Is belief that a god exists a choice?

[Albion]

If I hold a belief that God does not exist, then I'm essentially making the claim that God does not exist.

It means to lack belief in the claim that god exists..

Well, I'm going with the experts and with the historic and ordinary usage.

I said long ago that people who see themselves as dedicated defenders of a certain POV tend to get creative with the language in order to put just the right twist on the matter so that it presents them and/or the belief in the best light. But by the same token, the rest of us are under no obligation to adopt that usage.

 

[Davian]

Do you take it as a personal affront that anyone disagrees with your thinking on this matter? Does that hold with any and all other issues, too?

No, I take it as a personal affront when someone tells me what I am thinking, and then implies that they are right based on that.

Let me define "theist" as "believes in things imaginary". May we use this as a working definition? Does it not fit all of the evidence at hand?

I've already explained my position and why it is what it is. And I'm holding to it, even if you continue to tell yourself that I actually agree (or 'tacitly admit' something ) with you.

You are kind of stuck with demonstrating the existence of your "God", or agreeing with me that you cannot do so.

 

[Albion]

You are kind of stuck with demonstrating the existence of your "God", or agreeing with me that you cannot do so.

Not in the least. This thread is not about "demonstrating" any belief, proving God's existence, or anything of the sort. I use the terms in the proper way, that's all. And no amount of trying to put words into my mouth will change that.

 

[Davian]

It means to hold a belief that God does not exist.

This is a faulty statement, as it has the problem of the so-often-repeated theistic response of "Well, that isn't what *I* mean by 'God', my 'God' is much different than [whatever the other person may have said]".

 

[Davian]

Not in the least. This thread is not about "demonstrating" any belief, proving God's existence, or anything of the sort.

No, but I was simply offering a perfect opportunity for you to do so, considering the premise of the OP.

I use the terms in the proper way, that's all. And no amount of trying to put words into my mouth will change that.

The "proper" way, meaning *your* way. Got it.

 

[Non sequitur]

John lacks belief in the standard definition of gods, or the common definition of gods. Okay. So why reject someone's definition of "god" that would fit concerning something he DOES believe in ? Ghosts would be a decent example. Since there is no collective social consensus even between those who do they claim they exist on what exactly they are, their origins, etc, if someone else calls them "gods" why reject that ? Suppose the person, who is calling them "gods", their definition fits precisely what he is experiencing and witnessing when he sees a "ghost", nothing more nothing less. No qualities of omni this or omni that. Suppose their definition fits *only* the precise qualities and attributes that he himself sees and observes when he experiences "ghosts". Why reject someone else calling them "gods" simply because their use of the word "god" doesn't fit common or standard definitions ? Throughout history, including today obviously, there are untold number of variations and thus definitions of "god".

Because for people to communicate (easily), there has to be some basic fundamental agreed upon terminology.

The word god and gods come with some (loose) baggage.

It would be silly and not useful to keep reducing a word to where it can fit any "whatever it means to me, in my heart".

Now where are we?

This goes back to the expectation of what a "god" should be. Why would someone who lacks belief in "gods" have expectations of what they should be, to the degree they would even reject others definition that don't fit that expectation, if they lack belief in them in the first place ?

Because I have to understand and know (not believe) what you are talking about, before I can lack any belief in it.

Causally, I have a generalized definition of things, and my expectations can only line up with said definition, for the sake of conversation/argument.

Not casually, I'll ask what they specifically believe and to define terminology, so we are using the same definitions.

IOW ... an atheist lacks belief in gods, YET often retains some expectation of what a god should be defined as. I think this goes beyond creative or wishful thinking (i.e. "If Star Wars were real, then I would want Jedi to actually be like this instead of that," etc) if they are actually able to reject someone else's definitions of "god" when it actually precisely fits something they DO believe exists. Because it's showing a bias towards favoring a certain definition, which is counterintuitive to me given that they claim to lack belief in it's existence in the first place.

Why would an atheist favor or have a bias as to what the definition of a god should be ? The common response of, "Others define it for us, we reject it or accept it," I think is somewhat of a cop-out, because I can think of examples (like the ghost example) where someone can offer up a definition of "god" that actually fits something a self proclaimed atheist believes exists and has experienced evidence of, yet they reject it anyways, because they still have a personal expectation of what a "god" is. I'm not making a blanket statement about "all atheists", rather I'm picking out a select example of course. In this example, is the lack of belief really the core issue, or is expectation ? I would personally say expectation is, which would make such a self proclaimed atheist, an atheist concerning the "god"s that others have claimed thus far, while NOT an atheist to their personal expectation of what a "god" should be in their own personal stance.

If someone says "gods" mean "the things that give you that weird feeling when you ate too much ranch with your pizza", I think they are playing fast and loose with their words.

So, I have some expectation that when someone says "ghost" that they don't mean the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship or the common or generic name of for beings to whom divine attributes are ascribed and divine worship rendered.

That seems like a fairly safe default.

The application, or practical result, of what I'm trying to get at is this: if someone already has a bias and expectation of what a "god" should or shouldn't be, then realistically it would be difficult to convince them even with evidence of "god" unless it fits their bias and expectation. Whether they are an atheist, or a believer, would seem to be irrelevant. Believers exhibit this type of thinking all the time with others ... for example when someone claims to be abducted by aliens, or see UFO's, or claim evolution, etc ... believers will label it as of Satan, delusion, God, etc. It depends on what their bias and expectation is. Likewise with many an atheist I find: they may reject certain explanations and favor others, depending on their expectation and biases (like with the ghosts for example, and I can think of others as well, etc). Thus I don't know if belief or lack of belief is the fundamental difference between many atheists and believers, rather EXPECTATION and bias may be more of a fundamental difference. This would become more apparent in certain circumstances (like when an atheist believes in something there is already not a clear definition for, for example).

Hope you see what I'm getting at.

I do.

That's why you usually don't see atheists arguing against Pantheism, etc., as it doesn't seem to have any should-be problems of expectations ("...the god loved us so much that..."); it's more "diluted".

A good atheist (ha ha) usually says what a god should or shouldn't be, in the context of someone claiming a personal god (and the attributes associated with it). It's assumed we know that you know we're talking in the sense of "Ok, so let's assume your personal god (and all those attributes) is a real thing..."

The only way I can say what a god or gods should be like is by comparing and contrasting it to what someone says they (believe they) are like.

I have no bias and expectation of god or gods, I'm just familiar with the the vernacular used.

 

[TillICollapse]

Because for people to communicate (easily), there has to be some basic fundamental agreed upon terminology.

The word god and gods come with some (loose) baggage.

It would be silly and not useful to keep reducing a word to where it can fit any "whatever it means to me, in my heart".

Now where are we?

Because I have to understand and know (not believe) what you are talking about, before I can lack any belief in it.

Causally, I have a generalized definition of things, and my expectations can only line up with said definition, for the sake of conversation/argument.

Not casually, I'll ask what they specifically believe and to define terminology, so we are using the same definitions.

That's why you usually don't see atheists arguing against Pantheism, etc., as it doesn't seem to have any should-be problems of expectations ("...the god loved us so much that..."); it's more "diluted".

A good atheist (ha ha) usually says what a god should or shouldn't be, in the context of someone claiming a personal god (and the attributes associated with it). It's assumed we know that you know we're talking in the sense of "Ok, so let's assume your personal god (and all those attributes) is a real thing..."

The only way I can say what a god or gods should be like is by comparing and contrasting it to what someone says they (believe they) are like.

Okay, so what I may conclude from this type of thinking, is that the term "atheist" itself relies largely upon understood definitions of "god" between the atheist and the other party, yes ?

I have no bias and expectation of god or gods, I'm just familiar with the the vernacular used.

Someone with a bias would often say, "I have no bias" ... but I'm saying this in jest to you, not trying to poke at you (and yes I realize that someone who actually IS trying to poke at another, would say they weren't trying to poke at them hahahaha ...)

If someone says "gods" mean "the things that give you that weird feeling when you ate too much ranch with your pizza", I think they are playing fast and loose with their words.

Okay great example. Why would they be fast and loose with their words ? Why would an atheist without a bias care one way or another and not say, "Okay, that's god. I'm no longer atheist concerning your god, because I acknowledge that one can receive weird feelings from eating too much ranch with your pizza. If that's how you define "god" and nothing more added to it but that, then I'm atheist to all the other gods I've ever been presented with except yours ..." ?

Obviously the example of pizza and indigestion isn't common, but take an example that would be more plausible. Like the ghost thing. If someone defines "god" as the manifestation of an unclassified type of humanoid appearing apparition commonly referred to as a "ghost", and nothing more added to it (no omni's, no texts involved, no worship necessary), and an atheist acknowledges that such a thing that fits that definition exists ... isn't that atheist now, for all intent and purposes, non-atheist concerning that definition of "god" ? If they reject that definition because it's being fast and loose with the term "god", doesn't that reveal a bias and expectation of their own version of "this is what a god WOULD be defined as in my heart" etc ? After all, they are rejecting not the belief in the thing being described, but the term itself because the term has "baggage" that either fits their mold or it doesn't. So is such an atheist's stance based on belief or lack of it, or definitions and expectations ? I realize I'm repeating myself now, and I appreciate your responses, but your own responses keep highlighting the very point I'm pointing out perhaps.

So, I have some expectation that when someone says "ghost" that they don't mean the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship or the common or generic name of for beings to whom divine attributes are ascribed and divine worship rendered.

That seems like a fairly safe default.

Having that POV as a default, sounds like a bias, even if it's unintentional (like automatically assuming we are talking about a "white" Santa when discussing Santa Claus, etc.) Depending on context, I can see how viewing that definition as a default is more or less a safe default to assume. HOWEVER ... in other contexts, I can see where that same default actually reveals a bias even with the atheist, not a neutral stance, and the ghost example is a decent example. Biases are often revealed best in specific circumstances, not predictable scenarios that are played out ad infinitum.

For example, suppose a spacecraft full of extraterrestrials were to land, and reveal themselves to humans, were capable of some kind of communication which was not easily understood and explainable by humans, and they claimed they were "gods". When asked what made them "gods", they would say that their definition of "god" simply involved their specific race of extraterrestrial and their unique method of communication, which again, they could not explain to us in a way we could understood or reproduce yet. Would you personally accept them as "gods" or reject the idea ?

I posit that there would still be atheists who would reject them as "gods" because they would still have expectations of what a "god" should be, even if they acknowledged these extraterrestrials were actually extraterrestrial and capable of this unexplainable form of communication. There would be other atheists (for example ancient-astronaut-theory atheists) who would jump on board and acknowledge they were "gods" because it fits into their expectations that "gods" were nothing more than advanced extraterrestrials, etc.

I suppose what I'm concluding, is that the atheist stance that their stance revolves around belief (lack of it or otherwise), seems like it's still lacking. I would probably say that the term "unbeliever" is more fitting and appropriate, in context. Believer and unbeliever, esp if one's belief relies upon someone else defining the focus of belief for you. The term "atheist" itself, taken literally, means "without god" and is perhaps describing an entirely different thing by definition: whether gods exist or not, the atheist is "without" them, regardless of how "gods" are defined or what the expectations are. Perhaps what I'm getting at, is tacking on concepts of belief or lack of belief to define "atheist" seem erroneous. I may eat these words, but: atheism has no more to do with belief than being a True Scotsman has to do with what a Scotsman does or doesn't believe.

 

[Non sequitur]

Okay, so what I may conclude from this type of thinking, is that the term "atheist" itself relies largely upon understood definitions of "god" between the atheist and the other party, yes ?

Pretty much.

In a literal sense, if there was no theist (claim made), there would be no atheist (lack of belief in said claim). The commonly used definition is the commonly one in question.

If there was never a talk of gods, there could never have been an understood definition.

Someone with a bias would often say, "I have no bias" ... but I'm saying this in jest to you, not trying to poke at you (and yes I realize that someone who actually IS trying to poke at another, would say they weren't trying to poke at them hahahaha ...)

I can't be biased about an un-thing. I can be biased about their followers

Okay great example. Why would they be fast and loose with their words ? Why would an atheist without a bias care one way or another and not say, "Okay, that's god. I'm no longer atheist concerning your god, because I acknowledge that one can receive weird feelings from eating too much ranch with your pizza. If that's how you define "god" and nothing more added to it but that, then I'm atheist to all the other gods I've ever been presented with except yours ..." ?

For the same reasons people say they aren't religious, but "spiritual". I think they like the internal and external benefits that come with concepts of "greater than me", mostly from other people.

IMO people who are spiritual are the hipsters of religion.

Think about it. When have you ever heard the phrase, "Wow, I didn't know you were spiritual!"

They are like vegans; they make sure everyone knows, whether they asked, it's relevant or not.

(Yes, I am parodying things. Sorta.)

Obviously the example of pizza and indigestion isn't common, but take an example that would be more plausible. Like the ghost thing. If someone defines "god" as the manifestation of an unclassified type of humanoid appearing apparition commonly referred to as a "ghost", and nothing more added to it (no omni's, no texts involved, no worship necessary)...

I'd wonder why they'd want to try and use a word that already has several definitions, some very specific, for something that doesn't fit those existing definitions.

...and an atheist acknowledges that such a thing that fits that definition exists...

Acknowledges ghosts exist or this redefining of "ghosts" to mean the other party's concept of "god"?

...isn't that atheist now, for all intent and purposes, non-atheist concerning that definition of "god" ? If they reject that definition because it's being fast and loose with the term "god", doesn't that reveal a bias and expectation of their own version of "this is what a god WOULD be defined as in my heart" etc ? After all, they are rejecting not the belief in the thing being described, but the term itself because the term has "baggage" that either fits their mold or it doesn't.

Ok, I get it.

Well, since you have established that they do believe ghosts exist, and have accepted this new odd (fast and loose) definition of "god", then rejecting that definition would be contradictory; they already accepted it, however it was declared by another party.

This atheist seems weird, as they shouldn't be hung up on merely the word "god".

So is such an atheist's stance based on belief or lack of it, or definitions and expectations ? I realize I'm repeating myself now, and I appreciate your responses, but your own responses keep highlighting the very point I'm pointing out perhaps.

That odd person's stance is based solely on their dislike of the word (and maybe personal associations) "god"; personal hangups, if I had to guess. Nothing logical in them being contradictory.

Having that POV as a default, sounds like a bias, even if it's unintentional (like automatically assuming we are talking about a "white" Santa when discussing Santa Claus, etc.) Depending on context, I can see how viewing that definition as a default is more or less a safe default to assume. HOWEVER ... in other contexts, I can see where that same default actually reveals a bias even with the atheist, not a neutral stance, and the ghost example is a decent example. Biases are often revealed best in specific circumstances, not predictable scenarios that are played out ad infinitum.

In your ghost example, you are seeing bias in the person, not commonly standard definitions (because there are no neutral stance definitions; just definitions).

When someone says dinner, I think along these lines.

This might be dinner to someone, but I think it'd be weird to hear them say I'm showing an unintentional bias and should accept any and all definitions of "dinner".

Make sense?

For example, suppose a spacecraft full of extraterrestrials were to land, and reveal themselves to humans, were capable of some kind of communication which was not easily understood and explainable by humans, and they claimed they were "gods". When asked what made them "gods", they would say that their definition of "god" simply involved their specific race of extraterrestrial and their unique method of communication, which again, they could not explain to us in a way we could understood or reproduce yet. Would you personally accept them as "gods" or reject the idea ?

I accept they call themselves that (and what that definition means to them). It wouldn't change what I perceive as "gods", in the commonly accepted definition of "gods", so I would "reject" the unnecessary redefining.

I posit that there would still be atheists who would reject them as "gods" because they would still have expectations of what a "god" should be, even if they acknowledged these extraterrestrials were actually extraterrestrial and capable of this unexplainable form of communication. There would be other atheists (for example ancient-astronaut-theory atheists) who would jump on board and acknowledge they were "gods" because it fits into their expectations that "gods" were nothing more than advanced extraterrestrials, etc.

I think I see the issue. It seems like you are under the impression atheists have a preconceived idea or model of a "god".

The expectations they have should be solely based on others assertions; if gods weren't (commonly) defined with certain similar traits and abilities, there would be no expectations of what a "god" should be.

Now, atheists could very well accept or reject them because of their expectations, and not accepted definitions, but that's outside the realm of atheism.

They could also believe in the Tooth Fairy and be atheists.

I suppose what I'm concluding, is that the atheist stance that their stance revolves around belief (lack of it or otherwise), seems like it's still lacking. I would probably say that the term "unbeliever" is more fitting and appropriate, in context. Believer and unbeliever, esp if one's belief relies upon someone else defining the focus of belief for you. The term "atheist" itself, taken literally, means "without god" and is perhaps describing an entirely different thing by definition: whether gods exist or not, the atheist is "without" them, regardless of how "gods" are defined or what the expectations are. Perhaps what I'm getting at, is tacking on concepts of belief or lack of belief to define "atheist" seem erroneous. I may eat these words, but: atheism has no more to do with belief than being a True Scotsman has to do with what a Scotsman does or doesn't believe.

If you think it needs to say more about things, I suppose you could find it lacking.

Unbeliever is probably not as popular, as it seems to have a more social anti-something aspect and most words with un at the beginning have a negative meaning (unhealthy) or negative connotation (unnatural); like below the baseline or standard.

 

[Conscious Z]

I haven't read all of the previous 26 pages, but I have never heard a philosopher give a convincing argument for direct doxastic voluntarism. Carl Ginet has done some work on the topic that has been accepted by some, but I believe he also has been guilty of conflating belief with action. We can act as though X is true, even if we don't believe X, given the proper circumstances. But that doesn't mean we actually believe X.

Belief doesn't seem to be volitional in virtually any sense. It is a product of other cognitive processes.

 

[TillICollapse]

Pretty much.

In a literal sense, if there was no theist (claim made), there would be no atheist (lack of belief in said claim). The commonly used definition is the commonly one in question.

If there was never a talk of gods, there could never have been an understood definition.



I can't be biased about an un-thing. I can be biased about their followers



For the same reasons people say they aren't religious, but "spiritual". I think they like the internal and external benefits that come with concepts of "greater than me", mostly from other people.

IMO people who are spiritual are the hipsters of religion.

Think about it. When have you ever heard the phrase, "Wow, I didn't know you were spiritual!"

They are like vegans; they make sure everyone knows, whether they asked, it's relevant or not.

(Yes, I am parodying things. Sorta.)



I'd wonder why they'd want to try and use a word that already has several definitions, some very specific, for something that doesn't fit those existing definitions.



Acknowledges ghosts exist or this redefining of "ghosts" to mean the other party's concept of "god"?



Ok, I get it.

Well, since you have established that they do believe ghosts exist, and have accepted this new odd (fast and loose) definition of "god", then rejecting that definition would be contradictory; they already accepted it, however it was declared by another party.

This atheist seems weird, as they shouldn't be hung up on merely the word "god".



That odd person's stance is based solely on their dislike of the word (and maybe personal associations) "god"; personal hangups, if I had to guess. Nothing logical in them being contradictory.



In your ghost example, you are seeing bias in the person, not commonly standard definitions (because there are no neutral stance definitions; just definitions).

When someone says dinner, I think along these lines.

This might be dinner to someone, but I think it'd be weird to hear them say I'm showing an unintentional bias and should accept any and all definitions of "dinner".

Make sense?



I accept they call themselves that (and what that definition means to them). It wouldn't change what I perceive as "gods", in the commonly accepted definition of "gods", so I would "reject" the unnecessary redefining.



I think I see the issue. It seems like you are under the impression atheists have a preconceived idea or model of a "god".

The expectations they have should be solely based on others assertions; if gods weren't (commonly) defined with certain similar traits and abilities, there would be no expectations of what a "god" should be.

Now, atheists could very well accept or reject them because of their expectations, and not accepted definitions, but that's outside the realm of atheism.

They could also believe in the Tooth Fairy and be atheists.



If you think it needs to say more about things, I suppose you could find it lacking.

Unbeliever is probably not as popular, as it seems to have a more social anti-something aspect and most words with un at the beginning have a negative meaning (unhealthy) or negative connotation (unnatural); like below the baseline or standard.

Okay you may have resolved at least one issue in my mind somewhat by this statement : "In a literal sense, if there was no theist (claim made), there would be no atheist (lack of belief in said claim). The commonly used definition is the commonly one in question.".

From digging in deep through discussions years ago with a large variety of mostly atheists, I have had it somewhat pounded into me that the literal definition of "atheism" was "without gods". In fact, I think I realized that is somewhat of a misnomer ... atheos is literally "without god(s)". Atheism is "without theism" hahaha Theism being the belief there is at least one god, atheism is without that theism, which does deal directly with belief. Specifically, theism tends to be the arena of the major Abrahamic religions, plus Sikh and Hinduism (according to Wiki at least). Thus, I did eat my words: atheism does deal with belief and god, typically the major popular concepts of "god" ... and not actually the existence of a god, rather the belief concerning the existence of one. So through our convo, I did actually have at least one thing I couldn't quite put my finger on, resolved. Thank you However, atheism still does deal with belief as it regards least a single deity in the broadest sense of the idea of theism, so technically someone defining "ghosts" as "gods" while another rejects that term, still falls under the umbrella of atheism I believe, at the far end of the spectrum perhaps.

Thus, there is still something I can't put my finger on concerning the rest of what I was digging to find, and to keep us from talking in circles, I'll highlight a couple of instances in your own response that do touch upon it:

In my ghost example, I think you are getting the gist of what I'm questioning without actually asking the question yourself. The atheist in that example, who is rejecting the use of the word "god", even though it is being redefined in such a way that it fits the definition of something he already recognizes exists ... he is rejecting it for any number of reasons. Personal hangups, dislike of the word, personal associations, etc. That makes sense ... and is somewhat precisely my point. It is *personal*. Personal expectations, personal concepts. Even if those concepts did in fact originate with someone else's claims and definitions, they have impacted and effected the atheist in question to the degree he will even reject a word, even though he believes the definition of the word is legitimate ... he will reject a word for a personal reason.

Now there is no rule that says an atheist is an atheist due to critical thinking, or skeptical thought. It could be for any reason whatsoever. However, how do you define an atheist who believes in the definition of at least one person's definition of "god", yet rejects the *word* "god" itself ? Are they actually rejecting belief in at least one god, or are they rejecting a word that they associate with other definitions they don't agree with, for personal reasons ?

Because to me, it DOES look like many atheists do have a preconceived idea or notion of what a "god" should be, regardless of whether or not their ideas came from others defining it for them initially. So I see that as being somewhat irrelevant. They may have came from the claims of others initially, but the atheist has since absorbed them and personalized them nonetheless, regardless of whether or not they ever had an original thought or belief of their own they concluded concerning the existence of a deity. My ghost example yet again: the atheist rejects a term for personal reasons. Which circles me back to my initial inquiry, of which I'm still not satisfied yet (but I can let it go so that we don't beat a dead horse) ... if it's still a personal issue for a specific atheist, does this actually show a "lack of belief" on their part ? Because for it to be personal, it seems active, involved, relevant. How can something have such a personal impact on them, to where they will even respond irrationally and contradictory, if they lack any active belief towards it ? It's not that I would expect such a person to literally be Spock-robot-like-neutral (humans are irrational), BUT if there is a "lack of belief" there is definitely the presence of something else which IS active and effecting them. What is that something else ?

 

[TillICollapse]

I haven't read all of the previous 26 pages, but I have never heard a philosopher give a convincing argument for direct doxastic voluntarism. Carl Ginet has done some work on the topic that has been accepted by some, but I believe he also has been guilty of conflating belief with action. We can act as though X is true, even if we don't believe X, given the proper circumstances. But that doesn't mean we actually believe X.

Belief doesn't seem to be volitional in virtually any sense. It is a product of other cognitive processes.

Thinking out loud here ...

To prove doxastic voluntarism of any kind, you would actually have to prove free will exists in at least a single instance for an individual. To do that, to *prove* it, causality would need to be broken in some fashion. Without a break in causality involved, you would not be able to prove free will (it would be assumed), and therefore you could not prove doxastic voluntarism. For practical purposes, direct would be an assumed perspective. Thinking out loud here.

 

[Conscious Z]

Thinking out loud here ...

To prove doxastic voluntarism of any kind, you would actually have to prove free will exists in at least a single instance for an individual. To do that, to *prove* it, causality would need to be broken in some fashion. Without a break in causality involved, you would not be able to prove free will (it would be assumed), and therefore you could not prove doxastic voluntarism. For practical purposes, direct would be an assumed perspective. Thinking out loud here.

I think that a lot of doxastic voluntarism discussions will cede the point of free will, at least for the sake of debate. Even assuming a libertarian view of free will, I don't believe a solid case has been made for any sort of direct doxastic voluntarism.

Ginet proposed a few thought experiments that he believed demonstrated cases in which we have direct volitional control over belief formation. One went like this (paraphrasing)....

Imagine that you are leaving to drive across the country for a vacation. When you get 1500 miles from home, you realize that you don't remember locking the front door to your house. You can either turn around and drive back, taking several days off of your vacation (if not the entire vacation), or you can continue driving, acting as though you have locked your front door. Ginet argues that if you decide to continue driving that you are choosing to believe that you locked the door.

I disagree for several reasons, but I'll play those close to the vest for now.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think that a lot of doxastic voluntarism discussions will cede the point of free will, at least for the sake of debate. Even assuming a libertarian view of free will, I don't believe a solid case has been made for any sort of direct doxastic voluntarism.

The last time I actually cared enough to take a stance, I argued for a probabilistic causality, not a deterministic one. Although I wouldn't have agreed with the libertarian stance of free will either. I haven't really cared to consider it further anymore however, and for practical purposes, I concede free will for the sake of most arguments, to some degree. Having said that however lol ...

Ginet proposed a few thought experiments that he believed demonstrated cases in which we have direct volitional control over belief formation. One went like this (paraphrasing)....

Imagine that you are leaving to drive across the country for a vacation. When you get 1500 miles from home, you realize that you don't remember locking the front door to your house. You can either turn around and drive back, taking several days off of your vacation (if not the entire vacation), or you can continue driving, acting as though you have locked your front door. Ginet argues that if you decide to continue driving that you are choosing to believe that you locked the door.

I disagree for several reasons, but I'll play those close to the vest for now.

... my first thought was that I don't see that as a convincing argument for direct doxastic voluntarism either. Psychological denial isn't the same as choosing to believe something, although I can see it's relation.

HOWEVER ... the act of dissonance reduction in cognitive dissonance could be evidence for direct doxastic voluntarism. I'd have to think about that some more.

Regardless, and not to bring up the issue of free will and causality directly again ... arguing direct doxastic voluntarism runs into another issue: whether or not consciousness is steering the rudder of our choices or not. A few years ago I read an article (maybe in Pop Sci or Sci American, I can't remember) on the default mode network (DMN) of the brain, and it's possible role in formulating thought and action for us almost as a shot caller to our consciousness. IOW ... it's typical to think of our ability to reason and exercise conscious thought and choice and be self-aware, as our brain's highest function and evidence we are actually making choices and calling the shots at times for our bodies. However IIRC, various experiments showed that perhaps our consciousness was actually secondary to other primary decision making centers in our brains that we were not even able to consciously communicate with. So to even further argue direct doxastic voluntarism, one would not only assume and concede free will, but one would assume and concede that your conscious awareness of choice and belief aren't being dictated to by other thinking centers in your own brain lol.

 

[talquin]

You are kind of stuck with demonstrating the existence of your "God", or agreeing with me that you cannot do so.

Not in the least. This thread is not about "demonstrating" any belief, proving God's existence, or anything of the sort. I use the terms in the proper way, that's all. And no amount of trying to put words into my mouth will change that.

If you posit that a god exists and you cannot demonstrate that such god does exist, then by default you are agreeing that you cannot demonstrate that such god exists.

 

[GenetoJean]

It may be the result of multiple choices but I dont believe that "belief in God" itself is a choice.

 

[Conscious Z]

If you posit that a god exists and you cannot demonstrate that such god does exist, then by default you are agreeing that you cannot demonstrate that such god exists.

Actually, that's not correct logic. An inability to demonstrate X is true does not entail that one agrees that he or she can't demonstrate X is true. One might incorrectly believe that he or she has demonstrated X is true.

 

[talquin]

It sounds like you do agree that there is at least one term to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that a god exists.

Yes. There is.

Would you agree that atheist is a term used to describe one who doesn't hold a belief that a god exists?

Since it's also apparent that you think there could be more than one term to describe such a person - depending on why they don't hold the belief that a god exists

-
Not more than one term for a single person. More than one term exists to describe not believing in God. Which term is the one to use depends on the person.

perhaps you could share a few terms which describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.

Atheist

So you agree that atheist is the correct term for one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. It would therefore follow that you would have to conclude that newborn babies are atheists - that is unless you can provide some evidence that they possess enough cognitive capabilities to believe that abstract concepts such as a god are real.

Agnostic

Agnostic doesn't pertain to belief or lack of belief in a god. It pertains to knowledge or lack of knowledge. For more on this read Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

#3 which you added isn't a claim regarding the existence of a god. It's a claim about how much information you have.

It is indeed a claim regarding the possibility of there being a god.

Let's go back and read your claim again:

I don't have enough information to be able to determine if a god exists.

It's a claim about how much information you have. Again, from Iron Chariots Wiki

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1) The god exists.
2) The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
Belief or acceptance of the claim.
Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

So you're saying an atheist is one who has been presented with the concept of a god and has willfully chosen to believe that such a god doesn't exist. Where do you get this definition from?

atheist n. [Fr. atheiste: see ATHEISM] a person who believes there is no God.

Are you not aware that to believe there is no god and to not hold a belief that a god exists are two different things?

Just because one doesn't hold the belief that a god exists doesn't mean it follows that they do hold the belief that god does not exist.

For example, you probably don't hold the belief that I own three elephants. This doesn't mean you do hold the belief that I don't own three elephants.

 

[Conscious Z]

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1) The god exists.
2) The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
Belief or acceptance of the claim.
Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Herein lies the problem. A newborn baby doesn't take the second position (disbelief) for claim number 1. It also takes neither position on the second claim.

I mostly think that these discussions aren't interesting because people are simply using different definitions. However, I do think that there is a point in saying that atheism is not merely lacking a belief in god. It must include some rejection of theism. An atheist can be an agnostic, or even perhaps totally neutral on the issue of the existence of god, but there still must be an epistemic agent involved that is capable of belief formation. Newborn babies have no such capabilities. Are you prepared to say that my dining room table is also an atheist?

Again, these are boring discussions because people either end up debating in circles, oblivious to the fact that they don't actually disagree, or they end up debating what a word should mean. Neither seems very fruitful.

 

[Non sequitur]

In my ghost example, I think you are getting the gist of what I'm questioning without actually asking the question yourself. The atheist in that example, who is rejecting the use of the word "god", even though it is being redefined in such a way that it fits the definition of something he already recognizes exists ... he is rejecting it for any number of reasons. Personal hangups, dislike of the word, personal associations, etc. That makes sense ... and is somewhat precisely my point. It is *personal*. Personal expectations, personal concepts. Even if those concepts did in fact originate with someone else's claims and definitions, they have impacted and effected the atheist in question to the degree he will even reject a word, even though he believes the definition of the word is legitimate ... he will reject a word for a personal reason.

Yes, that can and probably does happen. Not very logical of that atheist, though.

Now there is no rule that says an atheist is an atheist due to critical thinking, or skeptical thought. It could be for any reason whatsoever.

Nope, none at all; any reason.

However, how do you define an atheist who believes in the definition of at least one person's definition of "god", yet rejects the *word* "god" itself ?

It sounds like they have a hang up about the word and not the definition of the thing in question (which is what it's all about). However, if they believe this positive theistic-type claim, then they would not be an atheist.

If they don't believe this positive theistic-type claim and either accept or reject the word "god", they'd still be an atheist.

(I'm not sure if you mean believes in the "god" being defined and/or accepts that as a (new) definition for "god" or merely accepts that is someone's definition of "god".)

Are they actually rejecting belief in at least one god, or are they rejecting a word that they associate with other definitions they don't agree with, for personal reasons ?

Without clarification (from you or them), I can't say.

I can say "personal reasons" shouldn't play a part in a (hopefully) evidence-based and demonstrable conclusion arrived.

Because to me, it DOES look like many atheists do have a preconceived idea or notion of what a "god" should be, regardless of whether or not their ideas came from others defining it for them initially. So I see that as being somewhat irrelevant. They may have came from the claims of others initially, but the atheist has since absorbed them and personalized them nonetheless, regardless of whether or not they ever had an original thought or belief of their own they concluded concerning the existence of a deity.

They might have personalized it. I couldn't speak for them.

I can tell you that I had no (preconceived) idea what a "heaven" should be, until someone defined it, as I had no way to arrive at such an idea or have any thoughts about it.

Afterwards, I could have some notions/opinions/ideas on it...but only by contrasting it to an idea that was put forth.

I'm sure you can find atheists saying what "heaven" should be like, but it's usually using the should-be-this-because-your-book-says-this kind of way. Not an I-think-a-heaven-should-be-this, because that reads as nonsensical.

My ghost example yet again: the atheist rejects a term for personal reasons.

Bad atheist! No

Which circles me back to my initial inquiry, of which I'm still not satisfied yet (but I can let it go so that we don't beat a dead horse) ... if it's still a personal issue for a specific atheist, does this actually show a "lack of belief" on their part ?

I suppose you'd only know by asking them about it further. Not enough data to conclude anything, yet.

Because for it to be personal, it seems active, involved, relevant. How can something have such a personal impact on them, to where they will even respond irrationally and contradictory, if they lack any active belief towards it ?

Well, someone doesn't have to actively believe something before they can act irrationally about it. They can, but that's not a necessity.

For whatever the myriad of reasons people respond irrationally, I suppose? Or maybe they aren't an atheist.

It's not that I would expect such a person to literally be Spock-robot-like-neutral (humans are irrational), BUT if there is a "lack of belief" there is definitely the presence of something else which IS active and effecting them. What is that something else ?

If there is a legitimate lack of belief... insecurities, bad emotional association, connotation, perceived social fallout, er... whatever reactionary reasons and excuses that effect people to be actively irrational.

 

[talquin]

Herein lies the problem. A newborn baby doesn't take the second position (disbelief) for claim number 1. It also takes neither position on the second claim.

I mostly think that these discussions aren't interesting because people are simply using different definitions. However, I do think that there is a point in saying that atheism is not merely lacking a belief in god. It must include some rejection of theism. An atheist can be an agnostic, or even perhaps totally neutral on the issue of the existence of god, but there still must be an epistemic agent involved that is capable of belief formation. Newborn babies have no such capabilities. Are you prepared to say that my dining room table is also an atheist?

Again, these are boring discussions because people either end up debating in circles, oblivious to the fact that they don't actually disagree, or they end up debating what a word should mean. Neither seems very fruitful.

A newborn baby would be taking the position of disbelief with respect to each claim.

Disbelief

noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.