I am an atheist because atheism is the most useful to me.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Mine's a non sequitor only if yours is as well.

This is getting confusing. I will explain what I meant by my comment, in case it isn't clear. Then I hope you will explain what you meant by your comment, because I'm not getting it.

Rodibidably said that he was an atheist because there is no God.

So it seems like he's saying:

There is no God ---> Rodibidably is an atheist.

But if that works, then why doesn't this work?

There is no God ---> The Pope is an atheist.

It's because there's something else going on - a missing premise. Something that applies to Rodibidably and others like him, but not to the Pope and others like him. So I'm saying it's not correct to say that R. is an atheist because there is no God - it has to be because there is no God and something else, or just something else.

I would actually argue that it's just something else. If there were a God, and everything else about the universe were the same, I would still be an atheist, and I would bet Rodibidably would be as well. I am an atheist because I see no evidence for God (and of course, something else!).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Huh? Of course people believed that the sun went around the earth. Am I dense, or is this a non sequitur?

I think his point is that you're mixing together the truth value of a proposition with belief that the proposition is true.

They're two separate things.

HOWEVER, saying "I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God" is simply a tautology.

The OP was saying something a bit different--like "I don't believe in God because not believing in God is most useful to me". In other words, it's a utilitarian approach to accepting a premise that doesn't ultimately concern itself with the truth value of the premise.

As noted, science works like this. We don't claim to know any given proposition is true with certainty. Rather we provisionally accept them if they're useful. (That is, if they fit with the evidence of observation.)

By contrast a religious belief is a claim to dogmatic certainty, and isn't held contingent on how well it fits observed results. (For many of the big questions of religion--the nature of gods or god, the afterlife, etc.--there are no observed results.)

I wish Rocketdodger would jump back in the thread he started and discuss this further. (Like, is my reading of the OP more or less on track?)

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think his point is that you're mixing together the truth value of a proposition with belief that the proposition is true.

I see. In that case, I think he was misreading me. The thing is, my point was essentially to criticize Rodibidably for doing just that. Remember he didn't say "I am an atheist because I don't believe in God." He said "I am an atheist because there is no God."

[Rodibidably]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

This is getting confusing. I will explain what I meant by my comment, in case it isn't clear. Then I hope you will explain what you meant by your comment, because I'm not getting it.

Rodibidably said that he was an atheist because there is no God.

So it seems like he's saying:

There is no God ---> Rodibidably is an atheist.

But if that works, then why doesn't this work?

There is no God ---> The Pope is an atheist.

It's because there's something else going on - a missing premise. Something that applies to Rodibidably and others like him, but not to the Pope and others like him. So I'm saying it's not correct to say that R. is an atheist because there is no God - it has to be because there is no God and something else, or just something else.

I would actually argue that it's just something else. If there were a God, and everything else about the universe were the same, I would still be an atheist, and I would bet Rodibidably would be as well. I am an atheist because I see no evidence for God (and of course, something else!).

Ok, here is where I think the disconnect happened.

Lonewulf was making that point that some people believe things which are in fact wrong (such as a flat earth).
So those who believe in the truth (round earth), can in fact believe it BECAUSE it's true (in fact, the earth is round), despite the fact that others are deluded into believing something which is not true (flat earth).

So the fact that I am an atheist because there is no god, is not in any way refuted by the illogical beliefs of others who believe in fairy-tales.

[linusrichard]

Okay, but what I'm saying is, it's a missing premise problem. You can't have:

1. There is no God.
==
2. Therefore: I am an atheist.

You have to have (at the very least):
1. There is no God.
2. ????
==
3. Therefore: I am an atheist.

So my question is, what is 2?

The obvious choice is:
1. There is no God.
2. I believe all things which are true.
3. One who does not believe in God is an atheist.
==
4. Therefore: I am an atheist.

But 2 is false. So that's not it.

[Lonewulf]

1. There is no God.
2. All of those that believe in God do so for self-deluding reasons or badly defined "evidence" that is quite easily refuted.
3. One who does not believe in God is an atheist.
==
4. Therefore: I am an atheist.

There.

[Rodibidably]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Okay, but what I'm saying is, it's a missing premise problem. You can't have:

1. There is no God.
==
2. Therefore: I am an atheist.

You have to have (at the very least):
1. There is no God.
2. ????
==
3. Therefore: I am an atheist.

So my question is, what is 2?

The obvious choice is:
1. There is no God.
2. I believe all things which are true.
3. One who does not believe in God is an atheist.
==
4. Therefore: I am an atheist.

But 2 is false. So that's not it.

I don't see why you MUST have a #2.
Is there a #2 for why you don't believe the earth is flat?
Is there a #2 for why you don't believe in fairies?
Is there a #2 for why you don't believe that I have psychic powers?

1. The earth is not flat.
2. Therefore: I believe the earth is not flat.

1. Fairies do not exist.
2. Therefore: I do not believe in fairies.

1. Psychic powers are not real.
2. Therefore: I do not believe you have psychic powers.

1. There is no God.
2. Therefore: I am an atheist.

[Lonewulf]

The trouble is in supporting the premise.

[Rodibidably]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

The trouble is in supporting the premise.

But this is not about SUPPORT of a position, this is about why one is an atheist.

I am an atheist BECAUSE god does not exist.
If somebody wants further clarification for how I came to the understanding that god does not exist, that is a closely related, but separate topic.

I believe the earth is round because it is round.
The pictures I have seen that show the earth is round may support the fact that it is round, and I'm sure at some point a teacher (or somebody) "informed" me that the earth is roughly spherical in shape, but that teacher is not the reason I believe the earth is round, the roundness of the earth is why I believe it's round. That teacher just helped to inform me of the roundness.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably

But this is not about SUPPORT of a position, this is about why one is an atheist.

Right, good point.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably

I don't see why you MUST have a #2.

Because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Quote:

Is there a #2 for why you don't believe the earth is flat?

1. The preponderance (actually quite a bit more than that) of the evidence available to me suggests the earth is not flat.
2. My belief in the shape of the earth is based on the evidence.
==
3. Therefore: I believe the earth is not flat.

Quote:

Is there a #2 for why you don't believe in fairies?

1. I have seen no good evidence for fairies.
2. My belief in the existence vel non of fairies is based on the evidence.
==
3. Therefore: I don't believe in fairies.

Quote:

Is there a #2 for why you don't believe that I have psychic powers?

1. I have seen no good evidence that psychic powers exist.
2. My belief in the existence vel non of psychic powers is based on the evidence.
3. In order for me to believe you have psychic powers, I need to believe psychic powers exist.
==
4. Therefore: I don't believe that you have psychic powers.

Quote:

1. The earth is not flat.
2. Therefore: I believe the earth is not flat.

1. Fairies do not exist.
2. Therefore: I do not believe in fairies.

1. Psychic powers are not real.
2. Therefore: I do not believe you have psychic powers.

1. There is no God.
2. Therefore: I am an atheist.

None of these are valid.

Look, in everyday conversation, you don't always have to state your number 2 (or 3, or 4, or...). For example, if you said you needed an umbrella because it's raining, I'm not going to be the guy who says (correctly) that that conclusion can't follow from that premise alone. We all know what the missing premises are there. No point. The reason I'm being picky is because I don't find this:

1. There is no God.
2 ????
==
3. Therefore: I am an atheist.

to be plausible, no matter what 2 is. In fact, I'm fairly certain if there were a God, you would still be an atheist (all else being equal). I know I would. So I think the best way to look at it is to find that missing premise, and see what's up.

ETA:

Quote:

If somebody wants further clarification for how I came to the understanding that god does not exist, that is a closely related, but separate topic.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you were truly an atheist solely because there is no God, then your understanding that God does not exist wouldn't enter into the equation at all. Not a closely related topic, but a completely irrelevant topic.

[Lonewulf]

Dear lord, some people are pedantic.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Dear lord, some people are pedantic.

That's a fair comment, I think. I never wanted to write all that stuff, but my initial comment was misunderstood, and it all spiralled out of control. Most of the time, it's dumb to be pedantic about missing premises, but I think it's helpful in this case to show that "I'm an atheist because there is no God" doesn't work. That's all I was trying to do.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

That's a fair comment, I think. I never wanted to write all that stuff, but my initial comment was misunderstood, and it all spiralled out of control. Most of the time, it's dumb to be pedantic about missing premises, but I think it's helpful in this case to show that "I'm an atheist because there is no God" doesn't work. That's all I was trying to do.

If only I could have 0.01 percent of a ha'-penny for every time I've made a simple comment, then had somebody bring up a complicated series of objections or questions, then ended up with that same person telling me that I was overanalyzing and making it too complicated because I had answered the complications they had brought up...

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

That's a fair comment, I think. I never wanted to write all that stuff, but my initial comment was misunderstood, and it all spiralled out of control.

Yeah, that happens sometimes. Sorry I started all that.

Originally Posted by Delvo

If only I could have 0.01 percent of a ha'-penny for every time I've made a simple comment, then had somebody bring up a complicated series of objections or questions, then ended up with that same person telling me that I was overanalyzing and making it too complicated because I had answered the complications they had brought up...

Yes, yes, yes, it's all the Big Bad Wulf's fault. Care to move on?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

I see. In that case, I think he was misreading me. The thing is, my point was essentially to criticize Rodibidably for doing just that. Remember he didn't say "I am an atheist because I don't believe in God." He said "I am an atheist because there is no God."

I know, and I think that latter one is the statement that confuses the truth value of a proposition with whether or not one believes the proposition is true.

(Sorry--I may have gotten who said what confused here. ETA: I see this is the case. I'm agreeing with you, linusrichard, except that the statement seems to be a figure of speech as I describe below, and not really a logical argument.)

If the fact that God does not exist made one person an atheist, then it would make all people atheists the same way. Since there are theists, it's obvious that the non-existence of God is not a sufficient reason for atheism.

I think it was just a rhetorical device--that was really equivalent to saying, "I don't believe in God because I'm certain God doesn't exist." It's really a figure of speech--similar to, "I just know it's going to rain next Thursday."

I'm much more interested in the idea of a utilitarian approach to accepting propositions. As I said, I think it's actually an accurate description of how science works. Even the strongest laws of physics are subject to revision or rejection if we find new experimental results that consistently don't fit them.

[rocketdodger]

I would like to point out that this exchange exemplifies exactly why I stopped being an atheist due to the existence or non-existence of any God and started being an atheist because it offers more benefit to me.

I mean, the former is implied by the latter if you are a certain type of person (and I assume most of us here on this forum are that type of person).

But you won't get into any annoying arguments about the latter. Who is going to argue with me that atheism isn't more beneficial to me than theism? Even theists, when shown what my desires are, have to agree that atheism is a better fit.

Now, they might claim that my desires are wrong, but that is another story...


I really think that the way to relegate theism (and all other woo, for that matter) to the annals of history where it belongs is to stop taking the "I am right, you are wrong" approach (even though we are right) and start taking the "My beliefs benefit me more than your beliefs benefit you" approach.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

But you won't get into any annoying arguments about the latter. Who is going to argue with me that atheism isn't more beneficial to me than theism? Even theists, when shown what my desires are, have to agree that atheism is a better fit.

Wouldn't they argue that there are "health benefits" and more peace of mind with their religious beliefs, though? That's an argument of the "benefit of theism".

[plumjam]

Hang on. I thought the usual cop out... sorry, I mean 'argument', is that atheism is simply a lack of something.
A not-collecting of stamps.. and such like.
How can something like that be of real positive usefulness?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Hang on. I thought the usual cop out... sorry, I mean 'argument'

Ah. Hah. Hah.

Stick to your puns, please. They're the better part of your comedy routine.

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Hang on. I thought the usual cop out... sorry, I mean 'argument', is that atheism is simply a lack of something.
A not-collecting of stamps.. and such like.
How can something like that be of real positive usefulness?

Cf. How can not smoking be of real positive health benefit?

[kurious_kathy]

Originally Posted by Blackadder

I recognize the usefulness of religion. For example, a child lost a parent at a young age. That emptiness haunts him all his life, and religion could help to fill that gap. Another child saw her parents fight and leave each other. She found comfort in the same religion. Those to people met and became my loving parents. They are religious. I lost that because my brain simple can't accept the paradox of christian faith.

But I respect the way it worked for my parents to become the good people that they are from broken families. I still don't understand it though.

What paradox? Sounds to me you have been very blessed with parents that know God. And when you look at how painful their childhoods were do to loss can't you see something divine there? I see God heard there cry for him because of their need. Oh how I wish we could all be as those who know how simple faith can be, faith as a child. Has your brain just become too complex to accept God's love for you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Hang on. I thought the usual cop out... sorry, I mean 'argument', is that atheism is simply a lack of something.
A not-collecting of stamps.. and such like.
How can something like that be of real positive usefulness?

The consequence of my lack of belief that the CIA is listening to my conversations by receiving radio signals from my teeth is a benefit as compared to having that belief.

You can do utilitarian analysis on such things. In ethics, you can, for example, evaluate the utility of inaction vs. action in specific situations.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Wouldn't they argue that there are "health benefits" and more peace of mind with their religious beliefs, though? That's an argument of the "benefit of theism".

Yep.

Does it outweigh the benefits of atheism? Does it outweigh the costs of theism? That is up to an individual to decide.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Hang on. I thought the usual cop out... sorry, I mean 'argument', is that atheism is simply a lack of something.
A not-collecting of stamps.. and such like.
How can something like that be of real positive usefulness?

To answer seriously, because one can only arrive at true atheism when a number of other conditions are satisfied. And it is the satisfaction of those other conditions that is useful.

So when I say "atheism is the most useful to me" I really mean "I find a worldview that leads to atheism to be more useful than any alternative." I should have said that, I guess.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

So when I say "atheism is the most useful to me" I really mean "I find a worldview that leads to atheism to be more useful than any alternative." I should have said that, I guess.

I think I'm warming to this approach.

The way I'm thinking of it as testing out the mental model of atheism (whether true or not in itself) against the real world. It's sort of the way we'd evaluate a computer model of the weather. We don't care if the statements or assumptions in the model are ultimately true. What matters more is how it performs. You enter in a bunch of initial conditions and then compare the result given by the model to the real result (measurements taken in the real world).

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

With the stipulations FireGarden added -- absolutely.

Of course, everyone does this already. I am just honest enough to realize it. I assume most of the intelligent forum members are as well.

When I think people get into a problem is when they think they believe something for another reason but in reality they believe it because of the benefit holding the belief brings. Does that sound like anyone we know?

Fundamentally, though, this knowledge is liberating. It is a deeper understanding of one's self, and the more you understand such things about yourself, the more empowered you are to change yourself (if that is your desire).

Not sure I totally agree with the "everyone does this already" part.

I'll grant that there are likely things that I believe, that are false. But any former beliefs I've had that I determined were false, have been dropped. Any current beliefs I have that I determine to be false will be dropped also, I hope .

Personally, I do desire absolute truth. I do understand how rare a thing it is, but that doesn't stop me from seeking to know as much about a subject (that interest me) as I can know, within reasonable cost/benefit constraints of course. I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think I'm warming to this approach.

The way I'm thinking of it as testing out the mental model of atheism (whether true or not in itself) against the real world. It's sort of the way we'd evaluate a computer model of the weather. We don't care if the statements or assumptions in the model are ultimately true. What matters more is how it performs. You enter in a bunch of initial conditions and then compare the result given by the model to the real result (measurements taken in the real world).

Exactly.

The mental model of atheism outperforms the mental model of theism by leaps and bounds -- individually.

Unfortunately, the mental model of atheism typically lacks the virulence of memes often found in theistic models. Hence, theism is rampant among humans despite its remarkably low performance.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by This Guy

Not sure I totally agree with the "everyone does this already" part.

I'll grant that there are likely things that I believe, that are false. But any former beliefs I've had that I determined were false, have been dropped. Any current beliefs I have that I determine to be false will be dropped also, I hope .

Personally, I do desire absolute truth. I do understand how rare a thing it is, but that doesn't stop me from seeking to know as much about a subject (that interest me) as I can know, within reasonable cost/benefit constraints of course. I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.

Yeah but I can just step up one level and say "you only desire absolute truth because you think absolute truth is more useful than any alternative."

That is to say, your "goal" is knowledge of absolute truth, and the most useful way to satisfy that goal is to learn absolute truth. An uninteresting tautology, granted, but it proves my point.

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Yeah but I can just step up one level and say "you only desire absolute truth because you think absolute truth is more useful than any alternative."

That is to say, your "goal" is knowledge of absolute truth, and the most useful way to satisfy that goal is to learn absolute truth. An uninteresting tautology, granted, but it proves my point.

Point taken

[Yig]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Knowledge of absolute truth is irrelevant to me. I adopt ideas based upon only one thing -- their usefulness.

I find weak atheism to be more useful than any brand of theism. This is for one reason:

My mind is so hardened against inconsistency that I find the presence of it in any idea to be mentally toxic -- I spit it right out. I am hardened against inconsistency because I have learned that inconsistency is detrimental to the fullfillment of my desires. It has zero pragmatic use to me.

Any questions? Good.

Personally I think what one believes is irrelevant, as long as one understands the difference between belief and knowledge.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Yig

Personally I think what one believes is irrelevant, as long as one understands the difference between belief and knowledge.

Are you saying there is a difference between "I believe X" and "I know X?"

What would that difference be?

I only ask because if there is a difference I suspect the vast majority of scientific knowledge would be categorized as belief rather than knowledge.

To wit, I don't know I am made of cells the same way I know the sun warms my skin, because I don't have direct unassisted experience of being made of cells. So would that be a belief?

[Yig]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Are you saying there is a difference between "I believe X" and "I know X?"

What would that difference be?

I only ask because if there is a difference I suspect the vast majority of scientific knowledge would be categorized as belief rather than knowledge.

To wit, I don't know I am made of cells the same way I know the sun warms my skin, because I don't have direct unassisted experience of being made of cells. So would that be a belief?

I would define having knowledge of a phenomenon as possessing a working scientific model of that phenomenon. There is some degree of truth to the model because the model works.

I would define having a belief about a phenomenon as something akin to possessing an unverifiable hypothesis concerning that phenomenon.

Of course, an unverifiable hypothesis would go against the rules of the scientific method. Because of this, beliefs have no real place in science. However, this does mean that we should not have beliefs, it simply means that beliefs are irrelevant as far as science is concerned.