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?

[harvey1]

Agnostics think that the whole question is largely moot because the existence of God is beyond human comprehension, hence it's ridiculous to even worry about it.

That's strong agnosticism.

I think that not only should there be evidence for the existence of any deity, but that in order for me to believe in it, there *MUST* be.

That's what Carl Sagan, Betrand Russell, Stephen Gould, and a number of others used to say. They were all agnostic.

But so far, I haven't seen a shred of evidence, hence I remain a weak atheist, no matter what your philosophy says.

You've just shredded the evidence. Anyway, you're only going to believe what message boards tell you, so there's no use in discussing it further.

[Cephus]

That's what Carl Sagan, Betrand Russell, Stephen Gould, and a number of others used to say. They were all agnostic.

Not according to any of them. They all said they were atheist, regardless of what you seem to think. It's nice to know that you feel you're worthy to tell people they are wrong about their own beliefs.

You've just shredded the evidence. Anyway, you're only going to believe what message boards tell you, so there's no use in discussing it further.

I'd have to see evidence to shred it, and since you and other theists have so far completely failed to present *ANY* objective evidence, there's nothing for an atheist like myself to consider.

But you're right, talking to you is like talking to a broken record, no matter what anyone says, you keep jumping back to the same old, tired track.

[harvey1]

But you're right, talking to you is like talking to a broken record, no matter what anyone says, you keep jumping back to the same old, tired track.

Not so. Look at O. Razor's response here.

That's what Carl Sagan, Betrand Russell, Stephen Gould, and a number of others used to say. They were all agnostic.

Not according to any of them. They all said they were atheist, regardless of what you seem to think.

That's not correct.

Bertrand Russell:

Are agnostics atheists? No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

Carl Sagan:

In 1996, Sagan was profiled by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and said, "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. ... An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

Stephen Jay Gould

Evolution has encountered no intellectual trouble; no new arguments have been offered. Creationism is a homegrown phenomenon of American sociocultural history—a splinter movement (unfortunately rather more of a beam these days) of Protestant fundamentalists who believe that every word of the Bible must be literally true, whatever such a claim might mean. We all left satisfied, but I certainly felt bemused by the anomaly of my role as a Jewish agnostic, trying to reassure a group of Catholic priests that evolution remained both true and entirely consistent with religious belief.... I am often asked whether I ever encounter creationism as a live issue among my Harvard undergraduate students. I reply that only once, in nearly thirty years of teaching, did I experience such an incident. A very sincere and serious freshman student came to my office hours with the following question that had clearly been troubling him deeply: "I am a devout Christian and have never had any reason to doubt evolution, an idea that seems both exciting and particularly well documented. But my roommate, a proselytizing Evangelical, has been insisting with enormous vigor that I cannot be both a real Christian and an evolutionist. So tell me, can a person believe both in God and evolution?" Again, I gulped hard, did my intellectual duty, and reassured him that evolution was both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief—a position I hold sincerely, but still an odd situation for a Jewish agnostic.... Just as religion must bear the cross of its hard-liners. I have some scientific colleagues, including a few prominent enough to wield influence by their writings, who view this rapprochement of the separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnostic scientists who welcome and celebrate thc rapprochement, especially the pope's latest statement—they say: "C'mon, be honest; you know that religion is addle-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s.; you're only making those welcoming noises because religion is so powerful, and we need to be diplomatic in order to assure public support and funding for science." I do not think that this attitude is common among scientists, but such a position fills me with dismay—and I therefore end this essay with a personal statement about religion, as a testimony to what I regard as a virtual consensus among thoughtful scientists (who support the NOMA principle as firmly as the pope does). I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion, and the subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball)...

Three strikes and you're out...

[OccamsRazor]

Living in the Matrix is not provable either, but that doesn't mean that we should consider it probable that we are in the Matrix.

I know that we have discussed this in another thread I do feel I must make one point about this though.
I think the point of the Matrix is rather that because living in the Matrix is neither proveable nor disproveable then an epistemic truth cannot be applied here. In this absence a purely pragmatic one must be taken and since I see no reason to add the Matrix to describe the world around us I conclude that we probably are not living in the Matrix. This does not cause a logical dichotomy for weak-atheism.

Why doesn't this position immediately require that all weak atheists acknowledge that they do not have the default position?

harvey1, I've never suggested that atheism is the default position.
I would largely place agnosticism in the default position because I would say that a mind that has not yet considered the possibility of theology and is therefore presented afresh with the information for both sides would be agnostic.
Although I also think that considering a debate on theology cannot have a default position per-se because every member of the discussion comes in with a taught or self-defined belief system.

[harvey1]

This brings me back to my comment that atheism is not proveable. One cannot provide evidence that a non-corporeal entity does not exist. I feel that the definition of god has varied over the years and that theology has somewhat "moved the goalposts". That is to say that each time a tenet of formal religion has been shown to be false then the religion changes to meet this. This can be argued to be purely a liberal attitude to the religion but my point is that it cannot be proven to be false

I think the point of the Matrix is rather that because living in the Matrix is neither proveable nor disproveable then an epistemic truth cannot be applied here. In this absence a purely pragmatic one must be taken and since I see no reason to add the Matrix to describe the world around us I conclude that we probably are not living in the Matrix. This does not cause a logical dichotomy for weak-atheism.

How do you reconcile these two statements? In the first one you take the position that not being able to provide epistemic evidence against a belief is no epistemic reason to withhold epistemic judgment. Whereas in the second quote you suggest that not being able to provide epistemic evidence against a belief leaves one justified in withholding epistemic judgment. Rather than withholding epistemic judgment, though, you think that a pragmatic judgment is required. Why not make a pragmatic judgment in favor of theism for the first situation since you are in the same epistemic situation of not knowing as in the second situation?

I've never suggested that atheism is the default position. I would largely place agnosticism in the default position because I would say that a mind that has not yet considered the possibility of theology and is therefore presented afresh with the information for both sides would be agnostic.

I would, however, describe myself as negative (or weak) atheist because I do not believe in a higher power (spiritual entity nor pantheistic unity) not because I have or could ever discover proof of the non-existence of such divinity but because without proof I see no need to believe in it/them.

But, if the agnostic is in the default position, then how can weak atheism be the most epistemically justified position without proof?

Although I also think that considering a debate on theology cannot have a default position per-se because every member of the discussion comes in with a taught or self-defined belief system.

This is a little off tangent, but if you are a materialist in terms of the mind, then the mind must be seen as a consequence of a physical system obeying the laws of physics (i.e., thoughts are a consequence of the brain obeying the laws of physics). That means that every mind is a physical system. It would be hard for me to visualize a physical system having a default position since its just a value judgment like what are "good morals."

[OccamsRazor]

How do you reconcile these two statements? In the first one you take the position that not being able to provide epistemic evidence against a belief is no epistemic reason to withhold epistemic judgment. Whereas in the second quote you suggest that not being able to provide epistemic evidence against a belief leaves one justified in withholding epistemic judgment. Rather than withholding epistemic judgment, though, you think that a pragmatic judgment is required. Why not make a pragmatic judgment in favor of theism for the first situation since you are in the same epistemic situation of not knowing as in the second situation?

I am stating that in both situations because no epistemic evidence can be used then in neither do I feel that I can make a pragmatic judgement to add an entity to describe the world. In the same way that I could not make a judgement in favour of theism I could also not make a judgement in favour of the Matrix.

But, if the agnostic is in the default position, then how can weak atheism be the most epistemically justified position without proof?

I am suggesting that weak-atheism is an epistemically justified position because if can be taken once one has considered theology and agreed that no epismetic proof can be given. My point is that to start the debate without a position the subject would be agnostic because they have yet to consider their own theology.

[harvey1]

I am stating that in both situations because no epistemic evidence can be used then in neither do I feel that I can make a pragmatic judgement to add an entity to describe the world. In the same way that I could not make a judgement in favour of theism I could also not make a judgement in favour of the Matrix.

So, just to be clear, in both cases you do not know, but in both cases you are claiming knowledge, right? How do you handle situations where we do not know there are quarks, but we feel justified in stating that there are quarks? Surely you can't always say that it is adding entities to the world which is the only reason in not assuming a Matrix right? What constitutes good reason to believe that an entity exists? If epistemic proof of ontology is not practical, then how do you come to believe that a theoretical object (e.g., the Matrix) exists?

But, if the agnostic is in the default position, then how can weak atheism be the most epistemically justified position without proof?

I am suggesting that weak-atheism is an epistemically justified position because if can be taken once one has considered theology and agreed that no epismetic proof can be given. My point is that to start the debate without a position the subject would be agnostic because they have yet to consider their own theology.

Yes, and that suggests to me that you are justifying agnosticism since whoever makes a statement (either theistic or atheistic) must do so by first showing evidence that shows why an agnostic stance is not the correct one (since you seem here to suggest that it is a default position). So, why is weak atheism justified instead of agnosticism? I understand that you are saying that no epistemic proof can be given for the ontological existence of something, and this seems to be true of almost all beliefs (even quarks) since skepticism of this type is hard to defeat. Yet, that position of "no epistemic proof can be given" seems more in line with strong agnosticism than weak atheism. Can you clarify this for me?

[kctheshootinfool]

It seems to me that anyone that does not believe in a deity of any sort is by default an agnostic.

I disagree with this statement. The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is gthat an atheist will say that until evidence can be supplied to the contrary then they (in a positive sense) do not believe in god. Agnostics simply say that because neither side can be proven then neither side can claim their belief.

No, I understand the dictionary definition of each, that's not what I'm saying. I guess it is hard to argue against having an a-theist view if you agree that a theist view exists. Understood, and point well taken. You can't have a 1-sided coin.

Maybe it's just my agnostic thinking, but I can't understand how either side can claim to have a credible argument. How can an atheist claim to have insight into an area that he just argued the Jew or Christian COULDN'T have?? Almost seems hypocritical.

[OccamsRazor]

So, just to be clear, in both cases you do not know, but in both cases you are claiming knowledge, right?

No, In neither case am I claiming knowledge purely because I am claiming that the physical reality is unknowable.

How do you handle situations where we do not know there are quarks, but we feel justified in stating that there are quarks? Surely you can't always say that it is adding entities to the world which is the only reason in not assuming a Matrix right? What constitutes good reason to believe that an entity exists?

I do not totally understand the argument. What I think that you are saying is how could one justify adding an entity to the world that we cannot know to exist (such as quarks, gluons, black holes etc.)? The reason I can justify this is because empirical evidence, be it either mathematical or experimental, can be used to test the postulation and provide this justification. This is neither true for God nor for the Matrix.

If epistemic proof of ontology is not practical, then how do you come to believe that a theoretical object (e.g., the Matrix) exists?

I'm not sure that I follow this. Firstly I have stated that I cannot claim that the Matrix exists. Secondly I think that my argument above provides the answer, I can only claim to add a theoretical entity if it is absolutely necessary to describe the world.

Yes, and that suggests to me that you are justifying agnosticism since whoever makes a statement (either theistic or atheistic) must do so by first showing evidence that shows why an agnostic stance is not the correct one (since you seem here to suggest that it is a default position).

I flatly dispute this reasoning. Again I turn to the analogy of mythology, you could tell me that dragons live in China. Prior to having an understanding of what the nature of a dragon is I am without the ability to confirm or deny this. However after presented with the information as to what a dragon is I may make the statement that I do not believe that you are correct.

Yet, that position of "no epistemic proof can be given" seems more in line with strong agnosticism than weak atheism. Can you clarify this for me?

I see your point and also believe that the dividing line here is very fine. Although I do hold with the view that a belief in god is unknowable (strong-agnosticism) it is on this basis that I can reject the idea of a creator because I do not feel it necessary to add one to the argument (Occam's Razor again).

[OccamsRazor]

Maybe it's just my agnostic thinking, but I can't understand how either side can claim to have a credible argument. How can an atheist claim to have insight into an area that he just argued the Jew or Christian COULDN'T have??

I do not claim to have knowledge of the non-existence of god. I believe that neither side can claim insight. I am merely stating that I could not add a concept or an entity for which no epistemic argument can be given to justify the world around us. I do not hold the agnostic position here because I am saying that without the argument for this entity I make a judgement that it does not exist.