Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.

[IronUnkind]

I only brought up Occam's Razor because part of the classical atheist position has been the denial of burden of proof with the attendant appeal to this principle. Even if I were to concede that the burden of proof was upon the theist, I would hope that the atheist would not allow themselves to merely sit back and refute. I would not expect someone who self-identified as an agnostic to avoid the actual discussion.

My use of the term "avoidance mechanism," incidentally, was just a bit of rhetoric. I doubt that most atheists are somewhere twisting their moustaches and trying to avoid the question. But though they have the purest of motives, it just so happens that talk of burden of proof tends to stifle the dialogue.

[ QUOTE ]
Skeptics (I count myself in here) have no belief about god because its their nature not to form beliefs without a reason. Its not a choice or an avoidance mechanism either, they are incapable of believing something without a reason.

Credulous people (is their a word like skeptic for them) have to form a belief about anything they consider, even if there is no reason for it. This is not a choice either.

I assume most people fall between the two extremes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

Its only when you start to believe in god that you can assign a strength to the belief. That's what credulists (I like it) do. Their response to a question is to form a belief about the answer and then give it some strength. As a skeptic I receive the question, try to understand it in terms of what difference the possible different answers make to how I understand the world, and when I fail to see any difference between any of the answers (as I do with the god question) I simply fail to form a belief of any strength.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

Its only when you start to believe in god that you can assign a strength to the belief. That's what credulists (I like it) do. Their response to a question is to form a belief about the answer and then give it some strength. As a skeptic I receive the question, try to understand it in terms of what difference the possible different answers make to how I understand the world, and when I fail to see any difference between any of the answers (as I do with the god question) I simply fail to form a belief of any strength.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

I think your answer is a bit disengenuous. You have formed a belief and given it weight. You're telling me that you don't believe that the chance of a Judeo/Christian God actually existing is relatively LOW? Or any other particular denomination's notion of a particular deity?
Perhaps I am misreading your answer, but to say you have given NO weight to any particular position regarding a god's likeliness seems like a misleading statement.
Now, if you said you don't completely rule out a god's existence, that would be one thing. But how can you give equal weight to all of them, including the possibility of no god's existence?
To use the Unicorn analogy, saying you have no position on unicorns is misleading. Your position on Unicorns, or bigfoot, or Jim Morisson (I assume) is that they are UNLIKLEY to exist.
No?
-g

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

Its only when you start to believe in god that you can assign a strength to the belief. That's what credulists (I like it) do. Their response to a question is to form a belief about the answer and then give it some strength. As a skeptic I receive the question, try to understand it in terms of what difference the possible different answers make to how I understand the world, and when I fail to see any difference between any of the answers (as I do with the god question) I simply fail to form a belief of any strength.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

I think your answer is a bit disengenuous. You have formed a belief and given it weight. You're telling me that you don't believe that the chance of a Judeo/Christian God actually existing is relatively LOW? Or any other particular denomination's notion of a particular deity?
Perhaps I am misreading your answer, but to say you have given NO weight to any particular position regarding a god's likeliness seems like a misleading statement.
Now, if you said you don't completely rule out a god's existence, that would be one thing. But how can you give equal weight to all of them, including the possibility of no god's existence?
To use the Unicorn analogy, saying you have no position on unicorns is misleading. Your position on Unicorns, or bigfoot, or Jim Morisson (I assume) is that they are UNLIKLEY to exist.
No?
-g

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi -g, I'm not being deliberately disingenuous, I think its actually very simple. That doesn't mean its obvious and, of course, I could be completely wrong.

Skeptics have no belief about the existence of god because they have no handle on the concept (no different understanding of the world with or without god). It then follows that talk of gods nature is meaningless. Religon is not right/wrong about god, it is actually independent of god (If it wasn't true that nothing about religon is in any way dependent on the existence of god then as religon exists we would have a handle on god.)

So ask me about christianity and I say it is meaningless with respect to god but is actually about the idea of god that credulist have created.

The main reason this could all be wrong is that god is not necessarily a metaphysical concept - it could be that god provides evidence of his existence. Some religous people insist they have such evidence and hence have a handle on god. I think they are wrong, they only believe the evidence is in anyway credible because they have already formed a credulous belief about god. This would explain why so few skeptical people (who are in general very impressed by evidence) find the evidence anything but risable.

chez

Chez,
I've read your reply like 3 times and I think I see what you mean. My brain hurts though.

-g

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Skeptics have no belief about the existence of god because they have no handle on the concept

It then follows that talk of gods nature is meaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two contradictory?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Skeptics have no belief about the existence of god because they have no handle on the concept

It then follows that talk of gods nature is meaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two contradictory?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont see how. Anyone who can talk meaningfully about god must have some handle on the concept of god.

Unless you're suggesting that just saying that 'talking about god is meaningless' is about god, which it isn't.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you're suggesting that just saying that 'talking about god is meaningless' is about god, which it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it is.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic':

1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion.
2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion.

I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic':

1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion.
2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion.

I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, definitely the second. Believing something isn't the case is the same type of thing as believing that something is the case (although you could offer a probabilistic argument that more things are false than true).

chez