Can non-belief be a cause?

Tinker Grey · Dec 17, 2011

This thread is inspired by by the atheism/Christian violence thread in E&M by briareos.

I cannot image how it could be that non-belief in something could be a cause of action. If I were inspired to rail against religion, it isn't because of my disbelief in God but rather my belief that religion is harmful. (Note the "if". This thread isn't about religion, per se.)

My lack of belief in flurgs on planet zorg has never inspired an action of any sort. Nor does my disbelief in elves, goblins, leprechauns, unicorns, or Harry Potter inspire any action or lack thereof.

It is true that if I don't believe in a Christian god, then injunctions by that god are not an impediment to take or abstain from some action.

I'm not sure any negative position can be a cause. There must be a positive position to inspire action such as "religion is bad, therefore X" or "God wants me to do Y".

Thoughts.

kabizzle · Dec 17, 2011

yeh ur right. and when someone says oh theres this god and u gota worship him - they have the burden of showing evidence.

but when they say oh u cant really see or hear him (unless ur pentacostal) but if you dont believe him you are a bad nonbeliever who deserves to go to hell and have the same fat as a baby murderer.

all i know is - i didnt spend my life NOT killing and raping, to not get sky cake!

Sidheil · Dec 17, 2011

Perhaps lack of belief can cause inaction? If I don't believe someone is in danger, then I won't intervene.

MorkandMindy · Dec 17, 2011

They might be thinking something like this:

1. Christianity is the one and only truth

2. Therefore rejection of Christianity is acceptance of all falsehoods

Of course the word 'Christianity' could be replaced by any other ideology and the argument would still follow,

but taking the next step and evaluating said ideology, whether Christianity or pretty well any other, would lead to a collapse of the argument owing to such problems as internal inconsistencies within the ideology and problems of lack of meaning are also prevalent in many religions.

Making claim 1 allows the inference of claim 2, claim 2 then being dependent on claim 1 which is of course invalid, but just going from 1 to 2 is enough to convince the shallow minded of whatever you want to wave in front of their faces and it sort of makes things sound logical.

Tinker Grey · Dec 17, 2011

Sidheil said:
Perhaps lack of belief can cause inaction? If I don't believe someone is in danger, then I won't intervene.

Interesting thought. I suppose I might respond that inaction isn't a thing that can be caused. It isn't a thing or an action.

Sidheil · Dec 17, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Interesting thought. I suppose I might respond that inaction isn't a thing that can be caused. It isn't a thing or an action.

I don't know if there is any such thing as inaction. It's impossible for anyone to will to do nothing. And I don't know that it can be so simply stated as "a belief causes an action". But beliefs can help justify actions.

Tinker Grey · Dec 17, 2011

MorkandMindy said:
They might be thinking something like this:

1. Christianity is the one and only truth

2. Therefore rejection of Christianity is acceptance of all falsehoods

Of course the word 'Christianity' could be replaced by any other ideology and the argument would still follow,

but taking the next step and evaluating said ideology, whether Christianity or pretty well any other, would lead to a collapse of the argument owing to such problems as internal inconsistencies within the ideology and problems of lack of meaning are also prevalent in many religions.

Making claim 1 allows the inference of claim 2, claim 2 then being dependent on claim 1 which is of course invalid, but just going from 1 to 2 is enough to convince the shallow minded of whatever you want to wave in front of their faces and it sort of makes things sound logical.

My claim, so to speak, is that not believing in something is not a cause of anything, whether the example is phrased in terms of physics or religion. I have to believe I can fly before I jump. Or I have to suicidal and believe that jumping will kill me. I if I don't believe I can fly or I don't believe it will kill me (when I want to die), then I don't jump.

Let us suppose that it is true that if we reject some truth (e.g., Christianity) that we might accept some falsehood that entails action. It isn't the rejection of the "truth" but the acceptance of the falsehood that causes the action.

IOW, I might agree that non-belief entails some action if someone could provided an example of a non-belief that necessarily entails another belief that necessarily entails action.

IOW, I think I get what you're saying (please correct if I am wrong), but I can't imagine a situation where a supposed consequence necessarily follows.

Exiledoomsayer · Dec 17, 2011

I wonder if this might just be using the wrong wording.

But I might say that not believing in death would cause me to do a few things.

Or would that be just me believing in immortality?

MorkandMindy · Dec 17, 2011

Exiledoomsayer said:
I wonder if this might just be using the wrong wording.

But I might say that not believing in death would cause me to do a few things.

Or would that be just me believing in immortality?

Not believing in death would mean you wouldn't apply certain safeguards, but I can't see how it would cause you to do certain actions, I guess it could be argued it might allow certain actions to be different such as if you were fond of sky diving you might save some money and trouble by not taking a parachute.

I guess people have to be more specific about their claims, if a Christian claims people as a result of atheism do mass murder then, well, they really ought to look in a mirror because history shows the exact opposite. No, I can't think of any examples where atheists do bad things Christians don't do, unless the 'bad' is redefined in such a way as to make the statement true.

Tinker Grey said:
My claim, so to speak, is that not believing in something is not a cause of anything, whether the example is phrased in terms of physics or religion. I have to believe I can fly before I jump. Or I have to suicidal and believe that jumping will kill me. I if I don't believe I can fly or I don't believe it will kill me (when I want to die), then I don't jump.

Let us suppose that it is true that if we reject some truth (e.g., Christianity) that we might accept some falsehood that entails action. It isn't the rejection of the "truth" but the acceptance of the falsehood that causes the action.

IOW, I might agree that non-belief entails some action if someone could provided an example of a non-belief that necessarily entails another belief that necessarily entails action.

IOW, I think I get what you're saying (please correct if I am wrong), but I can't imagine a situation where a supposed consequence necessarily follows.

Agreed. I was just trying to explain the type of logical fallacy that could make such a claim sound sort of believable

.

Tinker Grey · Dec 17, 2011

Exiledoomsayer said:
I wonder if this might just be using the wrong wording.

But I might say that not believing in death would cause me to do a few things.

Or would that be just me believing in immortality?

I would say something like "believing in immortality" in general. But, I think it would depend on the specific action taken. If, as in MorkandMindy's example, you go sky-diving without a parachute, you would do so because it was fun, or you liked freaking someone else out, or something like that.

In other words, not believing in death might remove inhibitions, but it still isn't the cause of the specific action.

MorkandMindy said:
Agreed. I was just trying to explain the type of logical fallacy that could make such a claim sound sort of believable .

Cool. Thanks.

Exiledoomsayer · Dec 17, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
I would say something like "believing in immortality" in general. But, I think it would depend on the specific action taken. If, as in MorkandMindy's example, you go sky-diving without a parachute, you would do so because it was fun, or you liked freaking someone else out, or something like that.

In other words, not believing in death might remove inhibitions, but it still isn't the cause of the specific action.

Cool. Thanks.

I see what you are saying.

I had a thought before which is why i came back.
"What if I do not belief in suffering of others"
But I can see how that would still just remove inhibitions and not actually cause actions.

Sidheil · Dec 17, 2011

Exiledoomsayer said:
I see what you are saying.

I had a thought before which is why i came back.
"What if I do not belief in suffering of others"
But I can see how that would still just remove inhibitions and not actually cause actions.

How does any belief cause an action? I can see how beliefs could influence actions, but I don't know about cause.

Tinker Grey · Dec 17, 2011

How about "I believe God wants me to be a missionary to Uzbekistan?"

I understand your question, but it seems that many claim to do things--even against what they'd prefer--because they believe God wants them to.

Or perhaps, "it is a good thing to die for my country."

Possibly all conscious action might be cause by belief. I believe eating will help my hunger therefore I eat when I am hungry. (I specify conscious since autonomic functions don't require anything.)

I suppose some conscious behavior is instinctual. However, I imagine that if the person who previously acted instinctually begins to wonder why he does those things, he'd likely frame the answer in terms of what he believes.

Tinker Grey · Dec 17, 2011

ETA: Influence vs. cause. Good question. If it is merely influence and not cause, what could be considered the cause?

Thoughts?

GrowingSmaller · Dec 18, 2011

Maybe a lack of belief in god might cause you to call yourself an atheist?

Sidheil · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
ETA: Influence vs. cause. Good question. If it is merely influence and not cause, what could be considered the cause?

Thoughts?

Well, unless you're a determinist the cause would ultimately just be you willing to make a certain decision. I think that saying any belief or lack of belief makes us necessarily take a certain course of action is over simplified.

For example, you believe God does not exist, and you believe one should represent themselves truthfully. Barring any other influence, you will then probably decide to identify yourself as an atheist. But it's not forced, you could call yourself a Christian. You would be lying either to others or yourself though.

GrowingSmaller · Dec 18, 2011

To put it another way:

Assuming (for the sake of argument), a causal theory of knowledge, then if someone knows they lack belief in God, then that lack of belief in God has had a causal role in their knowledge that they lack belief.

Similarly, a basket being empty may have a causal role in someone's knowing that the basket is actually empty.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

GrowingSmaller said:
Maybe a lack of belief in god might cause you to call yourself an atheist?

No. It allows you to. You label yourself because you believe there is a need to.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

Sidheil said:
Well, unless you're a determinist the cause would ultimately just be you willing to make a certain decision. I think that saying any belief or lack of belief makes us necessarily take a certain course of action is over simplified.

For example, you believe God does not exist, and you believe one should represent themselves truthfully. Barring any other influence, you will then probably decide to identify yourself as an atheist. But it's not forced, you could call yourself a Christian. You would be lying either to others or yourself though.

I think I agree to a certain extent. But the question here, to phrase it in your terms, is why would you be willing to make a certain decision. I'd agree that if belief is not a cause or reason, then unbelief certainly is not.

So why would you call yourself a Christian when you are not? Certainly because you feel it benefits you more than identifying yourself as an atheist. You could be wrong, but that's not the point.

Again, I think we act out of our beliefs and not from our unbelief. Inasmuch as a cause is identifiable and absent determinism, it is because we have a belief about that action in the context of our circumstances.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

GrowingSmaller said:
To put it another way:

Assuming (for the sake of argument), a causal theory of knowledge, then if someone knows they lack belief in God, then that lack of belief in God has had a causal role in their knowledge that they lack belief.

Similarly, a basket being empty may have a causal role in someone's knowing that the basket is actually empty.

This is a bit abstract for me. Is it a lack that is causing anything here or perhaps rather a belief that there is a state of affairs and it is knowable? Is knowing an action or a state of affairs itself--the state that we have acquired knowledge? Here "acquiring" is the action.

Can non-belief be a cause?

Wanderer

Newbie

Senior Member

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Wanderer

Senior Member

Wanderer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Wanderer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

Senior Member

Wanderer

Wanderer

Muslm Humanist

Senior Member

Muslm Humanist

Wanderer

Wanderer

Wanderer

Similar threads