Goliath

Helen,

That question has nothing to do with anything that has transpired in this thread. Amie specifically talked about whether or not it's possible to not believe that something exists if you don't know what that thing is.

However, to answer your question, yes, it seems as though Q1 => P is true.

Feel free to PM me about it, although I may not be able to send a response for a little while.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Infinity Lover

I think the discussion in this thread has already reached a point where the difference of (a)not believing in something, and (b) saying you don't believe in a certain something has been made and discussed as relevant.

Amie kind of overlooked and blurred that distinction, same as you appeared to do. May I suggest you get beyond that, before this discussion ventures of into the pointless once more.

Goliath

Infinity Lover,

The difference between the two statements is irrelevant, as it has no effect whatsoever on my argument above.

Please either point out where my argument using propositional logic went wrong, or concede.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Infinity Lover

Your point that you needn't know what you don't believe in is one I have no problem conceding to. It's not possible to hold a belief in anything you've never heard of.

However as soon as you start singeling out one particular concept (asserting that you don't believe in the existence of a specific something), or even further than that stating that you don't believe in the existence of said concept, some definition would be in order. Otherwise the assertion is meaningless.

In the case of a prubblezwardflog, or whatever you pull out of your hat next, the definition "a word I just made up, representing something I've never heard of" would be sufficient, making the whole thing come full circle and allowing you to maintain your position. But such a definition would still be nessecary to give your assertion of disbelief proper meaning.

But the case of the o.p. very specificly talked of the belief in God. Something you've surely heard of. Replacing God with a generic makeshift non-concept ultimately derailed the whole discussion, shifting focus away from the intent of the thread.

How long do you whish to keep that up?

Goliath

Infinity Lover,

Agreed. Therefore if I believe that something exists, then I must know what that something is. A statement that is logically equivalent to this is the following: If I do not know what something is, then I do not believe that said thing exists. Therefore it is not only possible to not know what something is and not believe that said thing exists, but it follows that if you do not know what something is, then you must not believe that said thing exists

Please either point out where my argument went wrong or concede.

Incorrect. "I do not believe that a sadslj exists" is the negation of the proposition "I believe that a sadslj exists," and thusly has meaning.

It was Amie who suggested that it is impossible for non-belief in a god unless you know what a god is. I generalized the concept to prove her wrong. After all, a slasdglk could be a god, now couldn't it? I have shifted focus away from nothing, merely using a more general version of Amie's assertion to show that it was incorrect.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Infinity Lover

You will concede, resistance is futile!!

On the other hand I could give it a whack...

If I do not know what something (what?) is, then I do not believe that said thing (which is?) exists. Therefore it is not only possible to not know what something (what?) is and not believe that said thing (which is?) exists, but it follows that if you do not know what something (what?) is, then you must not believe that said thing (which is?) exists.

There's two problems here:
1: you don't know what you don't know. Singeling "something" out, suggests you at least know it's something... not nothing. Congratulations you have just mentioned the first feature of your definition.

2: How are you going to explain, that "something I've never heard of" isn't some form of definition in itself?

You were completely incapable of stating your case, without using descriptions such as "something", or "said thing", generic as those descriptions may be. There's no way of getting arounf this describing business, and you couldn't do it either... in your attempt to prove otherwise ironicly enough.

Why don't you try your hand at "I think that's incorrect because..." I just giggle at this Incorrect, prove me false or concede business, but you might rub others the wrong way with it; just a hint.

In order for the latter statement to have meaning, you'd have to define sadslj... you said so yourself. How can you make a meaningless statement gain meaning by simply negating it?

Which is exactly where you strayed from the point. We weren't talking about what we don't know in general now were we?
But is a god nessecarily a slasdglk? I guess it all depends on what a slasdglk is. What is a slasdglk Goliath?

You shifted the point towards nothing, away from the o.p. There was no generalizing to do there, that is the whole point. It's about a certain something, and you can't specify without specifying.

Whether you believe in it's existence or not, is a quality, a criterium. You can't ascribe criteria to nothing, but when you ascribe either quality to "something", you've already defined that "something" up to some degree. There's no escaping it.

(Something I don't believe in, perhaps wasn't the definition Amie was hoping for, perhaps she would even call it a copout and bust my chops, but a definition it is. Doesn't everything you believe in, kind of become your God?)

Starboy

Amie, I think your question has been well answered many times, but for what it is worth, here is my .5 cents.

I think the essence of your question reveals a semantic ambiguity. The statement:

"I do not believe in god."

is not the same as:

"I believe there is no god."

I think you are confusing the meaning of the second sentence with the meaning of the first sentence.

A clearer statement of my point of view on the subject is:

"I lack belief in any god(s)."

I would agree that if a person understood your question as:

"I believe there is no god."

and lacked a definition of what they thought did not exist, that would be irrational. Since there are so many religions that have small to significant differences regarding the nature and history of god, until they can get it sorted out there is no point in discussing it.

Starboy

BadBadBad

Let me take a different tact on this:



I would define your faith not as faith in God, but faith in the people and culture you were raised with. At one point, you may have had faith in your parents and for the same reasons believed in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd have faith in your family and culture that Alah exists. If you were born in the deep south 50 years ago, you'd likely be a racist. You'd believe that racist ideology was valid and justified. If you lived through the cultural upheaval of the 60s, you might have had a revelation that your faith was misguided(or maybe not). If you believed in Santa Claus, your faith in your parents at some point proved undeserved. Forget about what you've been told to believe and think about why you have faith and what you have faith in.

I've seen that revelation of lost faith through my child's eyes on several occasions: Santa Claus, tooth fairy, easter bunny, and the revelation that his much older brother is only his half brother. I've seen that look of utter astonishment and disbelief. The rejection of the truth, the denial, then the epiphany and excitement of knowledge. He was much happier to dispell fallacy than to continue believing in fantasy.

The problem with religion is that no one you trust in your family or culture ever gives you the knowing wink like they did when you came home from school with the idea that Santa Claus didn't exist. Just the opposite. I assume you've been trained since your childhood through family, church, and culture to reject with your entire being any notion that religion is bunk. You've been threatened with burning in Hell for eternity. You've been offered the eternal bliss of Heaven. You've been protected with the reassurance of family, church and culture. Let me ask you a question. In this context, look back in your life and childhood and ask yourself what would it have taken for you not to believe in God?

To answer your first question, to have a belief in God, I would have to start my childhood all over. In fact, I'd have to start my father's life all over in that he too was an atheist. I'd have to start the history of the United States all over. I'd have to start over with history back to the time of the Old Testament. I'd have to start over with the history of mankind.

Now, we can re-define the lying, vanity, ego-craving, power hungry, and violent nature of mankind. We can wipe out the "voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled." We can wipe out the "history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." Thomas Paine. We can wipe out the vile history of chrisitanity, the church and organized religion. We can wipe out the secular origins of our nation. We can wipe out the secular influence on our culture and family. Then I could be born again in a new world where Christianity could make sense. That's all it would take Amie. If we could do that, what then would "God" mean?



What is God? Do I have some level of definition and understanding of God? Yes I do. "God" is defined by religion. Religion is defined by a vile and corrupt history of mankind. I don't have faith that religion is a good thing. I don't have faith in our ignorant and despicable history as an accurate means for me to understand our world and universe and certainly not God. Therefore, I don't believe in God.

Let me ask you another question Amie. This has become my pet question.

If an entity came to you in the form of a burning bush and spoke to you without form, and he told you this: My child, you live in an evil world of infidels. They seek to corrupt the world against me your lord. Come down from this mountain and take some flight training courses. Then hijack a 747 and fly it into Mecca during The Festival of Sacrifice. Now my question, based upon your faith, would you conclude that this is God or the Devil? Do you have enough faith to do what "God" has asked?

Amergin

One area that I need more clarification is that of choice in belief and its consequences. I don't think that any of us choose to believe anything. We believe that the Rocky Mountains exist because we and every person with eyesight can see them. We don't choose to believe that they exist as we stand at the Lodge at Lake Louise. We don't choose to believe that we are tired after working 10 hours without a break. We can't see Atoms and protons but we know they exist because of the abundant scientific data, the secondary results of chemical reactions etc. We know atoms are real, we don't choose to believe in atoms.

We don't believe in cubical spheres, the square root of minus one, or that a snail can play Lord Gordon's Reel on a fiddle. We know that those are not possible by any natural law. We don't believe them; we don't choose to not believe.

God is in a different category. He is invisible, inaudible, intangible, and non-tactile to our investigation. But so is outer space dark matter. He is or is not the creator of the universe. If he is such a creator we don't know if he is sentient (conscious) and intelligent or on a level different from human mentality. As a result some people believe and others do not. It might seem like choice but I can tell you it is not. If it were simple choice, I would have been a believer since childhood.

My life would have been far nicer if I could have honestly identified as a believer. There is no advantage anywhere in being a non-believer, only varying degrees of negative social stigma.

So here is my question. If I did (and I did) spend years wrestling with the question of God's existence. I was taught standard Christian (Anglican almost Catholic) theology. I studied the bible and had as I said taken a theology elective in each of my four years at university. I had counselling with our local pastor. I did this because I "wanted" to believe. I tried to choose to believe but it just wouldn't stick. Now as I note a few grey hairs among my formerly solid black mane, I note my approaching mortality. I want to be "right". So I try to find a reason, even an excuse to believe in God and have immortality. That is a very desirable situation.

An Atheist believes that at death, all is over forever. That is not very pleasant. So I am motivated to find that I am wrong. I know that my elder years would be nicer if I looked forward to an afterlife and a good afterlife.

So, (sorry it is rambling), when I die, I may not have not yet found the key data to convince me that God is real. Then I am face to face with God. Everyone tells me that it is too late then to say, "Corblimey, you are real."

Do I get an "A" for effort at trying hard to believe, but failed the final exam because I couldn't programme it into my brain? Thanks for your concern.

Amergin

Amergin

The hypothesis that theism and/or religion were a Darwinian
survival trait or survival advantage has much merit. I am an
Atheist. But I know that worldwide I am only 20% of the
world's population and only 5% over there in America. That must mean something. In centuries past, such as the Middle Ages, Atheism was extremely rare as far as
we know. Religion pervaded society.

I have postulated before, that religion is brain based. It occurs
only in those humans whose brains are hard wired to process
religious concepts unquestioningly. Atheists by contrast have
circuits that reject religious concepts and magical thinking. We
are incapable of believing in gods or invisible pink unicorns
because of our brain structure as well as early programming
perhaps. We now know that our brain structure is 95%
determined by genetic codes in the Human Genome, while about
5% may be experience or programming altered synaptic
connections. Therefore, a nucleotide code ultimately determines
whether you or I will be likely believers or resistant sceptics.

Why would greater than 80% of all humans have such a gene?
As a Neo-Darwinian molecular geneticist and neuroscientist, the
answer seems obvious. The "religion gene" must have given the
ancestors of modern humans a survival advantage. Early humans
who possessed the genes survived while most of those who
didn't possess it perished or failed to pass on the "sceptical
gene". What advantages did the gene confer?

First we must look at religion and religious behaviour. Religion
today provides a worldview, but it is also a restrictive and
exclusive worldview. It sets those with the same view apart from
others. This gives the group an identity, and makes others who
differ, unwelcome if not dangerous. We have seen that religion is
associated with suspicion of others, and quite often homicidal
violence against "wrong believers". Each group creates its gods.
The group members fear and hate those who reject their gods
and vice versa. Religion is associated with hyper sexuality (even
hyper homosexuality) that usually results in higher birthrates.

OK, so we have some early humans who have their own
protective gods. They are militant and aggressive toward
unbeliever tribes. They have strong group identity. The identity is
as much kinship as religious. Even tribe members who are kin
are banished or killed for heresy and unbelief. Religion is almost
always a mind control system as well. That imposes discipline.
Underlings follow orders from the shaman or the god appointed
chieftain.

So, a religious tribe has identity, discipline, aggressiveness,
prolific reproduction, paranoid fear and hatred toward those
who are different in belief, a tendency to violence, and may be
easily propelled toward attacking an unbeliever tribe by a
shaman or a chieftain who also covets the extra land and female
slaves taken in a war.

Suppose the tribe nearby is unreligious or weakly religious.
Those people would be like modern atheists. They would be
argumentative, resistant to orders (i.e. undisciplined),
uninterested in risking their lives for hypothetical gods. They
sadly would be under-prolific with fewer children and eventually
fewer warriors.

So in a war between the two tribes, who would triumph?
Obviously the disciplined, more aggressive, mutually supportive,
paranoid, violence prone, warriors who believe the gods protect
them would win. The result would be that the genes of the
religious tribe would be passed down. The sceptical tribe's
sceptic gene would be exterminated or nearly so.

The gene that programs for religious belief essentially programs a
set of behaviours not just belief in gods. The gene's effect in
programming the limbic lobe of the brain produced all of the
behaviours that we see today in religion: intolerance, hate,
discipline, submission to leaders, willingness to risk life and limb for
tribe's god (promising Heaven or Valhalla), gullibility (which makes them
pawns of their chief and shaman), and hyper sexuality.

In patients with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, Marcel Mesulam has
noted traits of hyper sexuality, violence, seeing/hearing god or
gods, and hyper religiosity. The two behaviours are very closely
linked anatomically in the limbic/temporal circuits, perhaps the
same circuits. Observations of religious charismatic experiences
have shown autonomic phenomena similar to sexual orgasm,
(pelvic thrusting movements, penile erections in males,
submissive sexual postures and flushing in women Pentecostal
ecstatic states.)

It is apparent that this gene and its resultant brain hard wiring
produced people with the above behavioural tendencies.
Anyone who has attended a meeting of the British Humanist
Association or a meeting of Evolutionary Psychologists is
immediately impressed by the fact that they are all arguing with
each other, can' t agree on a common statement of policy, and
are as difficult to organise as herding cats. Applying such
behaviour to early humans would show that they are at a great
disadvantage in a conflict with a hyper religious group or tribe.

Therefore, humans with the religion gene passed it on along with
its constellation of behaviours. It was a survival advantage
because it facilitated the development of disciplined groups of
aggressive, violent, paranoid, relatively fearless of death, gullible
followers of leaders, which was a successful formula.

Those with the more recessive sceptical genetic codes have only
prospered in modern times with Enlightenment influenced
constitutions. Yet, even then they remain a minority in all but a
handful of West European and East Asian countries. And
perhaps the smaller minority of sceptical gene carriers have been
allowed to survive in very religious countries like the USA is
because we are useful to the society in providing nearly all of
their scientists, physicians, psychologists, and inventers. In those
professions the sceptical gene provides an adaptive advantage that religious gene carriers lack.

Amergin