1. As you are quite accustomed to belief, I see that it may be difficult to detach yourself from it — ProgrammingGodJordan

Difficult, indeed. For all of us. In fact I may even venture to say it's impossible.

You never actually answered my question, though. Do you believe you are speaking to an adult male? Do you believe you are speaking to a human?

belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. And believe it or not (no pun intended)--even in science--proof is an extremely rare thing.

it is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages.

2. Notably, I don't need to believe in the probability above, to observe it as valid. — ProgrammingGodJordan

My username is JustSomeGuy, so it is probable that I am an adult male. But it's very possible that I could be an adolescent girl. As you read this comment, do you believe you are reading the comment of an adult male or of an adolescent girl?
It is also entirely possible that I am, in fact, an artificial intelligence. Do you believe that you are reading a comment written by a person, or that you are reading a comment written by an artificial intelligence?

Literally everything you "know" is based on belief, save for one single thing: that you exist.

Speaking disparagingly about the concept of belief shows serious ignorance. You are as blinded by your bias as the most fundamentalist young-Earth creationist.

The brain isn't doing anything under Determinism. It's all determined by some bouncing particles governed by the mystical and undefined Laws of Nature. — Rich

You really don't seem to understand what determinism actually means.

As for everything else you've said, despite my best efforts it really seems as though it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about this with you, and I'm tired, so I'll have to end it here. At least for now.

If you really believe that everything is an illusion, then your appropriate position in any discussion is that particles are determining everything you are thinking, you can't help it, it's all meaningless, and its the Laws of Nature that are creating the illusion that we are discussing and thinking. Why particles would want to start creating illusions of discussion is beyond me, but it's not myth it's the Determinist's myth, so I let them deal with trying to explain discussions in a universe of bouncing particles.

As I said, no one on this forum really believes their discussions are illusions but they like pretending they do. Rather interesting. — Rich

This is essentially a straw man; neither I nor anyone else (in regards to this topic) claims that anything is an illusion. Given what we know about our brains and the universe, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the choices we make are a result of many preceding causal factors as opposed to some outside unseen force controlling our brains. You call determinism fantastical, and yet your belief is the one which requires an immaterial entity which resides in and is connected to and controlling our brain functions from another plane of existence. You cannot have free will in the closed system of the universe, it would have to come from outside.

You seem to know a decent amount about Quantum Theory, but for some reason you throw all logic out the window when you speak about determinism and free will. You still have yet to give a single argument in favor of your position, instead restating the same phrases and unsupported claims over and over. Give me your actual argument for free will.

There is only one interpretation, which is totally fantastical , the Infinitely Growing Infinite Number of Universe Interpretion, that would be deterministic if one could leap out of our Universe, but still keeps this universe probabilistic as must every other interpretation. — Rich

Are you referring to the Many Worlds Interpretation? In addition to that there is also the de Broglie-Bohm Interpretation, so there are at least two prominent theories which leave determinism intact. I'm not an expert on the subject so there may be more I am unaware of.
But as I said already, even a lack of determinism does not equate to free will. If that is your only line of reasoning, I'm sorry but it's invalid.

Choice is observed by everyone, everyday in their lives. — Rich

This is not an argument. A world ruled by determinism would appear to have choice.

A simple example: I am sitting in my house on a winter night, when suddenly I hear the furnace turn on. I did not turn the furnace on, the furnace chose to turn on at that moment. Of course, this choice wasn't the result of free will. It was caused by the programming of the computer that controls the furnace, as well as the current temperature conditions. There are certain specifications in the computer ("brain") of the furnace, so that in certain conditions it will make certain choices (turn on/turn off). This is obviously a simplification, but we have every reason to believe that this is exactly the same way our own brains operate, only on a much more complex level. They are "programmed" a certain way based on factors we don't fully understand, so that in certain situations they will make certain choices.

Quantum Physics doesn't destroy determinism. QP isn't a straightforward subject with clear implications, there are many interpretations of QP. Some interpretations may lead to a lack of determinism, but many don't. The best QP can do is tell us that there is randomness in the universe. Randomness does not imply free will. A lack of determinism in any form does not prove free will--the inability to predict the future does not imply the ability to change it.

Go ahead, and continue struggling if you want. — Rich

The only thing I'm struggling with is trying to reason with you. You still haven't actually said anything of significance. But that's fine, you are entitled to your beliefs. I'll stop questioning you since we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

I don't mean to be dismissive but you really seem to simply be in denial and have no actual argument, evidence, or reason to believe in free will other than that you just want to. Quantum Physics doesn't support free will at all, it supports randomness. I genuinely would like to know if you have some actual support for free will, but I'm starting to lose hope that you do.

You choose to believe this then believe it until your life gets so boring and meaningless you decide to believe otherwise. — Rich

So the only reason to believe in free will is because you get tired of not believing in it?

However, just remember, there is not one scintilla of evidence that anything is determined. It is all a fabricated still story, not even supported by physics. — Rich

Will you share with me the evidence that nothing is determined, then? The only way to change a mind about something is to be presented with new information. The information I have accumulated in regards to this topic forces me to believe in determinism, but I would absolutely welcome new information that challenges and changes my belief.

we have reason or the ability to reason and this enables us to exercise a type of manoeuvrability of these perceptions, to challenge them, to filter them willingly rather than the number of schema in our brain that does it for us. So, while the brain determines much of what we understand of the external world, there is still one small part in that where there is autonomy in our ability to alter our perceptions of the external world. This is the 'free-will' that I am discussing; free-will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, but rather free-will is a natural extension of determinism. — TimeLine

I don't see how this is self-evident. First off, what exactly is "reason"? Our brains just process information in a certain way based on many factors--some that we understand, but likely more that we don't. Your ability to reason is not the same as mine because our brains are different, thanks to things like our DNA, our environment in which our brains developed, even our nutrition, and many other factors.

I don't see how our aptitude for "thinking" more deeply than other creatures necessarily implies a free will. It just means our information processors are more/differently developed than theirs.

I have never embraced any belief fully, because I trust myself enough to take what I find in anything as part of my study of the world. Nothing is ever entirely right and so to follow something completely is to limit your capacity, which only breeds weakness. — TimeLine

I absolutely agree with this, I just chose my words poorly. I simply want to be able to fully appreciate the wisdom contained within Taoism, not follow it dogmatically or anything like that.

No need to struggle. Consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain, and you do have Choice. Since you have a choice, just drop the notion. In so doing you will notice you do have Choice (you are not determined to believe you are determined) and you can happily continue your studies in Daoism free of this notion. — Rich

This isn't solving the problem, though, it's just ignoring it. If determinism is true, if I do not have free will, then whether I "choose" to believe in free will or not, either way that "choice" was determined and was not truly a choice.

It seems to me that free will requires "me" to be an outside agent, separate from the rest of the physical world, because the rest of the physical world is entirely deterministic. When an event occurs, it occurs as a result of every single other event which preceded it, and it is the only possible event that could have happened because of that. When I make a "choice", it occurs as a result of every single thing that has happened to me in my life, and with everything being the same there's no possible way I could have made any other choice but the one I make. At least that seems to me to be the case.

There is no escaping determinism except through consciousness (transcendence) where we have the capacity to become aware of ourselves, our person-hood as separate to the external world and it is what we do with this capacity that enables us to exercise free-will as autonomous agents. Consciousness is like the algorithm that sets the universe in motion — TimeLine

But if consciousness is simply a product of the physical brain, there is no separation--our consciousness is part of "the external world" just like everything else, and so we have no free will. This is something I've been struggling with ever since I started studying Taoism a few years back. There was about a year where I was very satisfied with things and the Taoist philosophy brought me so much peace, but eventually I could no longer ignore the dissonance between my newfound philosophy and my previously-held beliefs about the nature of consciousness.

I truly love Taoist philosophy and wish I could embrace it fully, but my lack of belief in free will won't allow me. Can you offer any sort of help with this issue?

I can still move on with life and not decide which one is true and never come back to this issue — SonJnana

You're still equating belief with knowledge. It's not about deciding which one is true, it's about deciding which one you believe is true. And the only way you can move on with life is because your brain has made a decision on what it believes, allowing it to move on. What I'm saying is our brains aren't capable of leaving anything unanswered like that, that's not how they function.

I don't really care about labels. — SonJnana

This was never about labels, it's about analyzing the claims made by a certain group of people to see if they make sense. What I have been attempting to demonstrate is that the claim that atheism is a lack of belief is nonsense. The irony of it is that in an attempt to be more rational, these people have actually made a claim that is less rational.

But I'll say it again: beliefs don't require proof. You only bear the burden of proof if you are claiming your belief is correct or true or fact. As I said, being a theist or an atheist does not, in itself, require proof, because it is simply a position of belief. Many people may think that when a person states their belief, that person is required to prove that belief is true. Those people are mistaken. If I say I believe in a deity, there is no requirement for me to prove my belief is true. But if I say that a deity does exist, that requires proof. It may be a subtle difference, but it's a very important one.

I don't think you have to get all technical about absolute belief and such. — SonJnana

You keep saying things like this and it's really making me wonder what you're doing on a philosophy forum. That's not meant to be insulting or anything, it's just that getting "all technical" is precisely what philosophy is about.

Also I'm not sure if I have said this yet, but I just want to be clear that none of this has been attempting to argue for theism or against atheism. The only thing I was addressing was the claim that one can lack belief when it comes to this issue. I don't call myself a theist or an atheist because I find there's far too much baggage that comes with both terms.

That is pretty fascinating, thanks for sharing.

irrational subconscious prejudice — SonJnana

That's not an accurate description of what's going on, though.
It's not irrational because, as I said before, we need our brains to make these decisions in order to function in the world.
It's not necessarily subconscious. It could be, I'm sure, but it doesn't have to be.
It's not a prejudice, because prejudice is defined as a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". These beliefs are based on both reason and experience.

Through conscious reasoning I say that the most rational position is to simply lack belief in both. — SonJnana

Is it, though? Is it not more rational to settle one way or the other so you can move on with life and not need to devote any more time to contemplating this issue? I'm talking about in terms of your brain, the way your brain is designed to function. It would be irrational for your brain to leave an issue undecided. It's like if you put an equation into a calculator and instead of giving you an answer it told you it was going to wait for more information.

Are you going to make every person who claims that they are atheist say this? — SonJnana

That was never my implication. Only that claiming to lack belief is nonsense. Atheism means the belief that a deity does not exist. This does not imply certainty--on the contrary, it implies uncertainty. What's wrong with that? Why do so many atheists insist that atheism mean a lack of belief? I understand that they are trying to avoid the burden of proof, but they are doing so by making a nonsensical claim. You can believe something without needing to prove it to others. You can believe something without making an argument for it. Simply being an atheist does not invite people to demand you prove your position, any more than simply being a theist. Only if you assert that your position is correct must you provide an argument as proof. And saying that you believe something is not the same as claiming that your belief is correct.

I apologize I should not have stated it that way. — SonJnana

No worries, I know it's often not easy to convey tone through text.

a very very slight subconscious irrational prejudice — SonJnana

By using this phrase it shows you're still missing the point.

But then we might as well say nobody knows that there is a chair in front of them because they can't be certain that Satan is tricking them into believing that. Yet we don't, we say there is a chair in front of them because it is practical. — SonJnana

Exactly! It is true that we can't be certain that there is a chair in front of us, but in order for us to function in the world our brain needs to make these judgement calls, and it does so no matter the amount of information--what constitutes sufficient information for certainty isn't some kind of universal law or objective rule.

Belief and knowledge are just terms we created to describe different levels of certainty. They aren't clear-cut or absolute, but in general "knowledge" means something you are certain of and "belief" means something you are not certain of. All I've ever been arguing is that it is impossible to lack belief because of the way our brains work. You seem to be arguing that irrational beliefs aren't actually beliefs, which is ridiculous.

My point still stands that claiming you lack belief is nonsense. Nothing you have sad has been contrary to that.

If you want to go into absolutes you can go on ahead and be solipsistic. — SonJnana

So because I don't see things from your point of view and wanted to look at things in a more absolute and detailed manner you're going to be passive aggressive towards me? That's not a productive attitude.

I dunno, I thought that was off topic and not related to your argument. :P — Noble Dust

It doesn't necessarily influence my argument, but it's definitely related. I was more just interested in hearing your opinion, though. I like talking to people about what they believe when it comes to metaphysical stuff like this. It's always fun to hear other perspectives.

I was bringing up an assumption in your argument, that’s all — Noble Dust

I know that's what you were initially doing, but that issue was settled in my first response to you. You went on to make other claims beyond that, though. I was just engaging you. But if you want to drop it that's fine.

Out of curiosity, though, do you believe that there is a mind separate from the physical brain? You've been arguing as though you do, but I know you could just be playing Devil's Advocate.

You can hold beliefs with varying convictions. It isn't all or nothing. Most people who believe in a god or believe that there is no god are still open (to varying degrees) to the possibility that their belief is incorrect. Not being open to any possibilities other than what you believe is what is truly irrational. You're talking about certainty. This has never been a conversation about certainty--quite the opposite, in fact.

If there are 5 red balls and 4 red balls in a bag, I may believe that it is more likely to be red so I have an inclination towards guessing red if I am forced to, but that does not mean that I believe red will be picked. — SonJnana

But that's exactly what it means. It means you believe red will be picked, but you also realize red may not be picked. I don't see why that's difficult to comprehend.

That is evidence that there are gumballs in front of me. That is not evidence that supports either claims of there being an even amount or an odd amount — SonJnana

That's clearly not sufficient evidence to rationalize a belief that in this jar this an even amount. Are you saying I should be more set on believing that in this jar it's even because I remember counting a jar in 5th grade that had an even amount? — SonJnana

You don't seem to understand the topic. I'm saying that our brains function automatically in such a way to make these judgement calls based on whatever evidence we have, good or bad, along with other various factors. The fact that it is not sufficient evidence is exactly the point. Our brains have historically needed to make decisions even when the evidence is insufficient for certainty to ensure our survival, and so that is how they still function today.

I'll put it as concisely as I can:

When you have insufficient evidence to be certain of something, your brain is designed by nature to make a judgement call anyway.

So, there is insufficient evidence to say for certain whether there is an even or odd number of gumballs in the container, so your brain uses all of the information that it has, good or bad, in order to make a judgement call.

You might have a subconscious irrational prejudice to varying degrees either way sure, but the expression of that only tells you that if you had to pick even or odd, you think there's a very very very slight chance that it is more likely that there is even than odd — SonJnana

Exactly. So you think that it is even. It doesn't matter how certain you are, it doesn't matter how likely you think it is, that is the decision your brain has made, so that is what you believe.

You're still trying to apply rationality to this, which again is missing the point. This isn't about consciously rationalizing. This is about an automatic process in your brain to deal with a lack of sufficient information to consciously rationalize.

If there is someone convicted and some evidence showed up to support that the criminal did it, that does not mean that I believe the criminal did it. That only means I believe that it is more likely. That does not mean I believe that it is true. — SonJnana

You're misrepresenting belief. In that scenario, you do believe that the criminal did it, but you are very open to the possibility that you are wrong. The same way, if a person believes that a deity does not exist, but is open to the possibility of a deity existing, they do not lack belief. They simply hold a belief while being open to other possibilities.

My issue is that if belief is only situated in the physical brain, it’s essentially instinct — Noble Dust

Ah, I see, so you're beginning from the assumption that belief is not a product of the physical brain. And your only argument for this is that if this were the case, belief would essentially be instinct? The problem is that you're making these objections based on what you already believe the concepts of "belief" and "instinct" are. So while I'm arguing for what I think belief is, you're essentially just saying that you disagree because what I'm saying belief is isn't compatible with what you think belief is. Saying that an argument is wrong because there are other opinions isn't a valid objection. You need to critique my argument, not just say it's wrong because it's different from your preconceived idea of what belief is.

my beliefs are affected by reasoning, emotion, intuition, experience, all the while being the basis upon which all of thos faculties act. — Noble Dust

That's basically just re-wording what I have already said. These beliefs are based on a variety of factors. It doesn't disagree at all with my point.

if conciousness exists outside of the brain, then the brain is just the hardware, while conciousness is the software, so assigning belief purely to the brain would be wrong in that case. — Noble Dust

The whole hardware/software comparison is just one idea about the relationship between an immaterial mind or soul and the physical brain, it isn't the only way of looking at it. The idea that there is a "you" that is immaterial and separate but connected to your physical brain does not in itself imply that it would have a role in belief. You're making a lot of assumptions about both what the relationship between "mind" and brain would be, as well as the very nature of the immaterial mind or soul itself. This is why, as I said, my argument made no comment on that issue. If you want to make an argument for a specific version of an immaterial consciousness that influences belief, you are free to do so, and sure, that kind of consciousness would be incompatible with what I'm saying. But my argument assumes the entire process taking place in the physical brain, which I think is a fair assumption since it agrees with the evidence we have.

The way you’re wording your argument sounds more like an argument against the idea that it’s not possible to lack belief, rather than an argument for it. — Noble Dust

I really don't see why you'd say that.

If belief is just responses in the brain, and yet, a “you” exists outside this brain, then why does the “you” not have a role in belief? — Noble Dust

That's basically the whole underlying point. If there is a "you" apart from your brain, it doesn't have a role in belief because your brain is what decides your beliefs, like a computer making a calculation. I only use this language because this is the way people generally view themselves. But this argument has nothing to do with whether there is a "consciousness" apart from your physical brain--it works either way and makes no comment on that issue. The point is that your brain itself comes to conclusions about what you are going to believe based on various factors, and nowhere is there a "choice" made. It's all based on a sort of formula, which varies both from person to person, and even within a person from moment to moment.

Obviously this ties in heavily to the free will vs. determinism debate, but I was trying to avoid that and just focus on this one specific topic.

If it's in the dictionary and people want to use a word the way it's defined in the dictionary, I think that should be respected — SonJnana

What? That's missing the whole point of philosophy. I'm really surprised you're so dismissive about this on a philosophy forum. What would this website be for if we just said that everything is exactly as it is defined in our dictionaries and everyone is correct in their beliefs and views, and we should not question any of it because it should be respected? Philosophy wouldn't even exist.

If you look at a jar with gumballs, do you believe that there is an even amount of gumballs in that jar? Probably not, rightfully so. That doesn't mean you believe that there is not an even number (and therefore there is an odd number). You lack the belief that there is an even number and lack the belief that there is an odd number because you have no evidence for either way. — SonJnana

Well, firstly, it's not true that you have no evidence. You have your own visual evidence--you see the jar and the gumballs in front of you. You also have your past experience--maybe you have seen gumballs in a container before and there was an even number of them--that would influence your reasoning, even if only a little. If somebody put a gun to your head and said "you have one second to tell me if you think there are an even or odd number of gumballs in this container or I will kill you", are you saying you would die? Now obviously you're going to say "well if you were forced like that you'd just pick one randomly", but it isn't completely random--as I said it's based on various things about you and your knowledge and experience and reasoning. More importantly, though, what I'm saying is that this is essentially how our brains work anyway. You don't need a literal gun to your head. If you have any amount of information about topic, your brain decides what your beliefs are about said topic because it has been necessary for it to do so in the past to ensure our survival. Remaining undecided would get you killed.

So, if somebody says they lack a belief one way or the other on the topic of the existence of a deity, they aren't being truthful--maybe just with you, or maybe even with themselves. We all have plenty of information and experience related to this topic since it's the single most popular and historically important issue in the world. You look at the information and experience you have--either consciously or unconsciously--and apply your own faculties of reason to it, and your brain decides automatically what it believes based on the information it has. It cannot be undecided. Our brains do not operate in such a way to allow that. Whether you want to admit it or not, you have a belief one way or the other. That belief may change often, but at any given moment you either believe that a deity does exist or that it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

I just realized that in my original post I never really came back to the actual question of whether it is possible to lack belief. So, yes, belief isn't something you can choose or have control over. But my point was meant to be that not only do our brains choose for us what we believe, but they can't help but choose when faced with any choice. That's the real issue I wanted to discuss. It follows from this that claiming atheism is a "lack of belief" is nonsense. Atheism means that you have knowledge/experience/information about the issue of the existence of a deity, and based on all of that plus your own faculties for reason your brain has made the decision that a deity does not exist.

When you have a yes or no question, there is no middle ground. "Do you believe in a deity?" is a yes or no question. This isn't an attempt to discredit the position of atheism, only to assert that atheists in general are misrepresenting their actual position in a way that is nonsensical. You cannot simply lack belief unless you have no information. If you have information, your brain has made a decision about what it believes. This could even be an evolutionary adaptation, because like I said in my example it has historically been necessary for us to decide one way or another when we have insufficient evidence to be certain. This is something we have needed to do to survive, and so it is an automatic process.

I'll allow that in some cases it's possible that you may not be conscious of your belief, but it seems to me that simply lacking a belief isn't actually possible.

I think you will agree that many people hold beliefs for many different reasons, some for no real reason at all except that they have been told as a child that such and such is the case? The word belief comes in for a range of meanings rendering it utterly useless since it is also perfectly reasonable to use say "I believe one and one is two". — charleton

I do agree there are many reasons why people believe things--some of which we probably can't understand completely because they have to do with the inner workings of the mind. But why people believe the things that they believe is a complicated question, and writing the concept of belief off as useless is short-sighted.
Saying "I believe one and one is two" is a reasonable statement because we all have overwhelming evidence that it is true, yet we do not truly know for certain that it is. I think I already said something along these lines in the discussion of faith a few days back, but virtually every single thing we think we know is, in reality, a belief. Even things such as "the Earth is round" or "water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule" are beliefs we hold. We view them as knowledge because we are so certain of them, but the vast majority of us don't actually have empirical knowledge of them. We take it on faith that the people who have told us these things were telling us the truth. Obviously this is perfectly reasonable, but the fact still remains that none of these things are true knowledge.

I only use 'belief' for matters that I am not sure about; I use "know" for things I feel happy enough to argue a case for. But hold all knowledge to be contingent on the evidence and reasons that support it. — charleton

And that's fine, but when discussing these concepts in a philosophical context, we need to be explicit about the necessity of belief in the true sense of the word.

Throwing belief out of my personal lexicon have been very useful since it had made me think more carefully about things I hold to be true, and to identify things that are speculative. — charleton

I think this is a cop-out for lazy people who find it hard to think and would rather find the easy way out of using their brain but want some excuse. — charleton

This certainly is the case for many people. I personally witnessed this in my own mother years ago when discussing something to do with religion. I can't remember the exact issue, but I was arguing something against one of her religious beliefs, and she simply told me that she saw my point and had no counter argument, but that she "just believed" it to be true. So the term belief may be given a bad rap by people such as her, but that doesn't mean we should just throw it out--especially as philosophers.

But although this is all interesting to discuss, I don't think you ever responded to the actual question I was asking: is it even possible to lack belief in any issue that you are aware of? Of course if you aren't aware of something you won't hold a belief about it, but if you have knowledge or experience with a certain issue, surely you hold a belief about it. That belief may even be subconscious, but my point was that it seems to me that our brains decide for themselves what we're going to believe based on the information we possess combined with our own faculties for reason.
Do you choose not to believe in god? Of course not, because if you did you could choose to believe in god. It's actually very similar to the homosexuality issue. We may not know exactly what makes people homosexual or heterosexual--though we have good reason to believe it involves a combination of genetics and environment--but we do know that people cannot choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. The same goes for our beliefs.
This all probably leads into the free will vs. determinism debate, as well, but I'll leave that for another time.

To elaborate on my previous post, I don't believe it's possible for a person to lack belief that a deity does or does not exist. An atheist believes that no deities exist, at least none that we have conceived of. If they did not believe this, they would believe that a deity does exist. There is no middle ground. The question "Do you believe in a deity?" is yes or no. Where is the middle ground?
To go back to my point about it being an evolutionary adaptation, let's say you're an ape sitting in the jungle eating a piece of fruit. At that moment, you don't believe there are any predators nearby because if you did you would not be sitting there eating, you would be running. You don't know there are no predators nearby, but you believe there are no predators nearby. Then, you hear a noise from a bush a few yards away. At this point, based on your instincts and your accumulated knowledge through past experiences, your brain makes a judgement call on whether this noise could be a predator. If these things don't add up to "the noise is a predator" in your brain, you continue believe there are no predators nearby, and keep eating. If these things do add up to "the noise is a predator", you now believe that there is a predator nearby, so you run. Nowhere in that process do you decide what you believe; your brain makes the call based on a variety of factors.

Is it not the same for any belief, including theistic belief?

Amoral similarly indicates something without a moral content and is not the same as IMMORAL. — charleton

This is a very interesting point. I tend to believe the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but you make a good objection. I'll definitely have to reconsider and look into the issue further.

But this actually makes me wonder something else: when it comes belief, can you really just lack it? No belief one way or the other? Obviously this makes sense in the context of knowledge, but surely if there is an issue we're aware of--even if our knowledge is incomplete--we inevitably hold a belief about the issue based on the knowledge we do have, combined with our own personal faculties of reasoning? As I said earlier, I do consider myself agnostic, but that's because I'm always going back and forth between believing that there is a deity and that there isn't, and I believe that we cannot truly know one way or the other. I don't know if there is a middle ground when it comes to beliefs. It seems to me an unconscious thing. You don't choose what you believe, your brain makes the call based on a variety of factors. You cannot choose to believe in a god. You can't help but believe in a god when you have (what you personally see as) evidence or proof that there is a god. It could even be seen as an evolutionary adaptation of the brain. We need to make judgement calls even when we don't know something for sure, so our brains evolved to make the call for us based on certain factors.

Is this making sense?

So I think people are "paralyzed" by agnosticism. They don't know how to live life as an agnostic. — darthbarracuda

As an agnostic, I'd say this is accurate. I'm constantly going back and forth between "a deity exists" and "no deity exists". It's a difficult position because you don't have a stable belief to hold onto regarding such a significant, all-encompassing issue. But I don't force myself to choose a position because of this, though I can definitely see why many people would.

I orient myself in life as though God does not exist. I don't expect miracles, I don't expect to go to the afterlife after I die, I don't pray or worship or any of that. All of this is consistent to what an atheist would (not) do. — darthbarracuda

You are referring to a specific concept of god, though. Not every concept of god includes an afterlife or miracles or prayer or worship. The kind of god I would believe in, if I were to decide to give up my agnosticism, would be something like Spinoza's God, which is essentially synonymous with the universe or Nature.

Yet it could also be said that perhaps morality is dependent on God's existence. An theoretical agnostic might feel compelled to believe in God for the sake of morality. — darthbarracuda

It seems to me that people who think this way haven't really thought it through. If morality depends on gods existence, this means that god decides what is moral. Why would that make anybody feel better about morality? It means there is still no true objectivity to it, no universal or absolute morality, only what god decides. God could change his mind and decide that killing people is moral, and it would be moral. Would that make you feel okay killing people? Not if you're a sane and rational individual.

Overall I agree with most of what you said though, as well as your conclusion.

Agnostic: I believe knowledge of God's existence is unattainable. — Abaoaqu

This is the correct use of the term "agnostic" based on the definition given to the term by the man who invented it. Today it has come to be used as a different term altogether, and this bothers me. People argue that language evolves and we should hold whatever the common-use meaning of the word is as the true definition, but personally I think this renders language meaningless. Using words incorrectly should not change the meaning of them.

In the same way, theism and atheism are opposite beliefs. Atheism is not "a lack of belief" as it has commonly come to be defined. This is a result of atheists realizing they, too, had a burden of proof that they could not provide. So instead of changing their belief and using a new term which describes this new belief, they changed the definition of the term they had always used in order to have it line up with their new belief. It should also be noted that, in my experience, the vast majority of atheists are true atheists--meaning they believe that there is no god, that a god does not exist--but claim to only have a lack of belief to avoid this burden of proof. But I don't claim to be an authority, so take that with a grain of salt.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism

"Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience."

"“It came into my head as suggestively antithetical to the ‘Gnostic’ of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.” - T.H. Huxley

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

"The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."

This is based on etymology and grammar. When you add an "a" to the beginning of a term, it signifies a contrast to the original term, an opposite or a "not". So, because theism is the belief that god exists, atheism actually means the belief that god does not exist, or that there are no gods. Likewise, the term agnosticism actually means the belief that we cannot possess knowledge of something, and this can actually be applied to any matter--not just theism.

My attempts to correct people in the usage of these terms is likely futile, since misuse has become so widespread, but I can't help but try. I always hope that in an environment such as this--with people who either have a philosophical background or at the very least an interest in philosophy--people will be more likely to understand and agree.

I've had a bad flu for the past few days and feeling ill has made it hard to sleep, so unfortunately there's not much that can be done. I suppose I should probably just stay off of philosophy forums if I'm not in good condition to think clearly.

Yet, we see so many people engaging in criminal activities and so few involved in practicing the positive rules of society. — TheMadFool

Of course that's what you see if you take news media as an accurate picture of the world, but you should never do that. I feel bad for people who honestly believe there are more people killing and lying than there are people loving and being kind to each other. Also, as Noble Dust pointed out, there is plenty of overlap between the two.

No it means that what humans do, YOU think is bad.
Good and Evil are just value judgements. — charleton

I am very pleased to say that for the first time ever I completely agree with something you've said.

Sure it does, because similar approaches produced similar results. — Bitter Crank

Well in that regard, yes, but it seemed to be the original reply wasn't implying that. When I ask why X has so many followers as opposed to all the other letters, and someone says "Well X has such and such characteristics, unlike Y which has such and such characteristics", the implication is that these differences are why X has so many more followers than Y. But X doesn't have so many more followers than Y. In fact we're due soon to see Islam surpass Christianity, if it hasn't already.
Maybe I read into the original reply something that wasn't there, though. As I said I'm somewhat cognitively impaired at the moment.
Either way I appreciate the insight you've brought to the issue.

Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions. That is, they believe they can, should, and ought to convert people. Judaism is based on blood: one is born a Jew — Bitter Crank

Of course. I didn't even consider the ethnic component of Judaism, with that in mind it makes perfect sense.


Yes but I assumed Lone Wolf's reply was an answer to my question of why Christianity spread more than other religions. In that context it does't make sense to compare it to another religion with almost just as many followers.

Unlike to Koran — Lone Wolf

I'm not sure why you compare it to the Quran when Christianity and Islam have nearly equal numbers of followers.

No one can say whether there was a more inspiring religion than the Jews, because most of the competing religions did not survive--they were crushed by the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, Christians, and Moslems. Zoroastrianism (ancient and native to Persia) has survived, while the various religions of south Asia have survived and flourished.

There isn't a lot of religious writing from the ancient world that we can compare to the OT or NT. (There was likely a large body of religious material in the ancient world, but, like the once-extensive literature of Greece and Rome, very little has survived — Bitter Crank

I suppose this is the best answer that can be given. I still wonder if there's anything inherent in the teachings themselves that allowed things to play out as they did, though. Why the followers of those ideologies came to power and were able to wipe out competing ideologies. I suppose it could just be chance.

I'm aware of all that, I guess I just chose my words poorly. The Church as we know it today is completely different from those early followers of Christianity. It's a huge, organized institution. This is the entity I was referring to. So I guess to put it in different terms, my question is why the Christian church grew from what you described into what it is today. Why specifically that doctrine, as opposed to any of the other philosophical or religious ideologies from during and before that time? Nearly 60% of the world population is either Christian or Muslim (around 30% each). Both of these religions have their origin in the texts of the old testament, with their main holy texts being based on the account of one individual who was interpreting or fulfilling prophecies from these texts. And yet less than 0.2% of the world are Jewish, a religion which is also based on many of these same texts. So is it because of Jesus and Muhammad specifically? What do they have in common? Sure they claimed to be messengers of God, but so did the people who wrote the Tanakh, right? So why Christianity and Islam but not Judaism?

What's the difference? — TheMadFool

Evidence is essentially information that supports a certain conclusion, whereas proof is evidence that confirms a certain conclusion.

For example, if we're trying to solve the murder of Bob and we find John's DNA on Bob's body, that is evidence that John killed Bob, but not proof, because we still cannot say for certain that John killed Bob--it leaves open other possibilities. Alternatively, if we have a security camera video of John killing Bob, that is proof that John killed Bob, because it allows us to say for certain that John killed Bob.

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Why? Please explain — TheMadFool

Obtaining absolute proof isn't humanly possible because we're limited in the information available to us. Our brains/minds are limited in what they can understand, and our senses are limited in what they can perceive. Plus we're also bound by time, so we cannot know the future or experience the past.

So we can never possibly have all of the information, and without all information we cannot truly be certain of anything (except that I exist).

If I have a choice between watching a shitty movie next to me or the best movie ever, but I have to go to the store to get, I'm gonna get my ass up go buy and enjoy the movie and be satisfied at the effort I put into enjoying that movie. Figure out how to improve your life if you can, and enjoy that if you can. — SonJnana

All of your advice is very good, especially regarding meditation, which is something I've been meaning to start doing. A big part of my distress recently has come from feeling as though time is flying by, every day just rushing around to do the same things as I did yesterday, never having enough time to get everything done I want to get done, then today is over and the next day is already here and I still feel behind on the previous day. And because of this I feel as though I'm never fully present in anything I'm doing anymore. It has all become so tedious and routine that I just space out all day, which is probably why it feels like time is going by so fast. So I'm certain meditation will help, I just need to make it a higher priority.

But the portion I quoted you on, about the movie, is actually a very helpful metaphor. It's something so simple, and yet taking that attitude with everything you do would make a huge difference in your life. Just making a little bit more effort to do something that will be more satisfying, as opposed to settling for what's less satisfying but easier and requiring less effort.

This stuff may be simple, but the small things are what really matter, and sometimes I need to be reminded of these things because it's so easy to lose sight of what's important when you're just caught in a boring routine. Thank you.

(on the other hand, perhaps I could see this as a chance to learn to trust my intuition). — anonymous66

This is basically how I have come to utilize philosophy. I grew up in a less fundamentalist household than it sounds like you did, we were Catholic and my parents--while believers--were a bit more open-minded than most religious folks. We went to church every weekend and prayed before meals, we believed in saints and angels and Heaven, and that certain things were sins. But Hell was never something we really accepted or believed. Sure, sins were wrong, but God loved us and was willing to forgive everybody no matter what they did, as long as they repented and grew into better people. There was also the belief that if a person was very bad in life and didn't repent, they went to Purgatory when they died and had to stay for varying amounts of time before they could join God in Heaven. Purgatory was a place to reflect on your wrongdoings and go through the spiritual growth that you didn't get to do on Earth, and it was believed that everyone except babies had to spend some amount of time in Purgatory since we were all sinners.

Anyway, I do realize how fortunate I am to have grown up in such a mildly Religious environment, or one that focused on the good instead of the bad. But when I discovered philosophy it fascinated and excited me so much, and still does today. Over the years it guided me through leaving behind the dogma of religion and finding my own way, my own beliefs. It's about learning new things that you hadn't known of or understood before, and finding things that awaken a sense of "right" inside of you. Things that make you feel as though you are following your soul. Philosophy isn't about looking at different ways of thinking and choosing to conform to one, it's about helping you find your own personal beliefs inside of yourself.

Are there any real answers in philosophy? None that are certain. But certainty is overrated and unnecessary. Utilize philosophy to enrich your life. It's not about finding the answers, it's about finding yourself.

That 'reasoning out' I think is an example of anamnesis, active recollection of truths inside us, versus his myth of previous lives as passive mneme, memories. — Cavacava

It's been a while since I studied Meno, but I do believe the concept was that we all possess innate knowledge, not from a past life, but placed into our minds at our conception.

His position entails that we can't know other minds, or anything outside our own minds with certainly. — Cavacava

I agree that it puts us in a difficult position in that regard, but I still can't help but agree with him. I just don't see how we could possibly say we know anything else with certainty, and I've never seen a convincing enough argument to change my mind.

Very interesting, thank you.

I guess it is a very similar sentiment, but the actual quote seems a bit more up for interpretation.

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

It seems to me if we want to reword it, a more accurate version would be "I do not believe that I know what I do not know." Which doesn't appear paradoxical to me.

It's possible there's more to consider in regards to what exactly he meant by "fancy", and comparing translations would likely help. I have two or three different translations of the Apology at home, but unfortunately I am away at the moment.

Either way, though, I think the original inaccurate quote is still a good sentiment. It does depend on one's thoughts about epistemology, though. Personally, I believe Descartes was right in his claim that the only thing i can be certain of is that I exist. Everything else requires varying degrees of faith, and so cannot be said to be "knowledge" in the true sense, because I believe knowledge implies certainty. And "the only thing i know is that I know nothing" is a poetic--if not paradoxical--way to express that.