Can non-belief be a cause?

[Tinker Grey]

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."].

Thanks for your input. In between the OP and your response, I made a distinction between action and inaction. To that end, I've agreed that lacking belief might remove an inhibitor but it doesn't cause action.

For example, there is no prohibition against any able bodied adult riding a motorcycle. Yet, most of my friends are not impelled to do it. I ride because I like it. I have a reason to do it. They lack a reason to do it. Lacking an inhibitor, I suggest, isn't sufficient for action.

I hope this makes sense.

ETA: I don't disagree with what you said. However, I wanted to clarify what I meant.

 

[Tinker Grey]

For the OP I think it can act as the seed of something more. But then I think this is true for a lot of things. There's a lot of cascading things at work. One can say "I don't believe tennis is a fun sport to watch." So it would be natural to assume if said person watches a sport it's not tennis. Yet it would not be as simple to say that if this hypothetical person watched say golf that "Because person X does not like tennis, they watch golf." in a real correlation/causation sense. We can see how they are related but we shouldn't distort the nature of that relationship.

It sound as if we are in agreement. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you'd like to discuss this line of thought further, I'd like to suggest another thread.

Thanks it's your thread.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your input. In between the OP and your response, I made a distinction between action and inaction. To that end, I've agreed that lacking belief might remove an inhibitor but it doesn't cause action.

For example, there is no prohibition against any able bodied adult riding a motorcycle. Yet, most of my friends are not impelled to do it. I ride because I like it. I have a reason to do it. They lack a reason to do it. Lacking an inhibitor, I suggest, isn't sufficient for action.

I hope this makes sense.

ETA: I don't disagree with what you said. However, I wanted to clarify what I meant.

Yes, sure it does - like always.
I guess, you and I are just emphasizing different aspects or are looking at it from a different angle.

Personally, I am - as of now, and in my previous post - interested in finding out the psychology behind assuming that non-belief is the cause for a certain action.
I am hypothesizing that for the person making this assumption a certain inaction (-A) of his is so inseparately linked to a certain belief (B) of his, that he naturally concludes that there must be a causal link between between a lack of this belief (-B) and the action (A).
This is not rational - but certainly a widely spread phenomenon.

"Want some garlic with that?" - "No, thanks." - "So your girlfriend doesn´t like the smell of garlic?"
Chances are that the person speaking likes the taste of garlic
(but often or always abstains from eating it because her partner doesn´t like the smell of it), and naturally assumes that this must be the only viable reason not to eat garlic. She doesn´t even entertain the - actually most self-suggesting - option, that a person who doesn´t want to eat garlic simply doesn´t like the taste of it.

Not a perfect example, but I´m sure you get the idea.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I suppose the main argument is that a lack of anything cannot physically interact with anything alse, and therefore cannot be a substantial cause.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, sure it does - like always.
I guess, you and I are just emphasizing different aspects or are looking at it from a different angle.

Personally, I am - as of now, and in my previous post - interested in finding out the psychology behind assuming that non-belief is the cause for a certain action.
I am hypothesizing that for the person making this assumption a certain inaction (-A) of his is so inseparately linked to a certain belief (B) of his, that he naturally concludes that there must be a causal link between between a lack of this belief (-B) and the action (A).
This is not rational - but certainly a widely spread phenomenon.

"Want some garlic with that?" - "No, thanks." - "So your girlfriend doesn´t like the smell of garlic?"
Chances are that the person speaking likes the taste of garlic
(but often or always abstains from eating it because her partner doesn´t like the smell of it), and naturally assumes that this must be the only viable reason not to eat garlic. She doesn´t even entertain the - actually most self-suggesting - option, that a person who doesn´t want to eat garlic simply doesn´t like the taste of it.

Not a perfect example, but I´m sure you get the idea.

Okay. I get where you are going. It's a good question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I suppose the main argument is that a lack of anything cannot physically interact with anything alse, and therefore cannot be a substantial cause.

I think this is on point to a degree.

It is correct inasmuch as if I had thought more about my argument could have been it might have been this. So I thank you for identifying it. It is incorrect because TBH, I think most of my argument, as I admitted earlier, is an argument from incredulity.

I don't know how much physicality, per se, has much to with it. I suppose we could push concepts down to the chemical function of the brain, but in this context I don't know that that is helpful. "God wants me to kill the Canaanites" is a belief, but I don't know what physicalness has to do with whether the believer carries out the action. If one doesn't believe "God wants me to kill the Canaanites" you don't know what they will do.

Perhaps then the logical framework that quatona and GS have introduced to the thread reminds me that my assertion is essentially this: Those that suggest that lack of belief cause things appear to be saying that if A causes B then not-A causes not-B. And this is a basic error in logic.

Put perhaps I am wrong as to what the assertion is. However, I think this is what quatona is looking at.

So to phrase my original question similar to Growing Smaller's last post: Can that which doesn't exist (non-belief) interact with that which does? Can non-belief impel action?

Sorry for the rambling.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So to phrase my original question similar to Growing Smaller's last post: Can that which doesn't exist (non-belief) interact with that which does? Can non-belief impel action?

I am not sure, but I think "I know I don't believe in God, therefore I will do and say such and such, and refrain from doing and saying other things" seems to make sense.

e.g. I know I don't believe in God, therefore I will not take this hellfire and brimstone sermon seriously (will treat it incredulously).

 

[Tinker Grey]

But again, "not taking" is not action.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But again, "not taking" is not action.

Yes it is. If I choose not to go to church my action is to pass it by.

You wouldnt argue that going to church is not an action because it is the complement of passing by (i.e. it is not not going to church), would you? So please don't use double standards.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes it is. If I choose not to go to church my action is to pass it by.

No. You have found insufficient reason to turn in. Therefore you continue on your way that you had previously selected. You found insufficient reason to change plans that you had sufficient reason to make in the first place.

You wouldnt argue that going to church is not an action because it is the complement of passing by (i.e. it is not not going to church), would you? So please don't use double standards.

If you choose to go in, you have a reason. If you do not choose to go in, you had no reason to go in. One's lack of reason to change one's original plans is not a cause of those original plans.

This line of reason suggest nearly a literal infinity of reasons to do what you have chosen to do. There are an infinity of things that choose not to do in order continue doing what you are doing.

Not choosing is not a cause. Not doing is not action.

 

[bricklayer]

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.

This begs the first-principle of exclusion (excluded middle, A is either A or non-A). For example,
it is good to be left to believe that 2+2=4, but it is much better to be left to believe that 2+2 exclusively= 4.

Exclusion is central to the scientific process.
Intellectually, to me, nothing is really ever proven; it's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been, to my satisfaction, des-proven. What remains is what I'm left to believe. Then that is tested, and what remains is what I'm left to believe. In this process, what we don't believe is indispensable.

I've often said that it would be more honest to say that I am "left to believe" this or that.

 

[3rdHeaven]

This thread is about what causes behavior. Atheism was an example of non-belief. If you disagree with that, use non-belief in unicorns and discuss whether such non-belief can cause action.

If you want to discuss your perceptions of atheism, please start another thread.

Certainly non belief can be cause, the sheer number of atheists who make it their mission in life to preach against religion and God proves that.

 

[ranunculus]

It's not the negative belief in god that makes atheists do that. It's the positive belief in something else. For example if they think religion is harmful.
When missionaries go to 3rd world countries, is that because they lack belief in pagan gods or because of the positive belief that they can save people?
Beliefs inform actions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No. You have found insufficient reason to turn in.

Are you denying such a thing as sufficient reason not to turn in? I.e. "I don't believe in that stuff, therefore I won't go inside and join in and will walk by instead. Knowing "I don't believe" tio be true is sufficient reason for me"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Certainly non belief can be cause, the sheer number of atheists who make it their mission in life to preach against religion and God proves that.

No thats not an action, its the inactivity of not being Christian

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry if that last comment was a little sarcastic, I'm only having a little fun.