To All Philosophy People: The Question of Belief.

[etgryphon]

Hey fellas,

First off. I do not have a philosophy degree or have extensively studied the "great thinkers" so I am not coming into this with an agenda. I really am asking to educate myself on the thought.

I know that this will probably and inevitably converge on another religious thread, but suspend that for a second and answer this.

Can you have the lack of belief?

This comes from a post from phoenix1010:

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith might help you here. Here's a quote:

"Theism signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix 'a' means 'without,' so the term 'a-theism' means 'without theism,' or without a belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic beliefs ... Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence if belief. "


[/ QUOTE ]

My response is that everyone must have a belief. Cognition requires the presence of belief in some form. The act of thinking about something requires you to pass judgement which defines a belief.

What do you think? Discuss...

-Gryph

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Cognition requires the presence of belief in some form

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see an argument for your claim. Do you care to elucidate?

There is a great tradition of Doubt in western philosophy, for instance, in Descartes' meditations, and Hume's skepticism. Part of what rational believers do is to merely entertain beliefs before they make up their minds.

If you're talking about some kind of second-order belief, like the belief that possiblly p, then I think your OP is a bit of a non-sequitor (because such a belief still doesn't imply belief that p or belief that not p).

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cognition requires the presence of belief in some form

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see an argument for your claim. Do you care to elucidate?

There is a great tradition of Doubt in western philosophy, for instance, in Descartes' meditations, and Hume's skepticism. Part of what rational believers do is to merely entertain beliefs before they make up their minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I'm going to mangle this so bear with me.

Using Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" one can assume that at the point of cognition about anything one is formulating a belief about the object of cognition.

In your example above, the act of entertaining a belief reenforces the belief in the object of cognition as undefined which is in fact a belief.

I come from a Physics background so I can maybe more readily explain it in those terms.

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as

[ QUOTE ]
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

[/ QUOTE ]

To equate this to beliefs, The lack of belief would be the object at rest, not moving in any direction. The act of cognition on a subject will put it into motion (belief) and as the object of cognition is acted upon by "an unbalanced force" or entertaining a different belief on the object of cognition changes its course.

Is this more elucidated?

-Gryph

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Using Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" one can assume that at the point of cognition about anything one is formulating a belief about the object of cognition.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I don't understand this at all. The cogito is bad philosophy anyway, but what it says is that if there is a thought, then necessarily there is a thinking subject. I don't see how this is related to what you want to say.

By the way, Descartes never says "Cogito ergo sum" in the Meditations, which was his most academic work (most others were written in French).

[ QUOTE ]
In your example above, the act of entertaining a belief reenforces the belief in the object of cognition as undefined which is in fact a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so you're talking second order beliefs I think. In that case, saying that atheism still implies belief is a platitude and does not contradict the original author's argument.

[Joe826]

The thing that always gets me about this account of atheism is that it seems to collapse into agnosticism. Fine, an atheist is without theism, but isn't this exactly the defintion of agnosticism as well?

True, agnostics claim to be unsure of whether or not God exists, but this definition of atheism does the same as well. Infact, it refuses to make a claim. How is this just not a weaker form of agnosticism?

A true atheist position, IMO, must take a negative position on the existence of God.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence if belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

"But you still believe that you lack the belief!"

This objection does nothing to contradict the original quote.

[Bodhi]

I tend to agree with you, but what does this have to do with the OP's original question? I thought we were asking about whether a belief is a necessary outcome of any cognition?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" one can assume that at the point of cognition about anything one is formulating a belief about the object of cognition.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I don't understand this at all. The cogito is bad philosophy anyway, but what it says is that if there is a thought, then necessarily there is a thinking subject. I don't see how this is related to what you want to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I knew I'd butcher it somehow. I only meant to reenforce the idea that that act of thinking or cognition brings about its existance in some level. The act of thinking is an act of creation whether or not we are talking about physical or thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, Descartes never says "Cogito ergo sum" in the Meditations, which was his most academic work (most others were written in French).


[/ QUOTE ]

I took Latin and this is how I learned it. Thats it.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In your example above, the act of entertaining a belief reenforces the belief in the object of cognition as undefined which is in fact a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so you're talking second order beliefs I think. In that case, saying that atheism still implies belief is a platitude and does not contradict the original author's argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this better for me...No philosophy training remember.

Nice use of platitude and it maybe, but do you think the following statement is banal.

Atheism is the belief that there is no supreme being.

I guess you could bring up the question of the active or passive nature of this belief.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we were asking about whether a belief is a necessary outcome of any cognition?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is more of a question is belief a necessary biproduct of cognition not an outcome. If that makes any sense...

This may just deconstruct to a question of semantics.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence if belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

"But you still believe that you lack the belief!"

This objection does nothing to contradict the original quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part that I don't understand. I'm not saying your wrong. I just don't understand.

-Gryph