Logical Fallacy regarding disbelief?

Binomate

Is it a logical fallacy in saying that not believeing something is in itself a belief?

Which of the following statments is correct and wich is a fallacy?

A: I have an absence of belief in God.
B: I believe God doesn't exist.

SkepticOne

Binomate wrote:

Is it a logical fallacy in saying that not believeing something is in itself a belief?

Yes it is, imo.

Which of the following statments is correct and wich is a fallacy?

A: I have an absence of belief in God.
B: I believe God doesn't exist.

A and B are different statements. Either could be true depending on your beliefs (or lack thererof).

There's an ambiguity in the statement "I don't believe in God" as it is often used. This often means "I believe God doesn't exist" although it could mean that the person has never really considered the question and therefore has not beliefs on the matter.

Dades

I've seen someone on Boards describe it well before...

Atheism is a belief in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

which is to say, exactly the same

not collecting stamps is one of my hobbies.. as is not listening to shakira, not watching colin farrel movies.. etc etc

0 is a number, not collecting stamps is a hobby and atheism is a belief.

it's the right one sure, but it's not backed up by any kind of science.

Gregor Samsa

The Atheist wrote:

I've seen someone on Boards describe it well before...

Atheism is a belief in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I've seen a similar line used in in defending atheism against the accusation that it's a religion (as opposed to a belief), which I'd say is a more accurate use of the sentiment.

As for atheism being a belief - it depends. A new born baby could be argued to be an implicit atheist, but that would hardly be regarded as a belief in itself. Someone else could reject the existance of god merely on emotional grounds, and this would defintily be a belief. Faith and atheism aren't necessarially mutually exclusive.

As for Atheism having a scientific backing or not entirely depends on the arguments the individual atheist uses justify his/her position.

bonkey

Binomate wrote:

Is it a logical fallacy in saying that not believeing something is in itself a belief?

It depends what you mean by "a belief". If you mean something you hold to be true, despite being unable to prove it, then neither is a logical fallacy.

A: I have an absence of belief in God.
B: I believe God doesn't exist.

Reworded by the above:

A : I do not hold it to be true that God exists
B : I hold it to be true that God does not exist / I hold it to be false that God exists

Neither is a logical fallacy. Suggesting that holding either position A or position B constitutes a system of belief (typically in the theistic / deistic sense) could be argued to be a logical fallacy.

jc

nesf

bonkey wrote:

It depends what you mean by "a belief". If you mean something you hold to be true, despite being unable to prove it, then neither is a logical fallacy.

Or something that you simply hold to be true. Proof only makes it 'true justified belief' and all that.

bonkey wrote:

Reworded by the above:

A : I do not hold it to be true that God exists
B : I hold it to be true that God does not exist / I hold it to be false that God exists

Neither is a logical fallacy. Suggesting that holding either position A or position B constitutes a system of belief (typically in the theistic / deistic sense) could be argued to be a logical fallacy.

jc

Athiesm could occasionally constitute a system of belief though it would not immediately follow the concept. Simply stating that you don't hold it to be true that God exists is simply a belief, not a system of such (Following your above definition of belief). However once you begin to attempt to justify this belief then I would put forward that the beginnings of a system of belief is implicit. (The transition from simple belief to justified true belief is one that inherently involves a system of belief since other beliefs, justified or not, must be held in order to justify the original belief).


As above the whole stamp-collecting analogy doesn't hold water when it comes to belief. It's a valid analogy with religion (imho) but my participation or non-participation in a hobby has little in common with my belief or lack thereof in something. Belief neither requires physical action nor contact with others; in essence it is a wholy personal thing.

Disbelief is a form of belief and all that. As bonkey points out it's simply holding a truth or false value to be true with regard to a particular statement.

Dades

nesf wrote:

However once you begin to attempt to justify this belief then I would put forward that the beginnings of a system of belief is implicit.

I think you're right in that any attempting to justify atheism puts it in the catagory of a "belief". But it is only a belief in that it can't strictly be proven to be true.

As phutyle mentioned above - what about a new born baby? Surely the "default" position is atheist. When does atheism become a belief and require justification? When one person declares that a god exists? When a 100 people do? 1,000? The burden of proof seems to appear from nothing following a positive assertion.

Goodshape

Isn't this the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

Atheism being the belief that God does not exist ( = B: I believe God doesn't exist).

Agnosticism being the lack of any belief one way or the other (= A: I have an absence of belief in God).


Surely the 'default' position for a new born would be agnosticism. no?

Binomate

Is agnosticism not belief in a higher power, but refusal to take part in organised religion?

Son Goku

Goodshape wrote:

Isn't this the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

Atheism being the belief that God does not exist ( = B: I believe God doesn't exist).

Agnosticism being the lack of any belief one way or the other (= A: I have an absence of belief in God).


Surely the 'default' position for a new born would be agnosticism. no?

I think the default position would be "N/A". The child couldn't even concieve of God. To say it is agnostic would be like its position on Marxism is "on the fence".

Goodshape

Binomate wrote:

Is agnosticism not belief in a higher power, but refusal to take part in organised religion?

No, not as I'd understand it.

Agnosticism is the lack of belief, or the belief that the answers can not be known (at this time at least).

Son Goku wrote:

I think the default position would be "N/A". The child couldn't even concieve of God. To say it is agnostic would be like its position on Marxism is "on the fence".

Obviously. But "N/A" is closer to agnosticism than atheism.

Playboy

The Atheist wrote:

I think you're right in that any attempting to justify atheism puts it in the catagory of a "belief". But it is only a belief in that it can't strictly be proven to be true.

As phutyle mentioned above - what about a new born baby? Surely the "default" position is atheist. When does atheism become a belief and require justification? When one person declares that a god exists? When a 100 people do? 1,000? The burden of proof seems to appear from nothing following a positive assertion.

You could also argue that it is intrinsic within human nature to ask the question of "Is there a God?" So that when a child has the ability to ask the question it has to assert a belief one way or another.

FionnMatthew

Theism.

The doctrine of belief in God.

Atheism.

#1 the doctrine or belief that there is no God
#2 a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

We already see the problem surfacing in that the two different formulations of atheism are the poles on which this debate is set.

The two definitions could be construed to mean different things. I think the two different meanings arise from a confusion based on the prefix.

a - theism

The prefix "a-" in Latin, means "from", "away" or "away from", and so lend the interpretation that a-theism is the reaction against theism, the negation of theism, and so a belief, as per #1 above.

In Greek, "a-" means "no", "absence of", "without", "lack of". In Greek, then, a-theism is the absence of a belief in God, as per #2 above.

I'd say that since the root of the word, "theism", is based on the Greek root "the", "theo" etc., meaning "divine", "god", or "Gods", we should go with meaning #2 above.

However the Stanford Encyclopedia gives us this:

1. Atheism
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

This gives us #1, which makes the word a confused amalgam of Greek and Latin.

It gets confusing when a single word can have two opposing meanings.

Here's another quote from the SEP article.

The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

Let's be rigorous then.

I say let's stick to Greek.

"A-theism" should mean "the absence of theism", an absence or lack in the belief in God.

For the active belief that there is no God, I would like to volunteer the use of the Greek prefix "ana-", which has a meaning, among many, of "against".

Thus "Ana-theism" is "the negation of theism", the belief that there is not God.

So let's recap.

Atheism.

A lack of belief in the existence of God.

Theism.

The doctrine or belief in God.

Anatheism.

The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

to this we should add...

Agnosticism.

The belief that it will never be possible to know with any certainty whether or not God exists, or about the fundamental, transcendental truths of the Universe.

Agnosticism, then, isn't really a position in the same way as the other three, but a stance that you can take within the other positions.

I'd set it up like this. (The idea of classifying it in terms of knowledge claims is an idea I got from someone on a similar thread on TalkPhilosophy.org, when that site was operational.)

(+2)Substantive Theism - Belief in God with Knowledge Claims.
(+1)Agnostic Theism - Belief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(0)Atheism - No belief pertaining to God.
(-1)Agnostic Anatheism - Disbelief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(-2)Substantive Anatheism - Disbelief in God with Knowledge Claims.

FionnMatthew

Binomate wrote:

Is it a logical fallacy in saying that not believeing something is in itself a belief?

Which of the following statments is correct and wich is a fallacy?

A: I have an absence of belief in God.
B: I believe God doesn't exist.

Both are correct! Neither is fallacious in an analytic sense.

A: Atheism : I have no significant beliefs pertaining to God.
that's fine really, isn't it? there's no belief or disbelief asserted. theological quietism.

B: Anatheism : I have a belief that there is not such thing as a god, or God.
that there is no God is explicitly a belief. nothing analytically fallacious about it.

What you have to watch out for is someone who says : "I disbelieve in God, and that disbelief is not an article of faith, but the default position."

This person is having their cake and trying to eat it too. A mongrel position between atheism and anatheism! This is, I think, fallacious. We might call it dis-theism, using the latin prefix "dis" for "not either". But once we clarify the difference between atheism and anatheism, the confusion should evaporate.

nesf

FionnMatthew wrote:

Let's be rigorous then.

I say let's stick to Greek.

"A-theism" should mean "the absence of theism", an absence or lack in the belief in God.

For the active belief that there is no God, I would like to volunteer the use of the Greek prefix "ana-", which has a meaning, among many, of "against".

Thus "Ana-theism" is "the negation of theism", the belief that there is not God.

I meant to come back to this but it slipped my mind until tonight. I really am not sure how you got to the above from the SEP article that you quote for reference in your post. The opening line on atheism is:

SEP wrote:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Which is in direct conflict with your above choice. In fact, athiesm is taking up the space that is normally, philosophically, reserved for agnosticism. I would argue that agnosticism is a valid position. Russell's description here outlines it well for me:

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

Laplandman

Originally posted by Fionn Matthew:
...I would like to volunteer the use of the Greek ...

Hey, don't forget igtheism - another pointless word to add to the list.:D

Or at least I should hope to like to think to volunteer that this is so.

FionnMatthew

Laplandman wrote:

Hey, don't forget igtheism - another pointless word to add to the list.:D

Or at least I should hope to like to think to volunteer that this is so.

You could be a lot less abrasive about the way in which you introduce a phrase to the discussion. You could also offer a definition for the word, if you think the word itself is pertinent.

However, if you do in fact, as you seem to do, believe that your contribution is pointless, and that hence, so is the discussion, you could, believe it or not, withhold your contribution. I wouldn't miss it anyway.

FionnMatthew

nesf wrote:

I meant to come back to this but it slipped my mind until tonight. I really am not sure how you got to the above from the SEP article that you quote for reference in your post.

If you'd read my post properly, you'd see me explaining how I came to my own definitions.

I gave two different definitions both of which are commonly referred to by the use of the word "atheism".

I gave a brief overview of the etymology of the greek parts of the word atheism, deciding that "the absence of a belief in God" is more apt to the greek meaning of the prefix "a".

I then noted that the SEP decides the opposite, and uses the word to refer to "the negation of the belief in God".

This was followed by a quote from the SEP in which the interpretational hazards of the fact that there are multiple meanings attached to the word are outlined.

And then I suggested reconfiguring the terms completely for the purposes of the discussion here:

ME wrote:

Let's be rigorous then.

I say let's stick to Greek.

"A-theism" should mean "the absence of theism", an absence or lack in the belief in God.

For the active belief that there is no God, I would like to volunteer the use of the Greek prefix "ana-", which has a meaning, among many, of "against".

Thus "Ana-theism" is "the negation of theism", the belief that there is not God.

So, as you can see, I deliberately chose a definition of "atheism" dissimilar to the one quoted in the SEP, because I believed the SEP definition to be unfaithful to the etymological roots of the word. So yes, it is "in direct conflict with [my] above choice." I didn't arrive at it from the SEP. I chose it in response to the SEP.

nesf wrote:

In fact, athiesm is taking up the space that is normally, philosophically, reserved for agnosticism. I would argue that agnosticism is a valid position. Russell's description here outlines it well for me:

It's not taking up that space. Agnosticism is still dealt with, it's just that there are two strands of it.

Look:

[I am agnostic] because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

Russell, I'm sure you'll allow, is a different sort of agnostic to the agnostic who believes there is a god, but does not believe there is any way to prove it. Someone who might say:

[I am agnostic] because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is a God.

This gives us two types of agnostic: the (in the traditional usage) atheistic agnostic and the theistic agnostic. Agnosticism doesn't pertain to belief in God. You can believe or disbelieve in God and still be agnostic. It only pertains to the knowledge claims you make about your beliefs.

In my post, I offered a system which might have allowed you to differentiate between these positions more easily. Here it is again:


(+2)Substantive Theism - Belief in God with Knowledge Claims.
(+1)Agnostic Theism - Belief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(0)Atheism - No belief pertaining to God.
(-1)Agnostic Anatheism - Disbelief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(-2)Substantive Anatheism - Disbelief in God with Knowledge Claims.

I'm not using terms as they are traditionally used. I'm suggesting a new way of using them to clear up confusions, rife in this thread, about the different positions one can occupy as to the belief, disbelief, absence of belief or otherwise, in God. I really don't think you read my post properly, and your own response to it is, hence, uncharitable.


PS.
I agree with you. I, too, would think that agnosticism, whether theistic or otherwise, is the more valid position.
If one believes in God, that belief is better for not having the burden of proof.
If one disbelieves in God, one should be rather less inclined to evangelise that disbelief, since such a project would resemble rather more than is comfortable the less desireable elements of religious conversion. Recognising that belief in God does not answer to rationality should make pointless the project of trying to prove via reason that God does not exist.

Tim Robbins

FionnMatthew wrote:

If you'd read my post properly, you'd see me explaining how I came to my own definitions.

I gave two different definitions both of which are commonly referred to by the use of the word "atheism".

I gave a brief overview of the etymology of the greek parts of the word atheism, deciding that "the absence of a belief in God" is more apt to the greek meaning of the prefix "a".

I then noted that the SEP decides the opposite, and uses the word to refer to "the negation of the belief in God".

This was followed by a quote from the SEP in which the interpretational hazards of the fact that there are multiple meanings attached to the word are outlined.

And then I suggested reconfiguring the terms completely for the purposes of the discussion here:


So, as you can see, I deliberately chose a definition of "atheism" dissimilar to the one quoted in the SEP, because I believed the SEP definition to be unfaithful to the etymological roots of the word. So yes, it is "in direct conflict with [my] above choice." I didn't arrive at it from the SEP. I chose it in response to the SEP.


It's not taking up that space. Agnosticism is still dealt with, it's just that there are two strands of it.

Look:


Russell, I'm sure you'll allow, is a different sort of agnostic to the agnostic who believes there is a god, but does not believe there is any way to prove it. Someone who might say:



This gives us two types of agnostic: the (in the traditional usage) atheistic agnostic and the theistic agnostic. Agnosticism doesn't pertain to belief in God. You can believe or disbelieve in God and still be agnostic. It only pertains to the knowledge claims you make about your beliefs.

In my post, I offered a system which might have allowed you to differentiate between these positions more easily. Here it is again:


(+2)Substantive Theism - Belief in God with Knowledge Claims.
(+1)Agnostic Theism - Belief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(0)Atheism - No belief pertaining to God.
(-1)Agnostic Anatheism - Disbelief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(-2)Substantive Anatheism - Disbelief in God with Knowledge Claims.

I'm not using terms as they are traditionally used. I'm suggesting a new way of using them to clear up confusions, rife in this thread, about the different positions one can occupy as to the belief, disbelief, absence of belief or otherwise, in God. I really don't think you read my post properly, and your own response to it is, hence, uncharitable.


PS.
I agree with you. I, too, would think that agnosticism, whether theistic or otherwise, is the more valid position.
If one believes in God, that belief is better for not having the burden of proof.
If one disbelieves in God, one should be rather less inclined to evangelise that disbelief, since such a project would resemble rather more than is comfortable the less desireable elements of religious conversion. Recognising that belief in God does not answer to rationality should make pointless the project of trying to prove via reason that God does not exist.

This is a classic debate alright.
Here's how I look at it.
Before a debate about the existence of God, one needs to define God.

Firstly what is God? Well it does vary amonst people and religions but most people and religions would agree that God is all caring, all knowing and all able.
To which Iwould say, well then why do kids get cancer?

If you think about it, it is only possible for God to be two out of the three characteristics mentioned and a kid to get cancer. It is possible for God to exist and be:

* all caring, all able
* all caring, all powerful
* all able, all powerful

and for the kid to get Cancer. However, then it is not God we originally described.
I appreciate I've simplified a class Epicurian argument but
the logic / evidence is ok for me and I don't think 'free will' rebuts it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Firstly what is God? Well it does vary amonst people and religions but most people and religions would agree that God is all caring, all knowing and all able.

that's just the monotheistic modern religions though isn't it? most gods before that were just as fallible and emotionally retarded as people.. just uber-so.

and it's perfectly reasonable for god to be all caring, all powerfull and all able and for a kid to get cancer.. god knows that this short life of pain is nothing compared to the bliss of eternal heaven that exists for it after the cancer has eaten away at it's body. It's the same reason he allows tsunamis, tornoadoes and loves killing egyptian babies.

Tim Robbins

Mordeth wrote:

that's just the monotheistic modern religions though isn't it? most gods before that were just as fallible and emotionally retarded as people.. just uber-so.

and it's perfectly reasonable for god to be all caring, all powerfull and all able and for a kid to get cancer.. god knows that this short life of pain is nothing compared to the bliss of eternal heaven that exists for it after the cancer has eaten away at it's body. It's the same reason he allows tsunamis, tornoadoes and loves killing egyptian babies.

That might be all powerful and all knowing but it's not all caring.

Spectator#1

Tim Robbins wrote:

Firstly what is God? Well it does vary amonst people and religions but most people and religions would agree that God is all caring, all knowing and all able.
To which Iwould say, well then why do kids get cancer?

F**k! I used to respect you! You're not nearly as intelligent as you come across in your films! I'm throwing out my copy of Bob Roberts RIGHT NOW!

Mark Hamill

Mordeth wrote:

and it's perfectly reasonable for god to be all caring, all powerfull and all able and for a kid to get cancer.. god knows that this short life of pain is nothing compared to the bliss of eternal heaven that exists for it after the cancer has eaten away at it's body. It's the same reason he allows tsunamis, tornoadoes and loves killing egyptian babies.

Then why bother letting the kid live at all, would it not be more caring to just put the kid straight into heaven and avoid the unecessary suffering

Scigaithris

Observer comment: It would seem in this thread that there was a move away from testing the statements as to their logical construction, with a proclivity towards categorisation; e.g., you are either this or that by this Latin, Greek, or other root definition, quote, or citation? Which, in turn, introduces the additional complexity associated with dichotomies (see Jacques Derrida, et al); i.e., attempting to paint someone (or a hypothetical someone) into a corner for the purposes of argument?

FionnMatthew

Scigaithris wrote:

It would seem in this thread that there was a move away from testing the statements as to their logical construction

We were never testing the sentences as to their logical construction. The OP didn't give us a logical sequence - he only gave us two propositions. Neither of which were given proper logical form. Some people took it on themselves to modify the sentences. Some people found the original question, independent of logical form, to be more compelling, which is, when you get down to it, what the OP was talking about.

with a proclivity towards categorisation;

It's not categorisation. It's definition. It's the difference between a hermeneutical approach to the world, and a strict approach to language.

e.g., you are either this or that by this Latin, Greek, or other root definition, quote, or citation?

It wasn't "you are either this or that", but "here are the definitions, independent of who holds what beliefs."

Which, in turn, introduces the additional complexity associated with dichotomies (see Jacques Derrida, et al)

1. It didn't introduce any complexity. Definition of terms simplfies the discussion.
2. It's not about dichotomies. We actually turned up three or four distinct positions on God, if you'd care to look back. None of which could be said to be particularly antithetically related. We have a multiplicity of terms, all denoting different positions on faith.
3. Yes, that's a part of Derrida: he rejects binary opposites. But since (2) holds, it isn't really an issue here.

i.e., attempting to paint someone (or a hypothetical someone) into a corner for the purposes of argument?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I don't think anyone on this thread was trying to 'paint' anyone into a corner. Actually, reading over the thread, this discussion was quite level and interested, and nobody was engaging 'for the purposes of argument'.

Observer comment

Why don't you get involved in the thread, instead of giving us an erroneous commentary?

Scigaithris

FionnMatthew wrote:

(+2)Substantive Theism - Belief in God with Knowledge Claims.
(+1)Agnostic Theism - Belief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(0)Atheism - No belief pertaining to God.
(-1)Agnostic Anatheism - Disbelief in God without Knowledge Claims.
(-2)Substantive Anatheism - Disbelief in God with Knowledge Claims.

Could this paradigm also serve as an example of what has been termed for measurement purposes a Likert Scale; i.e., a numerical measurement in degree between two polar opposites? If so, the concerns raised by Jacques Derrida regarding dichotomies would apply?

skeptic griggsy

I find that the terms theist and atheist put us atheists in the negative such that I prefer the terms naturalist and anaturalist to put the theist into the negative and also because I abjure the paranormal [which some atheists don't]. Or rationalism vs. irrationalism. I am ignostic- God is vapid. I find that after thousands of years theists cannot make a case for God, so that I have to say that there is probaly no God. :cool:

skeptic griggsy

I prefer naturalist/rationalist/skeptic for my position that there is probaly no supernatural and no paranormal.For the meaningless term God ,I am an ignostic[ Rabbi Sherwin Wine] or igtheist[Dr.Paul Kurtz].:cool: