Can non-belief be a cause?

Sidheil · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
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.

I think I agree. When asked "why did you do x?", someone usually responds "because I believe y". So we can say belief y has a causal relation to belief x.

But if we do not believe x, for example that God exists, is that a lack of belief? Is "God does not exist" just as much a positive belief as "God does exist"? If so, then it can be used to justify an action. If not, then it can only justify lack of action. "Why did you not do x?" "Because I don't believe y."

It feels like I'm rambling, hopefully this kinda makes sense.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

ETA: I think I missed an important part of Sidheil's point. I'll leave this post since it took me a while to write it. It may contribute in some way.

Sidheil said:
I think I agree. When asked "why did you do x?", someone usually responds "because I believe y". So we can say belief y has a causal relation to belief x.

But if we do not believe x, for example that God exists, is that a lack of belief? Is "God does not exist" just as much a positive belief as "God does exist"? If so, then it can be used to justify an action. If not, then it can only justify lack of action. "Why did you not do x?" "Because I don't believe y."

It feels like I'm rambling, hopefully this kinda makes sense.

It sounds as if I'm making sense to you. So I thank you for your responses.

I did wonder our exchange wouldn't come to the question of whether atheism, in general, is a positive assertion. It's a bit off topic in this thread so I don't want to dwell on it because the question of negative statements is important, I think. Not that I have an answer!

Most atheists do not make the statement "God does not exist", but rather "I find the evidence for gods unconvincing." Often debaters will assert that the second position isn't atheist at all but rather agnostic. However, if we subscribe to the idea that atheism is not believing that gods exist, then the second position is, in fact, atheism. There are some atheist that do make the statement "God does not exist". But most don't and yet still call themselves atheist. Some find this distinction difficult to understand. Perhaps an analogy is helpful. If some states to you that the mean distance of the earth from the sun rounded to the nearest unit is an odd number, do you believe him, laying aside for the moment that it is a thoroughly unimportant question? If you don't, does that make you an "even-ist" by default. If you are like me, you don't know the answer to the question. As such, you are not an odd-ist, you are an a-odd-ist, but neither do you assert that "even" is the answer. We could push the analogy further and have you investigate all possible answers with all sorts of different units--noting that I didn't provide any in the original question.

The question of gods is trickier since there are all sorts of possible gods (if not infinite). And even within Christendom various attributes of Yahweh are debated.

But to get back on topic, I think that "God does not exist" is possible a positive assertion that might require the speaker to defend his position. However, I can't conceive of it as a positive belief. Your hypothetical responder might say "because I don't believe X", but I can't conceive how that impels one to do anything. Lack of belief in X may remove some inhibition, but surely there is a Y (pardon the pun) to impel the action.

I confess that I may be begging the question or my own personal incredulity. But I am honestly willing to change my mind if someone can provide a concrete X following from a concrete non-belief. Unfortunately, I don't know what the criteria for evaluating the example is. If I did, I think I could either say with some confidence that no-one will be able to provide such an example or that I have already changed my mind.

My hunch is that it cannot be done.

Sidheil · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
It sounds as if I'm making sense to you. So I thank you for your responses.

I did wonder our exchange wouldn't come to the question of whether atheism, in general, is a positive assertion. It's a bit off topic in this thread so I don't want to dwell on it because the question of negative statements is important, I think. Not that I have an answer!

Most atheists do not make the statement "God does not exist", but rather "I find the evidence for gods unconvincing." Often debaters will assert that the second position isn't atheist at all but rather agnostic. However, if we subscribe to the idea that atheism is not believing that gods exist, then the second position is, in fact, atheism. There are some atheist that do make the statement "God does not exist". But most don't and yet still call themselves atheist. Some find this distinction difficult to understand. Perhaps an analogy is helpful. If some states to you that the mean distance of the earth from the sun rounded to the nearest unit is an odd number, do you believe him, laying aside for the moment that it is a thoroughly unimportant question? If you don't, does that make you an "even-ist" by default. If you are like me, you don't know the answer to the question. As such, you are not an odd-ist, you are an a-odd-ist, but neither do you assert that "even" is the answer. We could push the analogy further and have you investigate all possible answers with all sorts of different units--noting that I didn't provide any in the original question.

The question of gods is trickier since there are all sorts of possible gods (if not infinite). And even within Christendom various attributes of Yahweh are debated.

But to get back on topic, I think that "God does not exist" is possible a positive assertion that might require the speaker to defend his position. However, I can't conceive of it as a positive belief. Your hypothetical responder might say "because I don't believe X", but I can't conceive how that impels one to do anything. Lack of belief in X may remove some inhibition, but surely there is a Y (pardon the pun) to impel the action.

I confess that I may be begging the question or my own personal incredulity. But I am honestly willing to change my mind if someone can provide a concrete X following from a concrete non-belief. Unfortunately, I don't know what the criteria for evaluating the example is. If I did, I think I could either say with some confidence that no-one will be able to provide such an example or that I have already changed my mind.

My hunch is that it cannot be done.

Yep, I'm going to have to agree. I can't think of an example where lack of belief is the main impetus for an action. I can see it removing inhibitions for another action, but there must still be a belief motivating that action to begin with.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

OK. Making another pass at making sense.

Sidheil said:
I think I agree. When asked "why did you do x?", someone usually responds "because I believe y". So we can say belief y has a causal relation to belief x.

But if we do not believe x, for example that God exists, is that a lack of belief? Is "God does not exist" just as much a positive belief as "God does exist"? If so, then it can be used to justify an action. If not, then it can only justify lack of action. "Why did you not do x?" "Because I don't believe y."

It feels like I'm rambling, hopefully this kinda makes sense.

You make a good point, I think. I hope you don't mind that this response is shorter than the previous one, but I think I had a minor flash of insight that makes the response easier.

Your hypothetical exchange is this:
A: Why did you not do x
B: Because I don't believe Y

Two things: 1) B has taken no action and so the example doesn't change my hypothesis. (I think it is equivocation to assert that non-action is an action in itself. That is, I don't accept that assertion.) And, 2) B is asserting that belief in Y is required to do X which was my premise at the outset.

Hope that helps.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

Simulpost! (Sort of.)

Thanks for the interaction, Sidheil.

The Paul · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Nor does my disbelief in elves, goblins, leprechauns, unicorns, or Harry Potter inspire any action or lack thereof.

Well, to be fair, it's probably inspired all sorts of inaction. You've probably never hung a horseshoe on your door frame to ward off faeries, or left an offering to appease them, or anything of the sort.

Sidheil · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Simulpost! (Sort of.)

Thanks for the interaction, Sidheil.

Thank you for posing the question. It was an interesting one.

GrowingSmaller · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
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.

I think that we know the state of affairs has properties a,b, and c, and does not have the properties x, y and z. The perception of a state of affairs for inststance a person (you) without a belief in God it the reason (cause) that you describe yourself as an atheist.

I would say it is also the cause, when faced with the possibility of following theistically inspired morality, that you (if you are being consistent) decline.

Also if your belief "I lack belief in God" is not caused by anything in reality, then upon what does it depend? Could you accept it is causally independent of real states of affairs, or what?

GrowingSmaller · Dec 18, 2011

Sidheil said:
Yep, I'm going to have to agree. I can't think of an example where lack of belief is the main impetus for an action.

What about walking past a church, rather than going in?

GrowingSmaller · Dec 18, 2011

Is knowing one lacks belief in God dependent on the belief "I lack belief in God"? If so, maybe it is this belief, about a lack of belief, that may cause action.

Tinker Grey · Dec 18, 2011

GrowingSmaller said:
I think that we know the state of affairs has properties a,b, and c, and does not have the properties x, y and z. The perception of a state of affairs for inststance a person (you) without a belief in God it the reason (cause) that you describe yourself as an atheist.

No. I would say not. If no one earth believed in a god nor had even the concept of the possibility a god, then they would all be atheists and yet I think it very unlikely that the term atheist would ever be invented. The term exists as a contrast to theism. And my labeling myself as an atheist is because I believe that in this context it is useful and perhaps even necessary at CF.

I do not call myself anything at all at work. My bosses and coworkers do not know I am an atheist. Nor do I believe it would be beneficial to apply that label to myself in that context.

So, though I am an atheist, it does not follow that I am caused to label myself as such since as I have just indicated ... I don't.

It may be necessary that I don't believe in gods in order to call myself an atheist (and be honest), but that doesn't cause me to label myself an atheist.

I would say it is also the cause, when faced with the possibility of following theistically inspired morality, that you (if you are being consistent) decline.

I'd venture to say you could find no such example. There is nothing about being an atheist that requires me to not follow the golden rule. IOW, there is nothing about being an atheist that compels/causes one to act immorally. It might allow (note the word allow; allow is different than cause) one to act in such a way that Christian finds immoral. (This would not necessarily entail that such an act would actually be immoral, BTW.)

Also if your belief "I lack belief in God" is not caused by anything in reality, then upon what does it depend? Could you accept it is causally independent of real states of affairs, or what?

Why would you say "I lack belief" is a belief? Is "Know thyself" a futile injunction?

I lack belief because the evidence is uncompelling. In other words, I am not caused to believe.

GrowingSmaller said:
What about walking past a church, rather than going in?

Not going in is not an action. It is inaction.

GrowingSmaller said:
Is knowing one lacks belief in God dependent on the belief "I lack belief in God"? If so, maybe it is this belief, about a lack of belief, that may cause action.

I don't get this at all. How could one believe that one lacks belief in god and be wrong?

If you think that a lack of belief might cause action, please provide a concrete example.

GrowingSmaller · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
Is knowing one lacks belief in God dependent on the belief "I lack belief in God"? If so, maybe it is this belief, about a lack of belief, that may cause action.

Click to expand...

I don't get this at all.

You believe "I lack belief in God" right? Therefore you have a belief, you affirm the proposition "I lack belief in God".

If you don't believe a lack of belief can cause an action, maybe it is a belief about a lack of belief that causes action. When you say "I am an atheist" if is not the lack of belif that is the cause, but the belief "I lack belief in God" that is the cause. But that raises the question, what caused the initial belief about a lack of belief?

How could one believe that one lacks belief in god and be wrong?

What?

If you think that a lack of belief might cause action, please provide a concrete example.

You say "I lack belief" and know it, and the matarial condition of that is a lack of belief. If you deny this material condition is a cause, that you have an uncaused belief that you lack belief. Or a belief about a statee of affairs that is causally independent of the state of affairs itself. How odd?

I do not call myself anything at all at work. My bosses and coworkers do not know I am an atheist. Nor do I believe it would be beneficial to apply that label to myself in that context.

There is the difference between an occurent and a dispositional belifef in philosophy. When I actually psychologically affirm the proposition "I am male" I have an occurent belief, but if I am not expressing the belief I have what is called a dispositional belief that I am male because I am disposed to believe it if prompted. Similarly you may either express, or be disposed to believe "I lack belief in God".

BTW being a wealk atheist (lacking belief in God) is usually seen as a response to contemplation of "Do I believe in God?" It is not like a lack of belief in something unheard of like a lack of belief in "The pink satire 10923 in New York, Columbia" before anyone even contemplated the expression. There has in weak atheism been an examination of one's beliefs, and a prior contemplation of the virtues of a God-concept, and it is discovered that you do not believe in God. This lack is the cause of the expression "I lack belief", just as a missing purse might cause the expression "My purse is gone!" after one looks for but does not find one's purse.

A belief is as much an object of perception as a purse, and if preception of a missing purse can cause action so can perception of a lack of belief. At least, it can cause one to say "I lack belief" just as ift can cause one to say "My purse is missing."

Matthew 6:19-21
“19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." bible gateway

3rdHeaven · Dec 18, 2011

We all have our religions, and atheism is a religion too.

there is no such thing as non-belief unless your a rock or some other non-living being.

The Nihilist · Dec 18, 2011

3rdHeaven said:
We all have our religions, and atheism is a religion too.

there is no such thing as non-belief unless your a rock or some other non-living being.

What do you mean by religion? Would you reduce religion to simply being an opinion on the metaphysical?

quatona · Dec 18, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
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.

I tend to think that there´s always an unspoken, implicit comparison (and a - questionable - reverse conclusion on which such a statement is based.
We do experience that a belief can cause people to abstain from doing something.
Example:
"I used to believe in biblegod therefore I abstained from premarital sex. When I stopped believing I saw no reason for this anymore, and I started engaging in pre-marital sex. (-> My lack of belief in biblegod was the cause for having premarital sex)."

Or, if we change that from a personal testimony to a general argument: "Lack of belief in biblegod causes people to engage in pre-marital sex."

Another phenomenon would be the superimposition of certain paradigms upon the action of someone else [as we have seen in the argument: "If there isn´t a God, the government becomes god. Therefore lack of belief in God is the cause for the violence of secular governments.": The underlying paradigm (without which this statement doesn´t make any sense) is: "There must be an absolute authority."].

quatona · Dec 18, 2011

3rdHeaven said:
We all have our religions, and atheism is a religion too.

...just like bald is a hair colour.

3rdHeaven · Dec 18, 2011

quatona said:
...just like bald is a hair colour.

really getting old and still does not compare lol

quatona · Dec 18, 2011

3rdHeaven said:
really getting old and still does not compare lol

Not as old as your initial phrase that I responded to. lol

Feel free to show how it doesn´t compare.

3rdHeaven · Dec 18, 2011

quatona said:
Not as old as your initial phrase that I responded to. lol

Feel free to show how it doesn´t compare.

your asking me why hair color and belief are two different things?

ok let me give it a stab,

I'm saying no one is bald

quatona · Dec 18, 2011

3rdHeaven said:
your asking me why hair color and belief are two different things?

No, that´s not what I have been asking.

ok let me give it a stab,

I'm saying no one is bald

What can I say? I think you should get out more.
Would posting a picture of a bald person help?

Can non-belief be a cause?

Senior Member

Wanderer

Senior Member

Wanderer

Wanderer

Newbie

Senior Member

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

Wanderer

Muslm Humanist

Truth Seeker

Contributor

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Truth Seeker

"God"? What do you mean??

Truth Seeker

"God"? What do you mean??

Similar threads