Do you think these people are a good representation of actual philosophy of religion? — darthbarracuda

In terms of being rational or academic no, but that's my personal opinion. However, in terms of being realistic yes, Gnostic Theism has affected the world negatively and practically it's a real problem. Some try-hard philosophers are also Gnostic Atheists to attempt to fight back, but I think it's the wrong way to do so.

But for our purposes, those who call themselves gnostics in this context are pretty much irrelevant, because philosophy is not about conviction.

In this website where it's a minority anyways, I guess not. However, I don't think it's very objective to just dismiss a group of people for just being irrational. Because it's a possibility for people to think like this and if it's a possibility, it'll eventually happen.

But why should philosophy need to cater to those being irrational?

Philosophy ought not be to narrow minded in my opinion if you want to become wiser, even being ignorant of irrationality isn't the best approach. "Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge." - Alfred North Whitehead
Studying irrationality might be important for psychological research anyways. We aren't logical beings by design, we are irrational beings.

Passive disbelief in P is merely lacking belief in P. This kind of disbelief can be unconscious. Until you read this sentence, you were not conscious that you lacked a belief in a rainbow-colored invisible blue idea shaped like a round triangle hovering over your head, but you still passively disbelieved it.

Active disbelief of P is 1) lacking belief in P, 2) lacking belief that possibly-P, and 3) being aware of both of these things. I don't mean phenomenal awareness, per se, so much as in the sense that I am aware that I have five toes on my left foot, even though I'm not always concentrating my attention on that belief.

Aside: I do not thing that the negation of state of affairs is another state of affairs. This is not a technical term - you can replace "state of affairs" by something less highfalutin like "situation."

Right but the point of the OP isn't to figure out what the colloquial terms mean.

Right but the point of the OP isn't to figure out what the colloquial terms mean. — darthbarracuda

When was I talking about colloquial terms? Because I don't see the issue you are addressing. The analogy about the trillions of dollars was an analogy to help you understand how an agnostic theist thinks. It wasn't an attempt to redefine agnosticism.

But again, the gnostic-agnostic thing doesn't even exist in philosophy of religion. It's just stupid.

But again, the gnostic-agnostic thing doesn't even exist in philosophy of religion. It's just stupid. — darthbarracuda

Saying this is stupid is a vague expression and the words agnosticism and gnosticism, I believe, originated from academic philosophy. If it hasn't prove me wrong because I don't see everyday people using those jargon words (agnosticism and gnosticism). Probably because everyday people think the two terms are stupid to use as well.

In my experience, wise people rarely say that things are 'stupid'.

But they nevertheless believe God exists. They may think they cannot "know" if God exists, but clearly they do think they have some reasons to believe God exists.

If you truly do not believe one way or another, then you are an agnostic, plain and simple. Nobody actually goes around denying knowledge of God and yet believing anyway. That's stupid.

Saying "I don't know God exists" but believing anyway is confusing and dishonest. Why would anyone believe anything they didn't think was actually true? And how can someone actually know that they know something? And why should anyone else care how "strongly" you believe in God or whatever? Why don't we just ask them what their reasons for belief are and go from there? — darthbarracuda

"Agnostic theism" fairly describes a large number of religious attitudes toward the nature of their own belief in god. Reason logic and evidence are concerns of science and (some) philosophy as a means to indicate what to believe is true, but this brand of agnostic belief differs because it uses things which are distinctly separate from reason in order to substantiate or justify a belief. I've seen it countless times; here are some examples of it's framing:

"I believe God exists because I feel him in my heart".

"I believe God exists because faith in God transcends logic".

"I believe God exists because that belief offers me comfort".

Even pascals wager is an example of a theistic argument from an agnostic perspective. "I believe in God because I'm gambling intellectual integrity on a hypothetical afterlife"...

"I believe God exists because I feel him in my heart".

"I believe God exists because faith in God transcends logic".

"I believe God exists because that belief offers me comfort".

Even pascals wager is an example of a theistic argument from an agnostic perspective. "I believe in God because I'm gambling intellectual integrity on a hypothetical afterlife"... — VagabondSpectre

Are these the sort of arguments you expect to see in philosophy, though?

I'm siding with @darthbarracuda on this one.

To be honest, the only people I see bringing up this distinction between belief and knowledge are atheists who want to call themselves "agnostic" to avoid actually arguing for a positive position. Belief is a requirement for knowledge, but does not entail knowledge- this is true. However, when someone says they are an "agnostic atheist" or an "agnostic theist," all they are saying is that they are agnostics with a inclination towards one side.

To say one is a theist is to express a positive position. The theist claims that god (going to completely avoid how vague that word is and how it can radically change) exists. I would say that the theist believes that, in some meaningful sense of the word "know," they know god exists. They may not give traditionally philosophical answers of reasoned justification, but they still give some sort of justification that they accept as grounds to belief in god. Even when the theist bases their belief on faith or something similar, there is usually some justification for using faith in this context, either from the theist themselves or a theistic philosopher.

This is easier to see in some lines of thought within atheism. For example, when the atheist is saying the burden of proof is on theism to show it is true and that atheism is the default position, the atheist is really saying that they meet a requirement that allows them to claim that god does not exist. In other words, the atheist is saying they are epistemolgically justified in claiming god does not exist, and in a sense, know that god does not exist. They acknowledge they might be wrong, but, under their epistemological system, they can claim knowledge on the nonexistence of god.

I will go further into depth as needed.

Are these the sort of arguments you expect to see in philosophy, though? — darthbarracuda

These individual phrases? No. But there are people who argue for religious experience and feeling, pragmatism, and faith on philosophical grounds.

Are these the sort of arguments you expect to see in philosophy, though? — darthbarracuda

It would be a wonderful world indeed of all philosophy was rational.

This is easier to see in some lines of thought within atheism. For example, when the atheist is saying the burden of proof is on theism to show it is true and that atheism is the default position, the atheist is really saying that they meet a requirement that allows them to claim that god does not exist. In other words, the atheist is saying they are epistemolgically justified in claiming god does not exist, and in a sense, know that god does not exist. They acknowledge they might be wrong, but, under their epistemological system, they can claim knowledge on the nonexistence of god.

I will go further into depth as needed. — Chany

But most atheists don't say "god does not exist" and claim it as knowledge. When atheists say the burden of proof is on the theist, they aren't really saying they have proof of god's non-existence.

You've brought up the fact that god has an amorphous definition, so let me ask you this (presuming you believe in a Christian god):

Do you lack belief in Zeus?

Do you believe that Zeus does not exist?

Do you have proof of Zeus's non-existence?

Are you an atheist or agnostic when it comes to Zeus?

What about all the other notions of god?

How can the burden of proof be on the soft atheist to disprove the existence of all possible gods if all we really do is reject arguments for specific gods when and where they arise?

Why don't atheists just refer to themselves as agnostic instead of sneakily trying to avoid a burden of proof? It's because we use the terms differently: "atheism" for lacks belief in god(s) (and optionally possesses belief in god(s) non-existence) and "agnosticism" for believes knowledge of god(s) is unknown or unknowable/unattainable.

Why not generalize the different kinds of stances/attitudes, or absence thereof, towards any proposition?
In this case the proposition would then come from theism.

• proposition is unknown
• no particular stance either way (e.g. 50/50, irrelevant, of no further interest)
• belief that proposition holds (e.g. sufficient confidence)
• disbelief in proposition (e.g. insufficient justification)

How are beliefs formed anyway?

And, why do they matter? Why all the sturm und drang, about this idea, in particular?

Do you lack belief in Zeus?

Do you believe that Zeus does not exist? — VagabondSpectre

I don't believe that 'the Christian God' is comparable to Zeus or Apollo or any of the ancient deities. It was presented in those terms, due to the culture in which it had to be communicated, hence, 'one of the Gods'. It's true that to many people, God is thought of as 'Jupiter', with all of the associated imagery, however I think that is a holdover from earlier belief systems.

Directly comparable no, but the issue I'm outlining is that there are all kinds of hypothetical deities out there which form the basis of theistic belief. A given theist generally believes in one notion of god with certain particulars, and so they must lack belief or disbelieve in gods with different particulars. In reality a theist can have atheistic attitudes and positions towards every possible god except their own.

So my point is that when a theist asks an atheist to disprove all possible gods (such as Zeus) the theist also has to disprove all possible gods (minus the one they believe in) because they too must share the atheist lack of belief or disbelief. So, as an atheist I only ever need to refute one god at a time, the one a given theist happens to believe in.

I'll keep it brief, because, personally, I don't think that this topic warrants much discussion. Hopefully, I have learnt my lesson from very lengthy past discussions on this topic.

Basically, I am in favour of a relatively broad and flexible set of definitions for atheism, and I think that those who would rule out either one or the other of the two main definitions of atheism, namely as lacking the belief that there is a god or as the belief that there is no god, are just wasting their time. The reason being that many people will carry on using the word in these ways regardless.

There's an asymmetry at work in this question.

For the atheist, all that is at stake is a belief. As far as they're concerned, it is simply a matter of a false belief - a belief which has no referent, belief in a fictitious, if comforting, illusion. The pink unicorn of joy, the flying spaghetti monster, the comforting heavenly father who soothes away childhood frets.

'Snap out of it, wake up and get back to the real world', they will say.

For the believer, on the other hand, what is at stake is not simply a belief, but a matter of life and death. It will have consequences that reverberate far into the future, maybe forever. It's not simply a belief, which is only a bellwhether, but the very thread that leads out of the labyrinth, the gateway to a higher and different kind of life, one that those around us cannot imagine.

This doesn't mean, incidentally, that I claim to know whether 'God exists', as I remain agnostic. But I've realised I'm a religious agnostic, in that I feel that I intuit what it is that is behind the yearning of believers. And that is something I feel, that I think atheists don't. They seem to be wanting to persuade the believers that they're deficient, in some way: that they have an un-acknowledged inability to face things 'as they really are', and so need to cling to a comforting illusion, which is what they take religious belief to be. Indeed it's all the atheist can believe it to be - that's their belief (which is the point of the OP).

Never mind that religious believers often sacrifice everything, including themselves, for what they believe - as if that is a 'comforting illusion'.

I think it's quite fair to say: 'look, there really is nothing corresponding to 'the sacred': no religious beliefs have any basis in reality. We are basically creatures who survive for however long, and do what we do, and that's all there is to it.' This is the view that all religions are simply grand, if edifying, delusions.

But such a 'belief in nothing' is only a better kind of belief if there really is nothing to believe in. In that case, the unbeliever is better off than the believer, solely for not having the burden of carrying a false belief.

But if there is any sense in which religious belief is true - if in reality, there is a radically different kind of existence, which religions point to - then the consequences far outweigh the advantages of a mere absence of a belief. That is the asymmetry that I'm referring to.

(Tip of the hat to Pascal's Wager.)

There are two things that are typically going on with "atheism is merely disbelief."

The more innocuous track is a view that if someone simply has no belief in a deity, because they are more or less unaware of even the idea of a deity, then that person is an atheist in a literal sense of the word per the Greek etymological roots of the word.

The less innocuous track is an attitude about beliefs where the person associates the idea of belief with "buying something on faith." And usually the cause of this is the association of belief with religion in combination with a rejection of religion. Some people have this attitude to an extent where they'll get bent out of shape at the idea that they have any beliefs whatsoever.

However, if you accept that assenting to "New York is north of Florida" is reflective of a belief that you hold, then atheism is going to involve belief insofar as you've heard ideas about gods and rejected them. In that case you'd say that you have a belief that "There are no gods" or something similar.

However, if you accept that assenting to "New York is north of Florida" is reflective of a belief that you hold, then atheism is going to involve belief insofar as you've heard ideas about gods and rejected them. In that case you'd say that you have a belief that "There are no gods" or something similar. — Terrapin Station

One can reject a proposition because of a lack of certainty, rather than a belief that its contrary is true. In such a case, the degree of certainty which is required for belief would not have been met. And so, in such a case, one would not necessarily have a belief to the contrary. Although there would still be a belief: that it is uncertain. I suppose that that could be included under your "something similar" category.

Right, in that case, the belief would be belief in "degrees of certainty".

Right, in that case, the belief would be belief in "degrees of certainty". — Noble Dust

Yes, like I said.

Have people always been so fanatical about what "beliefs" we have or do not have?

If you read enough of these debates something you might notice is that evidence is never presented to support the claim that "beliefs" are the powerful determinants of behavior that fanatics on both sides say we must control.

Beliefs, rather than being determinants of behavior, could just be necessary intellectual tools. Evidence--solid, concrete evidence--is never presented one way or the other.

Do people really consistently hold the same beliefs? Or are our beliefs​ in a constant state of flux?

Is a belief really a distinct entity? Or are beliefs gray areas that can't be categorized?

And, good grief, why do people get so agitated, offended, annoyed, etc. by other people's beliefs? Probably 99% of the time I could not care less about what other people believe. Somebody might believe that I am a trespasser and be prepared to shoot me with a gun, but somebody else's belief being a threat like that is an extremely rare scenario. And we pay little attention to those kinds of beliefs--often, clinical psychologists have to bring them to our attention. But if somebody believes​ in a deity we've already got our guard up!

I think that it is all politics and has very little to do with intellectual or spiritual life.

Karen Armstrong has an interesting take on it in her essay Should we believe in 'belief'?

It was during the late 17th century, as the western conception of truth became more notional, that the word "belief" changed its meaning. Previously, bileve meant "love, loyalty, commitment". It was related to the Latin libido and used in the King James Bible to translate the Greek pistis ("trust; faithfulness; involvement"). In demanding pistis, therefore, Jesus was asking for commitment not credulity: people must give everything to the poor, follow him to the end, and commit totally to the coming Kingdom.

By the late 17th century, however, philosophers and scientists had started to use "belief" to mean an intellectual assent to a somewhat dubious proposition.

Karen Armstrong has an interesting take on it in her essay Should we believe in 'belief'?



It was during the late 17th century, as the western conception of truth became more notional, that the word "belief" changed its meaning. Previously, bileve meant "love, loyalty, commitment". It was related to the Latin libido and used in the King James Bible to translate the Greek pistis ("trust; faithfulness; involvement"). In demanding pistis, therefore, Jesus was asking for commitment not credulity: people must give everything to the poor, follow him to the end, and commit totally to the coming Kingdom.

By the late 17th century, however, philosophers and scientists had started to use "belief" to mean an intellectual assent to a somewhat dubious proposition. — Wayfarer

A lot of interesting insights, especially where religious myth is compared to art.

That explains a lot about where Christians have gone wrong.

But how do we explain the fanaticism of the irreligious over "beliefs"?

Again, I think that it is all political. If you want to increase your power and reduce other people's power then an often-practiced strategy is to make it about "us" vs. "them" and portray "them" as subhuman, inferior, backwards, etc.--or say that their "beliefs" are dangerous and must be exposed, contained, eradicated, etc.

there's a degree of fanaticism, or at least dogmatism, on all sides.

Actually my long-standing view is that the dynamics of ecclesiastical power held by the Church has a great deal to do with the way this conflict has unfolded in Western culture. This is because of the power wielded by religious orthodoxy and, conversely, the treatment meted out to heretics and schismatics. That played out over centuries in the West, and of course it also became deeply intertwined with politics, in the Wars of Religion and the 30 Years War, not to mention many bloody episodes in the Inquisition, such as the persecution of the Cathars.

I am inclined to think that is the underlying cause of the anti-religious attitudes of the so-called 'secular West'. That, in turn, grew out of the Enlightenment and the belief that science, not religion, ought to be the 'arbiter of truth' - which is, of course, true, in respect of the kinds of matters that can be made subject to scientific measurement. But religions deal with many ideas and values that are quite out of scope for science.

Actually this is a subject which Karen Armstrong's book The Case for God, talks about - that essay is basically an abstract of it. She shows how early modern science, by appealing to 'God's Handiwork', inadvertently brought about its own undoing - 'Fatally, religions tried to defend themselves against science by arguing that they knew the truth better than the geologists, rather than presenting themselves (as one feels Armstrong would have wished) as the guardians of mystery and therapeutic manoeuvres of the mind. 1.'

That impulse is what gave rise to biblical fundamentalism and the 'culture wars'. Most people don't realise that Augustine and Origen were fiercely critical of biblical literalism and fundamentalism, in the early days of the Christian church.

Very interesting issue you brought up. I've come across it many times - didn't give it any thought.

It does matter because atheists use the ''atheism is lack of belief'' to wiggle out of logically ''inconvenient'' positions.

Atheists take this stance especially when theists demand disproof of god. Nobody, as of now, can disprove god's nonexistence - there's too big a lacuna, despite our pride, in our knowledge bank to say anything definitive on the issue. Note this applies to theists too.

What does lack of belief mean? For me it's the blank slate which @Bitter Crank mentioned in his post. To illustrate, as a 4 year old I lacked belief in gravity. The concept simply didn't exist (for me). As far as gravity was concerned I was a blank slate. As I grew up I learned the concept and then formed a belief, that gravity is real, and the blank slate was replaced by knowledge of gravity.

Likewise, as a 4 year old I was a blank slate where faster-than-light-speed travel was concerned. With time this was replaced by knowledge, disbelief of such a possibility.

So, there is a difference between lack of belief and disbelief. In simple terms, the former is ignorance and the latter is knowledge.

The song of the atheist is ''God doesn't exist'' which, to me, is simply the short version of ''I know God doesn't exist'', which is a claim to knowledge of God's ontology. So, atheism is definitely not lack of belief.