What is the "default" belief?

[Lifesaver]

First let me explain what I consider "default belief": it is the belief that a man whose natural potentialities are well actualized (that is, who lives well enough according to the mandates of right reason).
I do not mean someone who has been left alone since birth or since childhood and not taught anything; nor do I mean someone who has never made an effort to learn or do anything worthwhile, who has lived a purely passive existence.

The default man is the man who lives according to his nature (rational animal), and in order to do that it is necessary to have adequate living conditions (and therefore live in society), some education (both intellectual and moral) and to cultivate his virtues (again, both intellectual and moral) to some extent.

This person's default position is theism, because the rational mind, recognizing the existence of contingent beings is led to the conclusion that there exists a necessary being (this is ONE proof for the existence of God; namely Aquinas's "third way").
And since this person has no serious intellectual or moral failing, it is to be expected that they will reach this conclusion, provided they have the leisure required for it. If not, that they live in a society with people who have reached this conclusion and this default man, through his parents, has learned it.

 

[JGL53]

First let me explain what I consider "default belief": it is the belief that a man whose natural potentialities are well actualized (that is, who lives well enough according to the mandates of right reason).
I do not mean someone who has been left alone since birth or since childhood and not taught anything; nor do I mean someone who has never made an effort to learn or do anything worthwhile, who has lived a purely passive existence.

The default man is the man who lives according to his nature (rational animal), and in order to do that it is necessary to have adequate living conditions (and therefore live in society), some education (both intellectual and moral) and to cultivate his virtues (again, both intellectual and moral) to some extent.

This person's default position is theism, because the rational mind, recognizing the existence of contingent beings is led to the conclusion that there exists a necessary being (this is ONE proof for the existence of God; namely Aquinas's "third way").
And since this person has no serious intellectual or moral failing, it is to be expected that they will reach this conclusion, provided they have the leisure required for it. If not, that they live in a society with people who have reached this conclusion and this default man, through his parents, has learned it.

So according to your exegesis, atheists, ipso facto, are moral and rational failures?

I suppose this explains why there has been such a worldwide scandal recently of thousands of atheists molesting and raping tens of thousands of young boys, and other atheists conspiring to cover up the horror?

And the cow jumped over the moon.

 

[Calminian]

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.

You admit it does this but you don't say why. So, why does it do this? Perhaps because it's rational. I see the makings of a good theistic argument.

 

[Calminian]

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.

How about acausality or infinite regression? These are the only two choices atheism leaves and they're a lot less logical that the existence of fairies.

 

[Calminian]

T2. 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.

Nonsense. Atheism has a huge burden of proof. It forces one to believe the universe popped into existence from nothing uncaused. This pushes the limits of logic to a point where some kind of proof is needed to believe it. Atheism actually requires more blind faith than all other world views combined.

 

[Calminian]

So according to your exegesis, atheists, ipso facto, are moral and rational failures?

I suppose this explains why there has been such a worldwide scandal recently of thousands of atheists molesting and raping tens of thousands of young boys, and other atheists conspiring to cover up the horror?

And the cow jumped over the moon.

That's a bit of a low blow. And FYI, atheists still hold the world record for mass murder. More were killed under 20th century atheistic ideologies than in all other world wars combined.

What does all this mean for this discussion? Absolutely nothing.

 

[quatona]

How about acausality or infinite regression? These are the only two choices atheism leaves and they're a lot less logical that the existence of fairies.

It´s the only two options that any worldview leaves, as far as I can see.
The difference is that atheism makes no statement about the solution of this logical dilemma, whilst theism pretends to make this dilemma go away whilst in fact it doesn´t.

 

[quatona]

Nonsense. Atheism has a huge burden of proof. It forces one to believe the universe popped into existence from nothing uncaused.

No, my atheism has at no point forced me to beleive that.

Atheism actually requires more blind faith than all other world views combined.

Only if you make "atheism" mean more than it actually means, and even then it would make sense only if you equivocated different meanings of "faith".
You faithless Christian, you.

 

[PacificPandeist]

The default belief should be whatever a boy raised entirely by wolves would happen to believe up to the first time he encountered humans.... but if its a default to the evidence, I'll still go with PanDeism (as that's how I came to it in the first place)....

 

[cantata]

You admit it does this but you don't say why. So, why does it do this? Perhaps because it's rational. I see the makings of a good theistic argument.

Firstly, Freud, Desmond Morris and a whole host of other psychologists and evolutionary scientists can give you some very elegant explanations for the human inclination to believe in a deity.

Secondly, the fact that people believe something does not make it correct, even if they are rational to believe it within the particular paradigm they find themselves in. For example, for the vast majority of human history, everyone believed that the earth is flat. They were not irrational to believe it, but they still weren't right.

 

[cantata]

How about acausality or infinite regression? These are the only two choices atheism leaves and they're a lot less logical that the existence of fairies.

Theism ends in acausality. God is uncaused, right? So instead of positing an uncaused, unnamed beginning of everything, you have to posit a made-up uncaused entity. No difference.

Personally, I don't favour either. To quote Bertrand Russell *again*..

I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.

 

[cantata]

That's a bit of a low blow. And FYI, atheists still hold the world record for mass murder. More were killed under 20th century atheistic ideologies than in all other world wars combined.

What does all this mean for this discussion? Absolutely nothing.

I think you might be interested to know that in America, atheists make up a much smaller fraction of the prison population than they do the entire population of the country.

 

[Calminian]

It´s the only two options that any worldview leaves, as far as I can see.
The difference is that atheism makes no statement about the solution of this logical dilemma, whilst theism pretends to make this dilemma go away whilst in fact it doesn´t.

Infinite regression would not apply to an atemporal being like the biblical God, and acausality wouldn’t apply to anything eternal.

 

[Calminian]

I think you might be interested to know that in America, atheists make up a much smaller fraction of the prison population than they do the entire population of the country.

Wonderful! So atheists primarily stick to legal forms of genocide. Can we get back to the issue?

 

[Calminian]

No, my atheism has at no point forced me to beleive that.

Er, okay. Can you then tell us your theory on our existence. BTW, I don't know is a cop out.

Only if you make "atheism" mean more than it actually means, and even then it would make sense only if you equivocated different meanings of "faith".
You faithless Christian, you.

Actually I did. Atheism requires blind faith.

 

[Calminian]

Firstly, Freud, Desmond Morris and a whole host of other psychologists and evolutionary scientists can give you some very elegant explanations for the human inclination to believe in a deity.

They'll give naturalistic reasons as that is their field, but this still leaves open the philosophical question of why these natural inclinations exist. Science can't address questions of purpose. It is limited to deterministic cause and effect.

Secondly, the fact that people believe something does not make it correct, even if they are rational to believe it within the particular paradigm they find themselves in. For example, for the vast majority of human history, everyone believed that the earth is flat.

Actually that's a common myth. It's very difficult to find anyone in history that believed this. Can you please cite your sources?

Here's an article on the The Myth of the Flat Earth by historian Jeffrey Burton Russell.

They were not irrational to believe it, but they still weren't right.

They would be irrational to believe there was no other explanation for what they viewed. There are many visual clues that the earth is not flat.

 

[Calminian]

Theism ends in acausality. God is uncaused, right? So instead of positing an uncaused, unnamed beginning of everything, you have to posit a made-up uncaused entity. No difference.

Sorry there is a difference. Theism is the idea of an eternal uncaused being. This would be closer to the idea of an eternal universe for an atheist. Only that which has a beginning requires a cause. That's basic logic. The problem is, a temporal eternal universe suffers from the inescapable problem of infinite regression. An atemporal God does not.

Personally, I don't favour either. To quote Bertrand Russell *again*..

Obviously you nor Russell have (had) a grasp on theism. Had he, he probably would have come to the conclusion Antony Flew (world renowned atheistic philosopher) came to later in life. Atheism just doesn't work. It's no wonder virtually no one believes it.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Sorry there is a difference. Theism is the idea of an eternal uncaused being. This would be closer to the idea of an eternal universe for an atheist. Only that which has a beginning requires a cause. That's basic logic. The problem is, a temporal eternal universe suffers from the inescapable problem of infinite regression. An atemporal God does not.



Obviously you nor Russell have (had) a grasp on theism. Had he, he probably would have come to the conclusion Antony Flew (world renowned atheistic philosopher) came to later in life. Atheism just doesn't work. It's no wonder virtually no one believes it.

Note that the conclusion Antony Flew came to is not theism at all, but rather some form of weak deism or pandeism -- Flew agrees that there are indicia of intelligent design in the structure of the Universe but still derides the Biblical sort of schizophrenic daddy-God who hides the ball from us (or allows it to be hidden from us) and then punishes us for not knowing exactly where it is.... a logical God does no such thing.... in fact a logical God does not interfere in the Universe at all, and neither rewards nor punishes any human behavior; bad behavior is self-punishing enough!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[quatona]

Infinite regression would not apply to an atemporal being like the biblical God, and acausality wouldn’t apply to anything eternal.

Yes, calling something atemporal and eternal is the ultimate cop-out. Aka The god of the gaps.
Besides, I would like to see explained how something eternal is caused. What caused your god´s existence?

 

[quatona]

Er, okay. Can you then tell us your theory on our existence. BTW, I don't know is a cop out.

No, "I don´t know" is the honest answer. I see how every explanation available gets us into logical problems.

Actually I did. Atheism requires blind faith.

Simply repeating this mantra doesn´t help supporting it.