empricism is the default, which, in my opinion, is the basis of atheism (though harvey1 would suggest that it is the basis of agnosticism ).

Just to add

1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

I believe that most of the self-proclaimed atheists (including myself) fall into the second definition.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the dictionary definition of a term is based on the popular usage of the term and is not the other way around.

[harvey1]

"I personally believe that no god(s) exist". This still fits the definition of atheism but is not a dogmatic position.

I would label that as weak atheism if what you meant is that you feel justified in that belief.

I do not believe that this makes me agnostic.

And, I would agree with you. Agnostics treat the God assumption as possibly true and possibly false, but not true and not false. You treat the God assumption as probably false, so you are a weak atheist. (Versus a strong atheist who treats the God assumption as necessarily false.)

Many rational theists may say "I believe in God but I am aware that I cannot prove he/she/it exists". This also does not implicitly make them agnostic.

It depends on what they feel is a justified belief. If they think that the existence of God is justified (e.g., for pragmatic reasons only), then they are a theist. If they say that their belief in God is irrational, then they are an irrational person and I have no further interest in what they believe.

Again we can reiterate the fairy-tale analogies, for instance. I can make the statement "I believe that no vampires exist but cannot prove this". This does not, in my opinion, constitue vampire-agnosticism.

Agreed. You would be an agnostic if you thought the vampire assumption should be treated as possibly true and possibly false.

Surely the default position of any discussion concerning belief is the lack of belief. This, I would say constitutes agnosticism. Surely atheism requires the understanding of theism from which to take a contrary view and is therefore not the default... I would say that in any discussion of belief that empricism is the default, which, in my opinion, is the basis of atheism (though harvey1 would suggest that it is the basis of agnosticism

I would disagree that agnosticism or weak atheism is the default belief. I think the default belief is the view that has the best argument/evidence for its veracity. So, for example, the default belief on the moon orbiting the earth is to believe that this belief is true. It is not to say it is possibly true or possibly false.

[harvey1]

1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

I believe that most of the self-proclaimed atheists (including myself) fall into the second definition. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the dictionary definition of a term is based on the popular usage of the term and is not the other way around.

WordNet says the following about its terms:

Many terms used in the WordNet Reference Manual are unique to the WordNet system. Other general terms have specific meanings when used in the WordNet documentation.

So, perhaps this definition is unique to WordNet? I've never seen this definition before.

[OccamsRazor]

harvey1, I must say I agree with you on many of your points. I would describe myself in these terms as weak atheist (or negative-atheist).

I think that we can therefore agree that my philosphical stance is one of atheism (albeit weak atheism), which does not mean that I assert that there cannot be a god, simply that I do not believe that there is one until I see some evidence.

I do have a couple of issues however. You state

If they say that their belief in God is irrational, then they are an irrational person and I have no further interest in what they believe.

Surely the basis of belief in god is faith.
This is surely the belief in a divine power without the necessity for a rational reason for doing so.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

This strikes me as the definition of an irrational belief.

I would disagree that agnosticism is the default belief

So do I. I adjusted my view in a later post.

I think the default belief is the view that has the best argument/evidence for its veracity

Surely this is the outcome of a debate. Not the default position from which to move.

[harvey1]

Surely the basis of belief in god is faith.
This is surely the belief in a divine power without the necessity for a rational reason for doing so.

Epistemic reasons are not the only kind of reasons that can justify a belief. For example, one might argue that epistemic reasons are actually pragmatic reasons in disguise, and therefore pragmatic issues should take precedence when the two issues confront each other (as William James was known to argue). Also, one might argue that faith is the basis of epistemic knowledge, and therefore make a rational argument that one should have faith in certain beliefs because the basis of all rational beliefs is faith, etc.. When I say they are an irrational person, I mean the person who holds that belief does not believe they are justified in any sense of the term. That's hard for me to imagine, since my justification for doing an irrational act might be to show myself that I can do an irrational act (and therefore be justified in believing that irrational acts are possible). However, the act itself is irrational despite what one is trying to prove. So, if you wish to believe in God for that reason, please be my guest (I'm joking...).

I think the default belief is the view that has the best argument/evidence for its veracity

Surely this is the outcome of a debate. Not the default position from which to move.

It's the oucome of a previous debate. So, for example, if I ask myself what is the default position for a feud going on between the Sudan-Chad conflict (a matter that I know embarrassingly little about), I should have within myself a certain ethics that I have already resolved before I can determine what is the default position for the Sudan-Chad conflict. Once I come to a resolution on what is the default position for the Sudan-Chad conflict, I now have two default positions, the ethics criteria that I used to determine the default position for the Sudan-Chad conflict, and then the default position for the Sudan-Chad conflict.

Similarly, before one can know the default position for theism, agnosticism, atheism, one needs to have a default position on the subject of philosophy of science (e.g., empiricism), philosophy of metaphysics, epistemology, etc..

[OccamsRazor]

Epistemic reasons are not the only kind of reasons that can justify a belief. For example, one might argue that epistemic reasons are actually pragmatic reasons in disguise

I'm not sure I agree with this statement and have never agreed with William James.

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satifactorily in this environment.

I don't follow with this view because James suggests that you can assign a truth value to a belief if it helps you through your life.
I do not agree with the pragmatic position (as you probably guessed) and therefore I don't agree that you can base epistemic knowledge on a pragmatic position (such as faith). I do however understand your point about your use of the term "irrational" so your point is still well made.

It's the oucome of a previous debate.

You make a good point. I agree with this position.

[harvey1]

I do not agree with the pragmatic position (as you probably guessed) and therefore I don't agree that you can base epistemic knowledge on a pragmatic position (such as faith).

Let me add that when I say "justified" I'm not saying that at the end of a long two century debate among philosophers and physicists the position ends up justified. I mean that an individual believes they have sufficient reason to believe what they believe. In fact, I'd have to put several different meanings on the term "justified" depending on the context. Usually I mean there's sufficient reason to believe it, and the other opposing beliefs do not have sufficient reason. Often, this comes down to saying that within the appropriate fields within academia there are respected individuals that argue successfully for that the belief being justified. However in the case where someone is calling themselves by a philosophical label (e.g., theist), the criteria I would use is that they think their position is justified and are willing, under some condition that they would recognize as necessary (e.g., among their peers, among their friends, in front of God, etc.), to change their belief if they found they were in error.

[Bugmaster]

For those who believe in a deity, where did they learn about this deity? From others.

I always thought that religious faith does come from personal experience. The religious person suddenly (or even, repeatedly !) gets this deeply personal feeling of love, kindness, majesty, and his deity's existence in general, in a way that makes his particular religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, animism, what have you) undeniable. So, for people who've experienced this feeling, theism is the default position.

Actually, AFAIK the Wiccan religion doesn't rely just on feelings; they claim to have the power to reliably call upon their gods for help. They may be misinterpreting the experimental data, of course, but this still makes theism the default position, as far as they're concerned.

[Cephus]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Period. That's all it is. People like Harvey want to make it out into some sinister evil philosophy out to get the Christians, but it's not.

So in a very real sense, trees and flowers and chirping birds are as much not theists as they are not racists or not communists. Newborn humans are not theists as well. Every single person on this planet, whether they like it or not, was born an atheist because atheism is simply the state of being without theism. There's an awful lot of fanaticism and emotionalism out there, especially by people with their own agendas, but in the end, having no belief in gods is all there is to atheism.

[theleftone]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Period.

It's not that simple. There are many atheists who do not accept this definition.

So in a very real sense, trees and flowers and chirping birds are as much not theists as they are not racists or not communists. Newborn humans are not theists as well.

This is incorrect. It is called a category mistake. You are ascribing the ability for abstract thought to each of these objects. "Lack of belief" atheism requires the ability for abstract thought. The reason for this is that "lack of belief" is a negation of "belief in God." To negate something, one must be capable of thought. To negate "belief in God" one must be capable of abstract thought because God is an abstract concept. Therefore, by claiming a newborn, trees, flowers, etc. are atheists you are making a category mistake.

Further, you are also ascribing the "position" of atheism upon each of these objects. This means you are claiming each of these objects has taken the position -- or holds the view/perspective -- of atheism. To do so requires the ability of abstract thought, as show above. Hence, they are not capable of taking the position of atheism. Thus, as I've pointed out before, it is non-sensical to call them atheists.

There's an awful lot of fanaticism and emotionalism out there, especially by people with their own agendas, but in the end, having no belief in gods is all there is to atheism.

As I have shown above, that's not all there is to it.