What is the "default" belief?

[Taure]

What would you say is the default belief of a person: theism, agnosticism, or atheism.

There are arguments for all sides, and I'll say what I think of each first.

Theism

The fact that most people or cultures have in the past, before scientific thinking, have some set of religious beliefs is highly in the favour of theism being the default belief. If they are uneducated as to the science of it, then people will have a tendency to attribute things like thunder, wind etc to some sort of deity.

There are probably more arguments in the favour of this.

The only other one I can think of right now is that babies are innocent, and therefore haven't sinned, and therefore must go to heaven, which kinda makes them Christians...but this assumes a belief that Christianity is true to start with, and there is also quite the jump from theism to Christianity.

The argument against the above is that this belief in, for example, thunder coming from a deity, is not a sign of theistic tendencies, but a sign of scientific tendencies, and the desire of humans to explain their surroundings.

Agnosticism

Out of all of them, I'd say this is the most defensible. When a person is born, they have no concept of God. Therefore they have no opinion either way as to whether he exists or not: for the baby, the question is non existent.

The argument against this is that despite what they are born with, when they grow up people may tend to grow to believe in one thing over another (for e.g. see above).

Atheism

Those who support this will take a similar position to the agnostic one, but with a twist. they will say that a baby, having not heard the idea of God, and having the concept mean nothing to them, will believe in no God, not just not have an opinion either way, for if the idea of God means nothing to someone, then they do not supprt that idea.

There is of course an unspoken fourth way: the idea that there isn't a default belief, as everyone is unique and may have a different "default".

What are your ideas?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Personally I think that the "default belief," if one even exists, is something that can't be observed nor does it last for very long and therefore it's impossible to say nearly anything about it.

 

[plmarquette]

thesism
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-21 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)

 

[JGL53]

thesism
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-21 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)

Saying it is so doesn't make it so - otherwise we wouldn't have ten thousand religions, all based on say so.

As to the OP question of which is the default position.

1. Theism is the assertion "There IS a god".

2. non-dogmatic atheism or agnosticism is the REPLY: "I doubt it and don't believe it due to lack of evidence. Prove it."

Looking at it this way I think it's perfectly clear who has a burden of proof and, contrawise, who has the default position.

(BTW, weight of numbers has NOTHING to do with the truth of a proposition, i.e., it's an independent factor, and thus has NOTHING to do with what the default positin is and who has the burden of proof.)

(And two other important considerations: 1. lack of belief is not itself a belief, otherwise lack of belief in fairies would be a belief and 2. universal negatives cannot be proven and, in any case, have no burden of proof, otherwise believers in fairies could challenge non-believers "Prove our fairies do not exist.")

 

[Blackguard_]

The fact that most people or cultures have in the past, before scientific thinking, have some set of religious beliefs is highly in the favour of theism being the default belief

That doesn;t show they were born beleivers, only that most were rasied as beleivers.

I'd say atheist, since while they are technically agnostic "without knowledge", not having a concept of something means you don't believe..Agnosticism is a form of atheism. They don't hold to theism, so the are a-theist.

 

[The Nihilist]

thesism
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-21 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)

The unsubstantiated claims of Paul will impress few in this forum.

Have we established what the OP means by "default belief?" Because I have no idea.

 

[Blackguard_]

Have we established what the OP means by "default belief?" Because I have no idea.

I take him to be referring to what if anything people are born believing.

 

[Taure]

Not only that but what people would believe if they were left to their own devices.

It is a purely hypothetical situation as we are all influenced by our surroundings to an extent, everything from our upbringing to our education to our culture to our wealth effects this.

So imagine that a person was given no education of science or religion, and that they were not influenced by any upbringing or other type of education, or society as a whole. They have never been told by anyone else about the concept of a God, nor scientific explanations for the world around us.

Do they come to believe in a God anyway? Or are they atheistic? Or do they not know? Or is the question meaningless?

 

[quatona]

What would you say is the default belief of a person: theism, agnosticism, or atheism.

There are arguments for all sides, and I'll say what I think of each first.

Theism

The fact that most people or cultures have in the past, before scientific thinking, have some set of religious beliefs is highly in the favour of theism being the default belief. If they are uneducated as to the science of it, then people will have a tendency to attribute things like thunder, wind etc to some sort of deity.

There are probably more arguments in the favour of this.

The only other one I can think of right now is that babies are innocent, and therefore haven't sinned, and therefore must go to heaven, which kinda makes them Christians...but this assumes a belief that Christianity is true to start with, and there is also quite the jump from theism to Christianity.

The argument against the above is that this belief in, for example, thunder coming from a deity, is not a sign of theistic tendencies, but a sign of scientific tendencies, and the desire of humans to explain their surroundings.

Agnosticism

Out of all of them, I'd say this is the most defensible. When a person is born, they have no concept of God. Therefore they have no opinion either way as to whether he exists or not: for the baby, the question is non existent.

The argument against this is that despite what they are born with, when they grow up people may tend to grow to believe in one thing over another (for e.g. see above).

Atheism

Those who support this will take a similar position to the agnostic one, but with a twist. they will say that a baby, having not heard the idea of God, and having the concept mean nothing to them, will believe in no God, not just not have an opinion either way, for if the idea of God means nothing to someone, then they do not supprt that idea.

There is of course an unspoken fourth way: the idea that there isn't a default belief, as everyone is unique and may have a different "default".

What are your ideas?

What would finding an answer to this question help us with?

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, the human brain tends to look for agency, even if there isn't any, and it tends to anthropomorphize, even if it shouldn't. So I'd say, yeah, people will make up gods without any outside influence.

 

[tvpro]

agnosticism and atheism both at once.

 

[JadeTigress]

My vote is for agnosticism/atheism.

My own "default" is agnosticism, and despite my religious upbringing, I'm still at my "default".

 

[JGL53]

Not only that but what people would believe if they were left to their own devices.

It is a purely hypothetical situation as we are all influenced by our surroundings to an extent, everything from our upbringing to our education to our culture to our wealth effects this.

So imagine that a person was given no education of science or religion, and that they were not influenced by any upbringing or other type of education, or society as a whole. They have never been told by anyone else about the concept of a God, nor scientific explanations for the world around us.

Do they come to believe in a God anyway? Or are they atheistic? Or do they not know? Or is the question meaningless?

No, I think the default position, on any proposition, is the doubting position - the burden of proof being on the positive assertion.

Thus, "I believe in fairies." can never be the default position. "I doubt fairies exist until someone offers some convincing proof of them." is the default position.

Substitute any extranormal concept you wish to in place of "fairies" in the above sentences and the logic holds.


As for the idea of a human being raised in total igorance and having to figure things out on his own - that was exactly the position of humans one hundred thousand years ago. They came up with animism - seemed logical at the time. Then came shamanism, which follows logically. Totemism, the concept of manna, then polytheism, evolving into monotheism, then deism, and then modern science - when we actually began to get things right.

But this is in the west. In the east humans also developed pantheistic traditions, which actually make more sense than monotheism when you think about it.

 

[cantata]

There's a confusion here between two understandings of 'default':

1. The default position is the position which would be taken by someone who was left entirely 'to their own devices'. In this case, I would say that the very advent of religion implies that theism is the default position. Freud had a lot to say about the projection of the inner parent into 'heaven', and Desmond Morris among many others has offered evolutionary explanations for the human inclination to attribute unexplained phenomena to an unseen deity and to posit gods in order to give life purpose and direction.

2. The default position is the position which does not hold the burden of proof. In this case, I would say non-theism is the default position, since the burden of proof must always be on the individual who claims that something exists which is unseen and inscrutable. Moreover, given the huge variety of different types of supernatural entities posited by humanity throughout history, I think the onus is certainly on believers to offer proof for their personal version of God(s).

 

[billwald]

Default belief is whatever is learned from parents. Any change requires extra ordinary evidence or experience.

 

[MoonlessNight]

As for burden of proof I think that the concept is largely a way to back out of a search for the truth. It's a wonderful concept legally, but I'm not sure how we should apply it philosophically. This could just be because I have a strongly mathematical background. If someone says a mathematical statement, say every group has an isomorphism to a permutation group, of course they have to prove it but I don't just assume that they are wrong until a proof is offered. If neither of us can prove or disprove it we just wait until someone can. In other words what is true is true regardless of where the burden of proof is.

 

[quatona]

As for burden of proof I think that the concept is largely a way to back out of a search for the truth. It's a wonderful concept legally, but I'm not sure how we should apply it philosophically. This could just be because I have a strongly mathematical background. If someone says a mathematical statement, say every group has an isomorphism to a permutation group, of course they have to prove it but I don't just assume that they are wrong until a proof is offered. If neither of us can prove or disprove it we just wait until someone can. In other words what is true is true regardless of where the burden of proof is.

You seem to be mingling two different ideas. The "burden of proof" idea doesn´t say that those who can´t prove their claims must be considered wrong, and it doesn´t say that lack of proof makes a claim untrue.
As I understand it, the "burden of proof" idea is one of pragmatism and parsimony. It prevents each of us from having the burden to accept each and every claim (as nonsensical as they may be) as equally valid. I make a claim, I have the burdon of proof. Not: I make a claim, and billions of other persons have the burden of disproof.

 

[MoonlessNight]

You seem to be mingling two different ideas. The "burden of proof" idea doesn´t say that those who can´t prove their claims must be considered wrong, and it doesn´t say that lack of proof makes a claim untrue.
As I understand it, the "burden of proof" idea is one of pragmatism and parsimony. It prevents each of us from having the burden to accept each and every claim (as nonsensical as they may be) as equally valid. I make a claim, I have the burdon of proof. Not: I make a claim, and billions of other persons have the burden of disproof.

What I meant was in a philosophical discussion, it is useless. In the day to day world it is arguably necessary, there is too much information for anyone to check it all. But in a philosophical discussion each side agrees to bring arguments to the table. They both should prove or disprove what they need to.

I posted because whenever someone brings up the burden of proof, the discussion always turns to who has the burden of proof and thus revolves around this issue instead of the central issue. In a philosophical discussion, it's nothing more than a distraction or an evasion.

 

[quatona]

What I meant was in a philosophical discussion, it is useless. In the day to day world it is arguably necessary, there is too much information for anyone to check it all. But in a philosophical discussion each side agrees to bring arguments to the table. They both should prove or disprove what they need to.

Even more than in any other realm (besides mathematics), proof is not possible in philosophy, anyways.
Yet, you make a claim, you substantiate it. Even though partaking in a philosophical discussion, there is no need for me to hold nor formulate a counter theory. I can simply ask you to substantiate or support your claims.

I posted because whenever someone brings up the burden of proof, the discussion always turns to who has the burden of proof and thus revolves around this issue instead of the central issue. In a philosophical discussion, it's nothing more than a distraction or an evasion.

I don´t think so. Particularly if persons make unfalsifiable claims I don´t see myself in the position of having any means nor reason (lest burdon) to even only attempt to refute it.

 

[Verv]

I think most people 'think there is something more.' We look at the grand nature of the world and think of our own smallness even though we are the most powerful creatures (by far) on Earth.

For similar reasons there are very few societies, even tribal societies, that are outright agnostic or atheist.

Atheist historian Will Durant spoke about this at length, noting that there were only a handful of tribes (one in particular he talked about at length) that did not have some form of animistic religion, belief in mysticism and the likes.

Belief in a higher entity seems too natural.