Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bryantm3
i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists.
|
Before I start, I want to say to you bryant that I fully understand that it can look suspiciously as if some of us are being a bit sneaky or even dishonest about this question. That we want to profess one part of the definition of atheism but not be lumbered with the bit that supposedly implicates us as having a belief system. After all, faced with a firm positive belief that god does not exist, the theist (along with many who view themselves as an in-the-middle agnostic) would then be quite right to shift the responsibility for providing evidence onto atheism, which should then justifiably be treated as a rival belief system. And on that basis, you could quite reasonably attack it. But really and honestly, it's simply the case that I don't share your belief in god. I don't believe. I lack that belief. And that's it.
I'm going to try to minimize the use of category labels here, because I want to concentrate on this important distinction - between not believing in god and believing there is no god. If you get to the end of it and feel I'm an agnostic but not an atheist, then that's fine, that's up to you. I've already outlined in this thread why I consider my theistic position to be atheism rather than agnosticism (agnosticism is my gnostic position!), so I won't go back into the argument here except to say that it's one that can be debated separately. For now, I want to focus on the fundamental difference between the two positions you mentioned.
As Sean said, semantically the difference might seem minuscule, but in fact it's more than merely
saying something different; it's actually
meaning something different. The distinction between the two statements is crucial in terms of what the person is or is not assuming to know. It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both
appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:
(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.
Dealing with these one at a time:
(1) Defining 'believe'
My dictionary defines 'believe' as 'assume to know' or 'accept as true'. The difficulty is that in day-to-day usage, the word believe is often used in a weaker way - people sometimes use the word to indicate that they are merely 'fairly sure' of something. And unfortunately this can make all the difference to this argument. For example, when I say I don't believe god exists, I'm saying I don't assume to know that god exists. I lack the belief in god that you possess. I reject your hypothesis that god exists. However when I also reject the
other hypothesis that 'god does not exist', that's because I don't assume to know that for certain either. I don't assume to have that knowledge. (And the reasons for that I'll explain a little later.)
The confusion arises because, despite not knowing for certain that 'he' does not exist, I live my life 'as if' god does not exist. Now some mistakenly assume that living as if there is no god and positively believing there is no god are the same thing. My view is that no human being can know for certain that there is no god. Yes I lead my life 'to all intents and purposes' as if there is no god, just as I lead my life to all intents and purposes as if there are no invisible unicorns or trans-dimensional devils. The reason I live 'as if' there is no god is because it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I refuse to believe in your Christian God only in the same way that I refuse to believe in Nagaraja, the Hindu snake god, or indeed in anything else the human mind can dream up. Only in that sense am I
believing (assuming) that god doesn't exist - but to term it like that requires a much looser definition of the word believe than we normally employ, so we just need to be aware of that.
(2) The logical error
For the sake of dealing with this second point, let's settle on one definition of 'believe' - any one, it doesn't matter which - so that we can examine the logical error. Let's take the common definition of believe as 'assume to know'.
Essentially, we are dealing with two hypotheses, and their counterpart rejections:
Hypothesis 1: I believe god exists
(Rejection of hypothesis 1: I
do not believe god exists)
Hypothesis 2: I believe god does not exist
(Rejection of hypothesis 2: I
do not believe god does not exist)
As a theist, you would presumably accept hypothesis 1 and reject hypothesis 2.
Douglas Adams, quoted earlier, has effectively rejected hypothesis 1 but accepted hypothesis 2.
My position (and I think Sean's position) is that I reject both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.
Now I might well live my life as if god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I feel sufficiently qualified or knowledgable to posit for certain that god does not exist.
[contd...]