A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

Michael Nugent

I've written an opinion piece in today's Irish Times in which I argue that reason and science are the most reliable ways to understand reality, that political secularism is a force for good in three ways, and that the happiest states with the best social outcomes are secular liberal democracies.

A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

It is a response to last week's attack on secularism by Father Brian McKevitt from Alive magazine. I chose not to counter his points directly, as many of them were frankly silly, and instead to positively present the case for secularism as a standalone argument.

Our world is dominated by an aimless secularist view of life

Michael OBrien

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I've written an opinion piece in today's Irish Times in which I argue that reason and science are the most reliable ways to understand reality, that political secularism is a force for good in three ways, and that the happiest states with the best social outcomes are secular liberal democracies.

A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

It is a response to last week's attack on secularism by Father Brian McKevitt from Alive magazine. I chose not to counter his points directly, as many of them were frankly silly, and instead to positively present the case for secularism as a standalone argument.

Our world is dominated by an aimless secularist view of life

I am surprised that many people take 'Alive' magazine that seriously. It seems like a tabloid full of conspiracies and religious rants. Even Catholics must role their eyes at some of their articles.

looksee

I understand why the IT is behind a pay-wall, but I do not feel inclined to subscribe (though maybe I should) so I cannot comment on your article. I do agree with the points raised in your OP though, without knowing the detail.

silverharp

looksee wrote: »

I understand why the IT is behind a pay-wall, but I do not feel inclined to subscribe (though maybe I should) so I cannot comment on your article. I do agree with the points raised in your OP though, without knowing the detail.

its not, I could click through to it like a normal link

TheChizler

Paywall here.

Michael Nugent

I'm registered with them so I'm not sure, but I think they allow each user (IP address?) a certain number of articles free per week and then start to charge.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm registered with them so I'm not sure, but I think they allow each user (IP address?) a certain number of articles free per week and then start to charge.

I believe their article counter is cookie-based, not IP-based.

looksee

robindch wrote: »

I believe their article counter is cookie-based, not IP-based.

You are so right!

Michael OBrien

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I've written an opinion piece in today's Irish Times in which I argue that reason and science are the most reliable ways to understand reality, that political secularism is a force for good in three ways, and that the happiest states with the best social outcomes are secular liberal democracies.

A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

It is a response to last week's attack on secularism by Father Brian McKevitt from Alive magazine. I chose not to counter his points directly, as many of them were frankly silly, and instead to positively present the case for secularism as a standalone argument.

Our world is dominated by an aimless secularist view of life

"Atheist states promote atheism". That is debatable. I think it veers towards anti-religious states more than atheist states. Of course it might call itself atheist, but being atheist does not mean it has to be anti-religious to the point where it actively pushes atheism on its population.
By itself atheism does not promote or decry any action. It is worth keeping that in mind, especially when there seems to be a tendancy to link atheism with attributes not inherent to it and act as if it is inherent instead of additional.

Cabaal

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I am surprised that many people take 'Alive' magazine that seriously. It seems like a tabloid full of conspiracies and religious rants. Even Catholics must role their eyes at some of their articles.

At the end of the day the very fact Alive is available inside the entrances of many Catholic Church's shows that the church has little problem with it or its content.

If they didn't like it they'd remove it.

Michael Nugent

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"Atheist states promote atheism". That is debatable. I think it veers towards anti-religious states more than atheist states. Of course it might call itself atheist, but being atheist does not mean it has to be anti-religious to the point where it actively pushes atheism on its population.
By itself atheism does not promote or decry any action. It is worth keeping that in mind, especially when there seems to be a tendancy to link atheism with attributes not inherent to it and act as if it is inherent instead of additional.

I agree. It would more accurate to say that an atheist State (as distinct from a secular State) would promote atheism, if such a State existed.

Even though it doesn't exist in practice, we find it useful to hypothesize such an ideology in order to help people to understand that secularism is not the same as atheism.

For example, you can ask a religious person how they would react if the State funded schools that actively taught children that there was no God, and if Catholic parents through force of circumstance had to send their children to one of those schools?

We then stress that we are not seeking such a school, but that it is an analogy to what Catholic schools do to the children of atheist parents.

looksee

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"Atheist states promote atheism". That is debatable. I think it veers towards anti-religious states more than atheist states. Of course it might call itself atheist, but being atheist does not mean it has to be anti-religious to the point where it actively pushes atheism on its population.
By itself atheism does not promote or decry any action. It is worth keeping that in mind, especially when there seems to be a tendancy to link atheism with attributes not inherent to it and act as if it is inherent instead of additional.

I agree about it being debatable. I do not think anyone has any control over whether they are atheist, if you do not believe then you cannot force yourself to believe. Atheism is more of a realisation.

I attended a church for many years, but even then I felt I was missing the point that a lot of other people seemed to 'get'. Eventually, and it took a long time, I realised that I did not believe what they believed; I had just gone along with attendance and 'going through the motions' because I liked the associated social life. I describe myself as an atheist as a simple statement of fact.

silverharp

Secularism also has many practical advantages. The happiest countries are secular liberal democracies, including Scandinavian countries and northern European states.

One thing I'd quibble with the article is the use of the Nordic and Northern European states to prove the benefits of secularism. it feels like the article is saying that if a state becomes more secular you can be like those guys in Norway as if secularism created the original wealth and social capital of the society. Albania for instance claims to be secular yet Germany has unusual church State ties....

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Even though it doesn't exist in practice, we find it useful to hypothesize such an ideology in order to help people to understand that secularism is not the same as atheism

Surely this presupposes that atheism is an ideology, in a similar sense to secularism and theism. I for one certainly don't consider that to be the case. You can't actually teach atheism in a school because unlike theism or another ideology you'd run out a subject matter within 10 seconds of the first class. You might as well have a class for people that don't follow football or don't like jazz.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Surely this presupposes that atheism is an ideology, in a similar sense to secularism and theism. I for one certainly don't consider that to be the case. You can't actually teach atheism in a school because unlike theism or another ideology you'd run out a subject matter within 10 seconds of the first class. You might as well have a class for people that don't follow football or don't like jazz.

Atheism isn't an ideology, but it is a worldview, and a significant one. However, something doesn't have to be an ideology in order to be able to teach about it.

There are literally thousands of books published about atheism that would bring you well beyond your hypothetical ten seconds of the first class.

Just as this discussion forum has lasted more than ten seconds into the first post, however many years ago that was.

Michael Nugent

silverharp wrote: »

One thing I'd quibble with the article is the use of the Nordic and Northern European states to prove the benefits of secularism.

I referred to secular liberal democracies, not merely to secularism. Secularism is a part of that equation, but not sufficient on its own.

silverharp wrote: »

it feels like the article is saying that if a state becomes more secular you can be like those guys in Norway as if secularism created the original wealth and social capital of the society. Albania for instance claims to be secular yet Germany has unusual church State ties....

If you go by the World Value Surveys data, there is an interplay between cause and effect. It seems that as individuals move from survival values towards self-expression values, societies move from traditional religious values towards secular rational values. There has been some more nuanced analysis published recently, which I hope to study over the next few months.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheism isn't an ideology, but it is a worldview, and a significant one.

Fair enough, so could you give an example of a well accepted understood part of the atheist worldview above and beyond not believing in a god or gods that is distinct from secularism? Reason I ask this is that there seem to be a lot of theists of a similar opinion, as can be seen is posts like this, which basically place atheism as analogous to a religion or philosophy without a God. I'd contest this, on the basis that atheists don't in fact share any common philosophy as per my post here which echoes a similar sentiment expressed by looksee here. Given Atheist Ireland closely working with parts of the Islamic and Evangelical communities, I'm assuming your worldview is not anti-religious per se, and struggle to see where the atheist worldview differs from a secular one.

TheChizler

robindch wrote: »

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm registered with them so I'm not sure, but I think they allow each user (IP address?) a certain number of articles free per week and then start to charge.

I believe their article counter is cookie-based, not IP-based.

Thank you, incognito mode activated!

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, so could you give an example of a well accepted understood part of the atheist worldview above and beyond not believing in a god or gods that is distinct from secularism?

The most obvious is that atheists do not believe that personal morality comes from gods or is revealed by gods. Secularists might or might not believe that, depending on whether they are atheists or theists. But secularists believe that the State should not involve itself in the different beliefs of citizens about the sources of their personal morality.

smacl wrote: »

Reason I ask this is that there seem to be a lot of theists of a similar opinion, as can be seen is posts like this, which basically place atheism as analogous to a religion or philosophy without a God. I'd contest this, on the basis that atheists don't in fact share any common philosophy as per my post here which echoes a similar sentiment expressed by looksee here.

I agree with your analysis and that of Looksee about atheism not being responsible for communism, fascism, capitalism or other specific policy positions. However, I believe that the common worldview that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, is a significant common philosophical worldview, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite.

Theistic assertions about gods are assertions about the nature of morality as well as about reality, and atheism is therefore also an assertion about the nature of morality as well as about reality. So atheism doesn’t cause atheists to have specific political positions on anything, but it does generate a very different philosophical worldview to that of theists.

smacl wrote: »

Given Atheist Ireland closely working with parts of the Islamic and Evangelical communities, I'm assuming your worldview is not anti-religious per se, and struggle to see where the atheist worldview differs from a secular one.

Well, Atheist Ireland believes that reason and science are more reliable methods of understanding reality and morality than are faith and religion, and most religious people who are also secularists believe otherwise.

We believe that religious people are mistaken about this, and equally they believe that we are mistaken: they believe that faith and religion are most reliable methods of understanding reality and morality.

But despite these differences, we can agree as secularists that this is not a matter for the State to resolve, and that the State should focus on governing the world which we all agree that we live in now, without taking sides on the disagreements that we have as citizens about beliefs in gods.

oldrnwisr

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheism isn't an ideology, but it is a worldview, and a significant one. However, something doesn't have to be an ideology in order to be able to teach about it.

With all due respect Michael, atheism isn't a worldview. You have differentiated worldview from ideology when actually the two terms are synonymous. Worldview is a calque a translated loanword borrowed from German philosophy (Weltanschuung). It refers to:

"the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it"

Atheism isn't a worldview either under the definition above or the vernacular definition of:

"One's personal view of the world and how one interprets it."

Atheism has no tenets, no creeds, no corollary beliefs and no requirements.

You can make generalisations about atheists and a lot of atheists tend to accept evolution, reject pseudoscience and the paranormal and generally exhibit a rational outlook on life or as you say yourself in the article:

"are typically less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less closed-minded and less authoritarian; and more politically tolerant and more supportive of gender equality, women’s rights and gay rights."

However these are merely correlations and as the old saying goes correlation is not causation. To attribute the qualities above to atheism is faulty cause and effect. Atheism is a consequence of critical thinking and the application of logic and reason to religious arguments. It is this critical thinking which gives rise to the "atheistic" worldview and not atheism itself.

Richard Feynman explains it better than I can here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0

With regard to teaching about atheism in schools, I agree with smacl, I think that a class about atheism is a dead-end. There isn't much to say about atheism other than it is the lack of a belief in gods. It is important as part of a comparative religions class to teach children what atheism is as a kind of null set but I think that if the aim is to get children ultimately to understand atheism and secularism and develop a rational worldview then it is better to teach children critical thinking. As much as The God Delusion has sold gangbusters over the years, I think there would be far more atheists if people read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World instead. Critical thinking, as Robert Ingersoll once said:

"if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators ... They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens."

Critical thinking is a set of tools which protects people against religions, against homeopathy and psychics and conspiracy theories. You say in your article that secular schools will:

"they will teach children about religions and beliefs in an objective, critical and pluralist manner"

I fully support this idea and having been saying that this is how religion should be taught for many years on boards but underpinning this should be a basic introduction to logic and critical thinking.

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With all due respect Michael, atheism isn't a worldview. You have differentiated worldview from ideology when actually the two terms are synonymous..... Atheism has no tenets, no creeds, no corollary beliefs and no requirements.

I'm not sure if you read my last response to smacl before you wrote this, but here is what I explained that I mean by this:

I agree about atheism not being responsible for communism, fascism, capitalism or other specific policy positions. However, I believe that the common worldview that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, is a significant common philosophical worldview, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite.

Theistic assertions about gods are assertions about the nature of morality as well as about reality, and atheism is therefore also an assertion about the nature of morality as well as about reality. So atheism doesn’t cause atheists to have specific political positions on anything, but it does generate a very different philosophical worldview to that of theists.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You can make generalisations about atheists and a lot of atheists tend to accept evolution, reject pseudoscience and the paranormal and generally exhibit a rational outlook on life or as you say yourself in the article:

"are typically less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less closed-minded and less authoritarian; and more politically tolerant and more supportive of gender equality, women’s rights and gay rights."

However these are merely correlations and as the old saying goes correlation is not causation. To attribute the qualities above to atheism is faulty cause and effect.

I agree with this. I am not using those correlations to suggest that they are caused by atheism.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Atheism is a consequence of critical thinking and the application of logic and reason to religious arguments. It is this critical thinking which gives rise to the "atheistic" worldview and not atheism itself.

It often is, but not always. People can also be atheists for irrational and emotional reasons.

What is common to the atheistic worldview is that atheists do not believe that we get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, regardless of whether the person came to their atheistic worldview by critical thinking or emotion or indifference.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With regard to teaching about atheism in schools, I agree with smacl, I think that a class about atheism is a dead-end. There isn't much to say about atheism other than it is the lack of a belief in gods.

That claim simply doesn't correspond with the evidence. As I said, there are literally thousands of books published examining atheism from all sorts of perspectives.

If it was accurate that there isn't much to say about atheism other than it is the lack of a belief in gods, then this discussion forum would not exist.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It is important as part of a comparative religions class to teach children what atheism is as a kind of null set but I think that if the aim is to get children ultimately to understand atheism and secularism and develop a rational worldview then it is better to teach children critical thinking.

I think it is good to teach children critical thinking with regard to everything, not just religion and atheism.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Critical thinking is a set of tools which protects people against religions, against homeopathy and psychics and conspiracy theories. You say in your article that secular schools will:

"they will teach children about religions and beliefs in an objective, critical and pluralist manner"

I fully support this idea and having been saying that this is how religion should be taught for many years on boards but underpinning this should be a basic introduction to logic and critical thinking.

I agree with this. It is the core of our secular education policy.

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There isn't much to say about atheism other than it is the lack of a belief in gods.

As an additional point, I believe that this is itself one of the many beliefs about atheism that should form part of the curriculum of a course on learning about atheism.

Students of atheism should learn that some people believe that there isn't much to say about atheism other than it is a lack of belief in gods, and that other people believe differently.

They can then use their developing critical thinking skills to make up their minds which of those beliefs is more consistent with the evidence.

oldrnwisr

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not sure if you read my last response to smacl before you wrote this, but here is what I explained that I mean by this:

I agree about atheism not being responsible for communism, fascism, capitalism or other specific policy positions. However, I believe that the common worldview that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, is a significant common philosophical worldview, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite.

Theistic assertions about gods are assertions about the nature of morality as well as about reality, and atheism is therefore also an assertion about the nature of morality as well as about reality. So atheism doesn’t cause atheists to have specific political positions on anything, but it does generate a very different philosophical worldview to that of theists.

No, my internet connection dropped in the middle of my post so I didn't see your response until I had posted mine. Thank you, I think your response to smacl does clarify matters greatly.

However, with regard to atheist assertions versus theist assertions I think that atheism is a very good negative indicator about someone's views but is worse than useless as a positive indicator. For example, let's take the issue of LGBT rights. A person who is an atheist isn't likely to put much value in the Christian argument that homosexuality is inherently wrong because they don't believe in Christianity. But a person's atheism isn't going to tell us what way a person is going to come down on the argument overall.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It often is, but not always. People can also be atheists for irrational and emotional reasons.

What is common to the atheistic worldview is that atheists do not believe that we get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, regardless of whether the person came to their atheistic worldview by critical thinking or emotion or indifference.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I should have been more careful with my wording there. It should read that atheism is sometimes a consequence of critical thinking. However, I also know people who are atheists because of Dan Brown or Richard Dawkins.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That claim simply doesn't correspond with the evidence. As I said, there are literally thousands of books published examining atheism from all sorts of perspectives.

If it was accurate that there isn't much to say about atheism other than it is the lack of a belief in gods, then this discussion forum would not exist.

Perhaps an example might help to clarify your point here Michael. I really don't see the value of teaching the contents of any book about atheism I've come across, whether that's The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Good without God etc. I think that whatever the particular aspect of atheism you want to teach whether that's counter-apologetics or morality or critical thinking. For example, you could read Good without God by Greg Epstein which details how you can be moral without religion but I'd prefer people read The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley which explains how moral systems evolve and actually develop. Or you could read God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens but again if you'd like to develop proper counter-apologetic arguments then you should read The Demon Haunted World or (in the case of Christianity) proper scholarship like Bart Ehrman, Dennis MacDonald or Richard Carrier. I don't think there are many books about atheism which would be more valuable in and of themselves than more rudimentary books on the subject but I would welcome some examples you think would be beneficial.

Also, on the subject of this forum, while there are a few pure discussions on the nature of atheism, many if not most of the threads here are only tangentially connected with atheism. We have threads on evolution, biblical scholarship, current affairs, taking the piss out of religion, event notices and quite often apologists coming in here to have a pop at atheism or present their misguided evidence for the truth of their particular religion.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As an additional point, I believe that this is itself one of the many beliefs about atheism that should form part of the curriculum of a course on learning about atheism.

Students of atheism should learn that some people believe that there isn't much to say about atheism other than it is a lack of belief in gods, and that other people believe differently.

They can then use their developing critical thinking skills to make up their minds which of those beliefs is more consistent with the evidence.

I absolutely agree. If there's one thing I'd like to get people to understand is what atheism is and isn't and if possible get people to stop conflating agnosticism and atheism.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As an additional point, I believe that this is itself one of the many beliefs about atheism that should form part of the curriculum of a course on learning about atheism.

Students of atheism should learn that some people believe that there isn't much to say about atheism other than it is a lack of belief in gods, and that other people believe differently.

They can then use their developing critical thinking skills to make up their minds which of those beliefs is more consistent with the evidence.

Maybe lets apply a bit of critical thinking to the above so. One way could divide the worlds population is into three groups A,B and C. Group A do not believe there is a God or Gods. Group B believe there is a God or God. Group C are the remainder who are undecided with regards to the existence of a God. It seems reasonable to say that only people from group A can be considered atheists. For atheists to have a shared world view, you would need to find something within that world view that is exclusive to that group. Your previous example that "atheists do not believe that personal morality comes from gods or is revealed by gods" fails that test, in that those who are undecided about the existence of God may also not believe their morality is divinely inspired. Similarly many people who do believe in God would still go against their religious instruction where they believe those teachings immoral, as was the case with gay marriage in Ireland. As with this case, observation shows that many theists will do what they consider morally right on the basis or their humanity, but this does not suggested they have ceased to believe in God. We also have an abundance of cultural Catholics in this country, many of who are now atheist, who's morality is still very much the one they were taught as part of their upbringing.

I would suggest that when you talk about an atheist worldview, you're actually referring to a worldview common to a subset of atheists. I don't see how that worldview defines atheism in any broader sense. To me it seems incidental until such time as it says something unique to atheism in the positive sense. If it is possible for someone who is not an atheist to share that worldview, it is clearly not an atheist worldview.

looksee

What is common to the atheistic worldview is that atheists do not believe that we get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, regardless of whether the person came to their atheistic worldview by critical thinking or emotion or indifference.

I don't understand this point; atheists have no belief in god or gods, so why would they even consider the possibility of morality (or anything else) coming from god? It is a total negative, how can something that does not exist be a 'worldview'.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

It seems reasonable to say that only people from group A can be considered atheists. For atheists to have a shared world view, you would need to find something within that world view that is exclusive to that group.

Group C would arguably be agnostic atheists, at least some of them.

Anyway,to have a shared world view you don't necessarily need something that is exclusive to that group. Some view, or some combination of views that is distinct would suffice. There is little or nothing in this world that is exclusive to any particular world view.

Not feeling "subservient to" and/or "watched over" by a god does tend to led to a different outlook on life.
The common theist belief that this life is only the warm-up act for an afterlife tends to lead to a different and distinct worldview. The reckless actions of jihadis, and the wasted lives of nuns and ascetics who have closed themselves off from living a full life are examples of that.

"Outlook" may be a better term than "world view" to use here, and "ideology" is certainly the wrong word.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Anyway,to have a shared world view you don't necessarily need something that is exclusive to that group. Some view, or some combination of views that is distinct would suffice. There is little or nothing in this world that is exclusive to any particular world view.

I think this goes back to oldrnwisr's correlation / causation point though. The fact that certain attributes strongly correlate with atheism for some atheists doesn't make them atheist attributes unless they also cause atheism or are unique to atheism. As per my opening post, the only attribute that is unique to atheism is not believing in a God or gods. Michael includes the notion of a shared world view in his definition of atheism. I'm not saying this shared worldview is not held by many atheists, merely that it isn't definitive of atheism.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Maybe lets apply a bit of critical thinking to the above so. One way could divide the worlds population is into three groups A,B and C. Group A do not believe there is a God or Gods. Group B believe there is a God or God. Group C are the remainder who are undecided with regards to the existence of a God. It seems reasonable to say that only people from group A can be considered atheists.

We disagree about this, but before I explain why I disagree, the very fact that we disagree shows that there is a lot more to discuss about atheism than you seem to believe. There is not even any consensus on what atheism means, even among atheists, never mind the wider population. You have your meaning and I have mine, but neither of us is in a position to assert that our meaning is the correct or only one. That whole discussion is part of what teaching about atheism should include.

Now, on to why we disagree on this particular point. I don't think your group C exists as a separate category to your groups A and B. Once you are exposed to the idea of gods, you either believe that they exist or you don't (unless you have some peculiar reason to believe that there is an exactly 50:50 chance of gods existing).

So you are in either your Group A, or else you are in your Group B. Regardless of which of those you are in, you can also be in your group C (undecided) or in a group D (certain).

smacl wrote: »

For atheists to have a shared world view, you would need to find something within that world view that is exclusive to that group.

Why would you have to do that? It is the worldview itself (or a combination of worldviews) that counts, not any individual aspect of it. There are many worldviews that are made up of a combination of beliefs that are not individually exclusive to the worldview.

smacl wrote: »

I would suggest that when you talk about an atheist worldview, you're actually referring to a worldview common to a subset of atheists.

What I am describing as a common atheist worldview is (broadly) that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods. What subset of atheists do not share that worldview?

smacl wrote: »

I don't see how that worldview defines atheism in any broader sense.

It's pretty broad in itself. It's fundamental to how we see the world.

smacl wrote: »

To me it seems incidental until such time as it says something unique to atheism in the positive sense.

Some words seem etymologically negative but convey a positive meaning. Freedom and independence are two examples. I believe atheism is another example.

smacl wrote: »

If it is possible for someone who is not an atheist to share that worldview, it is clearly not an atheist worldview.

Well, my (broad and changeable) meaning of an atheist worldview (that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods) also contains an implicit first step (that we don't believe in theistic gods). So it is that combination that makes up the atheist worldview.

But again, the central point is not which of us, if either, is correct. The central point is that this discussion should be part of learning about atheism, and the very fact that we disagree shows that there is a lot more to discuss about atheism than you seem to believe.

.

Michael Nugent

looksee wrote: »

I don't understand this point; atheists have no belief in god or gods, so why would they even consider the possibility of morality (or anything else) coming from god? It is a total negative, how can something that does not exist be a 'worldview'.

Gods don't exist, but beliefs exist, and they are central to worldviews.

In this case, the belief that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, exists.

.

silverharp

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You can make generalisations about atheists and a lot of atheists tend to accept evolution, reject pseudoscience and the paranormal and generally exhibit a rational outlook on life or as you say yourself in the article:

"are typically less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less closed-minded and less authoritarian; and more politically tolerant and more supportive of gender equality, women’s rights and gay rights."

However these are merely correlations and as the old saying goes correlation is not causation. To attribute the qualities above to atheism is faulty cause and effect. Atheism is a consequence of critical thinking and the application of logic and reason to religious arguments. It is this critical thinking which gives rise to the "atheistic" worldview and not atheism itself.

that could almost do with its own thread , its certainly more complicated and as such there isnt a lot of data to go on. There is an assumption here that the natural state of people or politics without religion would be permanently left leaning with big government values which I'd imagine if one could get a glimpse of the next 100 years of future history would be hilariously wide of the mark

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

I think this goes back to oldrnwisr's correlation / causation point though. The fact that certain attributes strongly correlate with atheism for some atheists doesn't make them atheist attributes unless they also cause atheism or are unique to atheism.

I've already clarified that I am not including those correlations as being unique to atheism or caused by atheism.

smacl wrote: »

As per my opening post, the only attribute that is unique to atheism is not believing in a God or gods. Michael includes the notion of a shared world view in his definition of atheism. I'm not saying this shared worldview is not held by many atheists, merely that it isn't definitive of atheism.

I'm saying that the shared worldview of believing that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods, is

(a) a significant worldview, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite, and

(b) shared by all atheists, as a necessary follow-on from not believing in gods.

recedite

Atheism is a consequence of critical thinking and the application of logic and reason to religious arguments. It is this critical thinking which gives rise to the "atheistic" worldview and not atheism itself.

Yes, but would it be reasonable to say that the critical thinking gives rise to the atheism, which gives rise an outlook heavily influenced by logic, rationality and atheism?

While also bearing in mind that two people with a similar outlook can come to different conclusions, depending on their starting point and what info and experiences happen to come their way.

recedite

Michael Nugent wrote: »

(a) a significant worldview, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite.

The term worldview may be open to some interpretation here.
One definition is "A worldview is a theory of the world, used for living in the world. A world view is a mental model of reality — a framework of ideas & attitudes about the world".

As an analogy, lets say two people buy identical pairs of binoculars in a duty free shop, and then fly to opposite sides of the earth. The view that each person gets will be very different, while using the same tool.
But, given an infinite amount of time and travel (which is not available!) their accumulated worldviews would tend to merge into a single one.

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, with regard to atheist assertions versus theist assertions I think that atheism is a very good negative indicator about someone's views but is worse than useless as a positive indicator. For example, let's take the issue of LGBT rights. A person who is an atheist isn't likely to put much value in the Christian argument that homosexuality is inherently wrong because they don't believe in Christianity. But a person's atheism isn't going to tell us what way a person is going to come down on the argument overall.

I agree that knowing that someone is an atheist doesn't tell us what specific political positions they will take on specific issues. However, to say that it is worse than useless is an exaggeration. There are correlations, particularly in specific societies, that will give you a broad predictor at a collective level.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Perhaps an example might help to clarify your point here Michael. I really don't see the value of teaching the contents of any book about atheism I've come across, whether that's The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Good without God etc. I think that whatever the particular aspect of atheism you want to teach whether that's counter-apologetics or morality or critical thinking. For example, you could read Good without God by Greg Epstein which details how you can be moral without religion but I'd prefer people read The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley which explains how moral systems evolve and actually develop. Or you could read God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens but again if you'd like to develop proper counter-apologetic arguments then you should read The Demon Haunted World or (in the case of Christianity) proper scholarship like Bart Ehrman, Dennis MacDonald or Richard Carrier.

yes, but what you are doing here is giving your personal preferences as to what books would be useful for people to learn about atheism. I agree with you about some of these, though I wouldn't put Richard Carrier anywhere near the same level of credibility as Bart Ehrman. But the underlying issue is that there are many books that can help people to learn about many nuances and interpretations of atheism, and that this goes well beyond simply saying there are no gods full stop.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't think there are many books about atheism which would be more valuable in and of themselves than more rudimentary books on the subject but I would welcome some examples you think would be beneficial.

Three of my personal favourites are:

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
by Michael Martin

The Non-Existence of God
by Nicholas Everitt

The Impossibility of God
edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier

They are all very comprehensive, as well as being very readable.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also, on the subject of this forum, while there are a few pure discussions on the nature of atheism, many if not most of the threads here are only tangentially connected with atheism. We have threads on evolution, biblical scholarship, current affairs, taking the piss out of religion, event notices and quite often apologists coming in here to have a pop at atheism or present their misguided evidence for the truth of their particular religion.

I agree, but going by the limited idea that there is nothing to discuss about atheism other than that gods do not exist, surely those discussions would be off-topic for a discussion forum about atheism?

And even if we consider only the pure discussions here on the nature of atheism, including I assume this discussion, surely there is enough in even those discussions to show that there is much more to discuss about atheism than simply that there is no God?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If there's one thing I'd like to get people to understand is what atheism is and isn't and if possible get people to stop conflating agnosticism and atheism.

Yes, that's pretty central to a lot of the misunderstandings.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Now, on to why we disagree on this particular point. I don't think your group C exists as a separate category to your groups A and B. Once you are exposed to the idea of gods, you either believe that they exist or you don't (unless you have some peculiar reason to believe that there is an exactly 50:50 chance of gods existing).

I'd tend to disagree strongly there in that you have a large number of people who simply don't have the time or inclination to give the question much thought. Quite a few nominally Catholic Irish people I've met when asked whether or not they believe in God will initially say 'yes' and when pushed move towards 'not sure'. A lot of doubters out there sitting on the fence.

What I am describing as a common atheist worldview is (broadly) that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods. What subset of atheists do not share that worldview?

Because we don't believe in God we don't get our understanding of reality from Him is a clear tautology. It says nothing about atheists that can't be taken from the simple notion that atheists don't believe in Gods. Your question might as well read which subset of atheists believe in God?

What I take from your point is that we don't share a world view or moral outlook with theists, which I agree with entirely and is centre of the bulk of the discussion on this forum. The fact that we don't share a theistic worldview or moral outlook does not however imply there is another worldview or moral outlook that we do share. My enemies enemy need not be my friend.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Atheism is a consequence of critical thinking and the application of logic and reason to religious arguments. It is this critical thinking which gives rise to the "atheistic" worldview and not atheism itself.

Yes, but would it be reasonable to say that the critical thinking gives rise to the atheism, which gives rise an outlook heavily influenced by logic, rationality and atheism?

Critical thinking, logic and reason lead to rationality, which in turn leads to atheism among other things. The reverse is not true, in that simply ditching a belief in God does not in and of itself lead to critical thinking. You can become an atheist for a number reasons that don't require much in the way of critical thinking, e.g. loss of trust in the church hierarchy through their many misdemeanours leading to rejection of anything they've taught. Much of what we accept as true we take on board on the basis it has come from a trusted source, very few people go all the way back to first principals to verify every piece of information they're provided. Sad but true, I've one atheist friend that happens to be a reiki instructor. Go figure.

oldrnwisr

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Well, my (broad and changeable) meaning of an atheist worldview (that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods, and that we are not answerable to gods) also contains an implicit first step (that we don't believe in theistic gods). So it is that combination that makes up the atheist worldview.

But again, the central point is not which of us, if either, is correct. The central point is that this discussion should be part of learning about atheism, and the very fact that we disagree shows that there is a lot more to discuss about atheism than you seem to believe..

I just want to come back on this one point because it does rather seem to be the basis of your previous point about atheism being a worldview. Your atheist worldview is composed of two parts:

1) that we do not get our understanding of reality or morality from gods
2) that we are not answerable to gods

but IMHO neither of these points either alone or in combination amount to a worldview.

To deal with the second point first, the idea that we aren't answerable to gods is pretty meaningless. Being answerable to someone implies that that someone actually exists. If God doesn't exist then it doesn't mean anything to say you're not answerable to it. You're not answerable to anything that doesn't exist (a list which is bordering on infinite). If your first step is to say that you don't believe in a god then rejecting all the positive requirements of belief in that god is an implicit assumption, it doesn't need to be vocalised or codified.

Secondly, the idea about not getting our morality from gods gets back to my point in my last post. Atheism is, as I have said, a very good negative predictor. It can possibly tell us many things which people don't believe. But it is very bad at telling us what people do believe. Yes, we don't get our morality from a god. But that doesn't tell us anything about where an individual atheist or group believes our morality does come from. For example, you could take a scientific approach and see that morality is a consequence of being social animals. You could take the approach that morality is baked into the laws of nature, an inevitable consequence of existence. Or you could believe as Buddhists (an atheistic religion) do in a form of objective morality, a belief that the universe itself will punish you for moral misgivings.

It seems that affirmative shared beliefs are the minimum necessary for atheism to be considered a worldview and I just don't see that happening. I've seen atheists take up positions on both sides of so many debates, LGBT rights, abortion, politics etc. that it doesn't seem like there is any positive belief shared by all atheists.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree that knowing that someone is an atheist doesn't tell us what specific political positions they will take on specific issues. However, to say that it is worse than useless is an exaggeration. There are correlations, particularly in specific societies, that will give you a broad predictor at a collective level.

Well, just to be clear I would say that knowing someone is an atheist doesn't tell us what position they will take on anything, political or otherwise, unless of the course the question is about belief in god.

I would say that using said correlations is dangerous because it runs the risk of hasty generalisation. There are people who are atheists for bad reasons because it was forced on them, because they bought a bad argument for authority. There are also people who are second generation atheist who never had a concept of religion presented to them in the first place. Any correlate typical of a lot of atheists is never going to stretch to all and so I would be cautious about using them as examples.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

yes, but what you are doing here is giving your personal preferences as to what books would be useful for people to learn about atheism. I agree with you about some of these, though I wouldn't put Richard Carrier anywhere near the same level of credibility as Bart Ehrman. But the underlying issue is that there are many books that can help people to learn about many nuances and interpretations of atheism, and that this goes well beyond simply saying there are no gods full stop.


Three of my personal favourites are:

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
by Michael Martin

The Non-Existence of God
by Nicholas Everitt

The Impossibility of God
edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier

They are all very comprehensive, as well as being very readable.

Thank you for the recommendations. I've read Martin's and Everitt's books before, and this kind of goes to my point in my previous post which goes beyond the idea of personal preference. It's all about avoiding what PZ Myers has called The Courtier's Reply. It's always better to understand the source material than someone's interpretation of it. Let's take Martin's book for example. If you read that book cover to cover then you would be thoroughly capable of refuting the teleological argument or the cosmological argument. However, it wouldn't do a lot to help you refute a different logical argument. It would be better to teach people about logic and logical fallacies to understand how to pick apart any argument in the first place. This is why I'd recommend either of these books:

Logic: A Very Short Introduction
Graham Priest

Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies
Bo Bennett

Similarly, with my previous example of The Origins of Virtue, it's better to explain the origin of morality itself rather than reading someone's opinion of how you can be a moral atheist.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree, but going by the limited idea that there is nothing to discuss about atheism other than that gods do not exist, surely those discussions would be off-topic for a discussion forum about atheism?

Well, yes they are off-topic but since they are of general interest to the members of the forum and since this forum has a more lenient approach than others in order to stimulate debate, these threads have more to do with the (excellent) management of the forum rather than any connection to atheism.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And even if we consider only the pure discussions here on the nature of atheism, including I assume this discussion, surely there is enough in even those discussions to show that there is much more to discuss about atheism than simply that there is no God?

Except that most of those discussions have invariably been new posters raking over the same old ground time and again. If only people could be persuaded to watch a short video like this one from qualiasoup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

we could dispense with having to deal with these points over and over. However, we must take into account that people will come to atheism anew again and again and will, given our current education system, be confused about matters like atheism and so we end up having these discussions repeatedly.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Critical thinking, logic and reason lead to rationality, which in turn leads to atheism among other things. The reverse is not true, in that simply ditching a belief in God does not in and of itself lead to critical thinking. You can become an atheist for a number reasons that don't require much in the way of critical thinking, e.g. loss of trust in the church hierarchy through their many misdemeanours leading to rejection of anything they've taught. Much of what we accept as true we take on board on the basis it has come from a trusted source, very few people go all the way back to first principals to verify every piece of information they're provided. Sad but true, I've one atheist friend that happens to be a reiki instructor. Go figure.

isn't there a generic quip at atheists that an atheist is sceptical when it comes to religion but not about anything else. :pac:

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

I'd tend to disagree strongly there in that you have a large number of people who simply don't have the time or inclination to give the question much thought. Quite a few nominally Catholic Irish people I've met when asked whether or not they believe in God will initially say 'yes' and when pushed move towards 'not sure'. A lot of doubters out there sitting on the fence.

You're conflating belief with strength of belief. You either believe that there is a god, or you don't. It is a binary option. Now, you can believe weakly or strongly, with varying degrees of doubt or moves towards certainty, but once you are exposed to the idea of a god you either believe that a god exists or else you don't. 'Not sure' is a description of the strength of the belief, or else an evasion of the question of what you believe, but the fact remains that you either believe that a god exists or else you don't.

smacl wrote: »

Because we don't believe in God we don't get our understanding of reality from Him is a clear tautology. It says nothing about atheists that can't be taken from the simple notion that atheists don't believe in Gods. Your question might as well read which subset of atheists believe in God?

Including the necessary follow-on reminds people that theism and atheism are assertions about the nature of morality, and not just questions analagous to a flying teapot orbiting Mars. The core issue of theism and atheism is not whether a thing called God exists or not. The issue is how we understand our existence.

smacl wrote: »

What I take from your point is that we don't share a world view or moral outlook with theists, which I agree with entirely and is centre of the bulk of the discussion on this forum. The fact that we don't share a theistic worldview or moral outlook does not however imply there is another worldview or moral outlook that we do share. My enemies enemy need not be my friend.

It's nothing to do with enemies or friends. There are many specific and contradictory beliefs held by theists, but there is also a broadly theistic worldview. Equally, there are many specific and contradictory beliefs held by atheists, but there is also a broadly atheistic worldview.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

isn't there a generic quip at atheists that an atheist is sceptical when it comes to religion but not about anything else. :pac:

Hadn't heard it before, but I think we're all fed and swallow a fair amount of horseshít in the modern world from those who are purportedly in place to look after our best interests.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You're conflating belief with strength of belief. You either believe that there is a god, or you don't. It is a binary option. Now, you can believe weakly or strongly, with varying degrees of doubt or moves towards certainty, but once you are exposed to the idea of a god you either believe that a god exists or else you don't. 'Not sure' is a description of the strength of the belief, or else an evasion of the question of what you believe, but the fact remains that you either believe that a god exists or else you don't.

If I ask someone do they believe in God, and they say 'I don't know' why would you suppose I should think they are lying? The fact that a simple discrete binary variable, such as the existence of any given god, can only be true or false in no way implies that we know with absolute certainty what the value of that variable is. In such cases we consider the evidence, consult our trusted sources, and either come to a conclusion with a given level of confidence or consider the matter inconclusive on the basis of insufficient or contradictory data. Don't know is a valid and honest answer for many people to many questions.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

If I ask someone do they believe in God, and they say 'I don't know' why would you suppose I should think they are lying? The fact that a simple discrete binary variable, such as the existence of any given god, can only be true or false in no way implies that we know with absolute certainty what the value of that variable is. In such cases we consider the evidence, consult our trusted sources, and either come to a conclusion with a given level of confidence or consider the matter inconclusive on the basis of insufficient or contradictory data. Don't know is a valid and honest answer for many people to many questions.

If you don't know whether you believe in God, then you don't believe in God. Thinking that an assertion is true is the essence of what a belief is.

"I know" or "I don't know" are valid answers to the question "Do you know whether or not there is a God?"

"I believe" or "I don't believe" are valid answers to the question "Do you believe in God?"

.

smacl

Sorry Michael, not following you at all there. You seem to be drawing a distinction between believing whether or not God exists, and whether you believe in God. I'm not sure I understand the distinction here, and why the former allows for degrees of uncertainty and the latter does not. (And by God here I'm assuming anyone of a large range of possible deities)

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Sorry Michael, not following you at all there. You seem to be drawing a distinction between believing whether or not God exists, and whether you believe in God. I'm not sure I understand the distinction here, and why the former allows for degrees of uncertainty and the latter does not. (And by God here I'm assuming anyone of a large range of possible deities)

No the distinction (for any given idea of a god) is between

(a) You believe that it exists, or you do not believe that it exists. That is a binary. It is what theism and atheism measure. They both refer to belief, not (claims of) knowledge.

(b) Whether you claim to be able to know that it exists. That too is a binary. If you don't (claim to) know, then that indicates agnosticism. Agnosticism refers to (claims of) knowledge, not belief.

Or in other words....

(a) If you believe that a God exists (however weakly or strongly, with either high levels of doubt or confidence) then you are a theist. If you don't believe that a God exists, then you are an atheist.

(b) Whether or not you believe that a God exists, there is the extra question of whether you (claim to) know that your belief is true. If you don't claim to know that, then you are an agnostic. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

"Do you believe in God" is a question about whether or not you believe in God. On the face of it, "I don't know" seems like an answer to a different question. It seems like an answer to the question "Do you (claim to) know whether there is a God?"

Alternatively, "I don't know" might mean "I don't know whether I believe in God." But if you don't know whether you believe in something, then you don't believe in it. The essence of believing in something includes knowing that you believe in it.

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

the idea that we aren't answerable to gods is pretty meaningless. Being answerable to someone implies that that someone actually exists. If God doesn't exist then it doesn't mean anything to say you're not answerable to it. You're not answerable to anything that doesn't exist (a list which is bordering on infinite). If your first step is to say that you don't believe in a god then rejecting all the positive requirements of belief in that god is an implicit assumption, it doesn't need to be vocalised or codified.

It is useful to make that explicit, because it reminds people that theism and atheism are assertions about the nature of morality, and not merely about whether or not a specific thing exists.

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thank you for the recommendations. I've read Martin's and Everitt's books before, and this kind of goes to my point in my previous post which goes beyond the idea of personal preference. It's all about avoiding what PZ Myers has called The Courtier's Reply. It's always better to understand the source material than someone's interpretation of it. Let's take Martin's book for example. If you read that book cover to cover then you would be thoroughly capable of refuting the teleological argument or the cosmological argument. However, it wouldn't do a lot to help you refute a different logical argument. It would be better to teach people about logic and logical fallacies to understand how to pick apart any argument in the first place. This is why I'd recommend either of these books:

Logic: A Very Short Introduction
Graham Priest

Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies
Bo Bennett

I agree that these types of books are important, but as well as not instead of books about the actual topic under consideration.

These books would also be useful for students of philosophy, history, politics, sociology, science and any other number of subjects, but not instead of books dedicated to the study of the actual subjects.

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It seems that affirmative shared beliefs are the minimum necessary for atheism to be considered a worldview and I just don't see that happening. I've seen atheists take up positions on both sides of so many debates, LGBT rights, abortion, politics etc. that it doesn't seem like there is any positive belief shared by all atheists.

I don't agree with your premise here, but even if that was the case, then freedom from the supposed gods that other people believe themselves to be answerable to is a positive belief shared by all atheists.

smacl

Re post #44

Michael Nugent wrote: »

..

Again, though if I ask someone 'does God exist', it doesn't seem unreasonable that they might answer 'I don't really know, He might exist and He might not'. I take the position that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, but then again there is no evidence to categorically disprove the existence of God. But then you can pluck any idea describing the possible nature of the universe from your imagination and make the same statement, where all of these ideas contradict one another. Thus we're left with a situation where we have an infinite set of possible imaginary ideas regarding the nature of the universe, one of which is God did it, all of which are equally improbable. Of these conflicting possibilities, logically one could be true, or none could be true. So without any supporting evidence giving weight to the God did it theory, it would appear to me that the probability of God existing is infinitesimal and can be safely dismissed. By your definition, my consideration of this infinitesimal probability of God having done it would make me an agnostic theist whereas I consider myself an atheist.

So when asked the question 'Do you believe assertion X to be true' my initial response is 'I don't know, show me the at the evidence supporting or contradicting that assertion.' If the evidence is absent or inconclusive, my answer remains 'I don't know'. That evidence might also be weighted based on how much I trust its source.

I don't buy the binary belief notion, as I consider our understanding of our universe to be very much a work in progress, that in all probability will never be completed, in which there are no certainties, merely best guesses at a given point in time. YMMV.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Again, though if I ask someone 'does God exist', it doesn't seem unreasonable that they might answer 'I don't really know, He might exist and He might not'.

I agree with this. That would be my answer as well. But theism and atheism do not measure whether a God exists. They measure whether a person *believes* that a God exists.

Independently of whether or not the God does exist, and independently of whether a person claims to be able to know whether or not the God exists, there is the separate question of whether or not the person *believes* that the God exists.

smacl wrote: »

I take the position that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, but then again there is no evidence to categorically disprove the existence of God. But then you can pluck any idea describing the possible nature of the universe from your imagination and make the same statement, where all of these ideas contradict one another. Thus we're left with a situation where we have an infinite set of possible imaginary ideas regarding the nature of the universe, one of which is God did it, all of which are equally improbable. Of these conflicting possibilities, logically one could be true, or none could be true. So without any supporting evidence giving weight to the God did it theory, it would appear to me that the probability of God existing is infinitesimal and can be safely dismissed. By your definition, my consideration of this infinitesimal probability of God having done it would make me an agnostic theist whereas I consider myself an atheist.

Again, I agree with all of this. That is pretty much identical to my position. I strongly believe that there are no gods, based on applying reason to the currently best available evidence. But I don't claim to be able to *know* that I am correct, so I am happy to consider myself an agnostic atheist.

That said, in ordinary day-to-day conversation, I think it is more accurate in communication terms for me to simply describe myself as an atheist, as that is more likely to convey to most people something closer to what I believe than the more precise answer would.

smacl wrote: »

So when asked the question 'Do you believe assertion X to be true' my initial response is 'I don't know, show me the at the evidence supporting or contradicting that assertion.' If the evidence is absent or inconclusive, my answer remains 'I don't know'. That evidence might also be weighted based on how much I trust its source.

Edit: I misinterpreted this, so I am editing my response to this part.

When you say that your initial response is "I don't know", do you mean "I don't know whether it is true" or do you mean "I don't know whether I believe it is true"?

Because independently of what you think you can *know* about the truth of an assertion, you still either *believe* that the assertion is true or else you don't.

smacl wrote: »

I don't buy the binary belief notion, as I consider our understanding of our universe to be very much a work in progress, that in all probability will never be completed, in which there are no certainties, merely best guesses at a given point in time. YMMV.

Yes, I agree that our understanding of our universe is very much a work in progress, that in all probability will never be completed, in which there are no certainties, merely best guesses at a given point in time.

But that does not change the fact that, at any given time, for any given assertion, you either believe it to be true or else you don't believe it to be true. Belief is not the same as knowledge.

.

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But that does not change the fact that, at any given time, for any given assertion, you either believe it to be true or else you don't believe it to be true. Belief is not the same as knowledge.

Last post on this one, I promise.

For any assertion, we can say it has been tested and holds true, tested and does not hold true, or is untested. We might have suspicions as to whether the assertion will hold or not, based on prior knowledge or maybe no more than a hunch. While these suspicions correspond to beliefs, they lie on a continuum and are not discrete binary values. Many religious beliefs are similarly soft. Putting God to one side for a moment, think about how a child regards Santa over the years. It starts of that they pretty much believe in the beardy red chap in the Coke outfit, though they might harbour some small doubts. As time goes the doubts grow, and if not the whole hoax is revealed if they don't wise up by a certain age. To my mind this is pretty much what is happening with God in Catholic Ireland. The older generation believe but harbour some doubts, the younger generation are far more dubious and increasingly so.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Last post on this one, I promise.

smacl wrote: »

For any assertion, we can say it has been tested and holds true, tested and does not hold true, or is untested. We might have suspicions as to whether the assertion will hold or not, based on prior knowledge or maybe no more than a hunch.

Agreed.

smacl wrote: »

While these suspicions correspond to beliefs, they lie on a continuum and are not discrete binary values.

I think it is more accurate to say that there is a binary value, with a continuum on either side of it.

You either believe an assertion is true, or else you don't.

Whether or not you believe it is true, there is a continuum of increasing doubt to increasing confidence in your perception of the reliability of your position.

smacl wrote: »

Many religious beliefs are similarly soft. Putting God to one side for a moment, think about how a child regards Santa over the years. It starts of that they pretty much believe in the beardy red chap in the Coke outfit, though they might harbour some small doubts. As time goes the doubts grow, and if not the whole hoax is revealed if they don't wise up by a certain age.

Yes, I agree. But at some stage in that continuum, the binary kicks in. At some stage the child stops believing. Then another continuum kicks in at the other side of the binary, with perhaps some skipping back and forth for a while at the start.

smacl wrote: »

To my mind this is pretty much what is happening with God in Catholic Ireland. The older generation believe but harbour some doubts, the younger generation are far more dubious and increasingly so.

I'm not sure you can aggregate beliefs in that way, but I broadly agree with your assessment of the trend.