Posted by Jason on: 04.28.2008 /
“Atheists don’t believe in anything” is an odd thing to say, when you think about it. It’s based on a twisted and confused understanding of what belief really is. Very simply put, in everyday conversation, ‘belief’ refers to a person’s convictions. They are matters of faith rather than ones where evidence or proof is thought to be evidence or even relevant. In matters of philosophy a ‘belief’ is ‘any fact of the matter or proposition which might be held to be true’, or what we think of as being true for everyone and everything, for example:
That kind of thing. Beliefs can be very specific or very general, trivial or serious. Beliefs can be suppositions (if the sun had come out it would have been a brighter day) or absolute statements of fact (If A is taller than B and B is taller than C then A is taller than C).
Philosophically ‘beliefs’ have truth value. They are capable of being true or false.
We have two distinct kinds of belief: The kind of beliefs that are either true or false and the kind of beliefs that are strongly held convictions. The latter include:
There is a distinction here that is sometimes lost when we discuss beliefs. How many times have you seen or heard the question “How can an atheist go through life believing in nothing?” or something similar? I’ve even seen it given as a statement and a condemnation. Atheist or rational beliefs are dismissed as having less value than theistic beliefs. Ultimately though, it is a failure of the person asking the question in understanding the difference between conviction and truth.
People of strong conviction even refer to their beliefs as truth, sometimes even capitalising it as Truth to give in added power. I know I’ve done it, I’ve considered some of my own convictions as so obvious and true that they must be true. Again though this is a confusion between the idea of belief inherent in truth and the belief inherent in a strongly held conviction. There being no way to prove (or disprove) the existence of God or gods, religion is a belief that falls firmly within the bounds of a conviction and is incapable of being true or false without further evidence. That isn’t to say that we cannot glean honest and good ideas from religion, just that the idea of proof isn’t relevant.
What meaning do we give to our lives without the firm convictions of religious belief? It isn’t as easy as taking the beliefs of a community (a church) or a family and adopting them. An atheist literally has to ascribe meaning to their own life and adopt those convictions that make sense. For me that gives the beliefs I have greater strength. I have challenged them myself in arriving at them (and continue to do so) so they are much stronger as a result. The values that I have and the beliefs that I hold have come about through questioning and evaluating them. I’m not saying that theists never do this. I just don’t think that they do it as often.
When someone says of an atheist that we don’t believe in anything they are failing to grasp the nature of belief. Both a theist and a non-theist share identical beliefs in things that have truth value but will differ in beliefs that are formed of conviction. We both have convictions and true beliefs but some people fail to grasp the difference and place them together. This doesn’t help anyone to discuss or understand the differences in their beliefs.
Comment by: Mike O
1I disagree that you can classify “whether or not there is a god” as “strong conviction.” True, there are many many religious behaviours or activities that fall into are “strong convictions,” like whether or not it is OK to drink or sex before marriage - things like that. But whether or not there is a god does have an actual true/false answer. There either is, or there isn’t. But the fact that one cannot “prove” the answer doesn’t mean it’s merely a conviction.
I guess I’ll back off a bit and agree that “the belief that there is or isn’t a god” is a strongly held conviction. But “whether or not there actually is a god” is capable of being either true or false.
For example, global warming either is or isn’t the crisis some believe it to be. It has a truth value, that will be revealed over time. But the belief that global warming is or isn’t a crisis is merely a strong conviction.
Same with God. He either does or doesn’t exist - true or false. But the belief in God - or not - is a strongly held conviction. The same cannot be said of dogs vs cats.
Comment by: Mike O
2and what’s with the Wizard of Oz pics? I didnt’ get the connection.
Comment by: Jason
3Second question first. The witch represents the negative view of atheists, the scarecrow “confusion” and the lion “courage”. Plus I’m a fan and any excuse to include the Wizard of Oz will be taken. That’s just the kinda guy I am. No, I’m not gay before you ask. ;)
Comment by: Jason
4Mike, the existence of God is not provable. If it is then please show me the proof and I’ll stop disbelieving. The Big Bang similarly is not provable. It is highly likely given the evidence and I’m happy to believe that it is true but it does no have truth value.
Global warming is a measurable phenomena. Relative to 50 years ago or 100 years ago the planet is warmer. This has truth value. Whether this is a natural cycle or man’s interference is reasonable to assume but cannot be proven.
Belief in a chair has truth value, belief that it will hold me up does not. Not till I’ve tested it and not on subsequent attempts. At best I can say that I am reasonably certain that the chair will hold me up. I have a firm conviction as to its strength. This doesn’t effect my belief in its presence just in its fortitude (I’m not a small man).
God’s very existence must work in the same way as the strength of the chair but without the existence of the chair. You believe that God will hold you up, support you and lend you strength. That’s fine but the belief in a chair’s strength could equally be applied to a stool or a bench or a large rock.
Another way of looking at God as a belief is this. If God were provable as 1+1=2 were provable then other gods would also be provable (or disprovable). Belief would be a stronger, solid belief rather than the belief of very strong conviction.
These forms of belief (in chairs and the strength of chairs) doesn’t compare with the much weaker beliefs of the rightness of premarital sex or alcohol consumption. These really are just opinion.
I hope I haven’t confused things with my talk or seating. :)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
5Thanks Jason. What some Christians say about atheists and beliefs annoys me.
Mike, that’s an interesting point you brought up: that there’s a difference between something which is true or false but we can’t prove it, and something which is subjective, so there is no absolute true or false value.
Comment by: Mike O
6I didn’t mean to imply that god was provable. At least not scientifically. I believe there is evidence supporting his existance, but the same evidence leads you to the opposite conclusion.
Interesting, no?
Comment by: Jason
7Helen, it annoys me as well but really because it means that they’ve never considered the implications of the question. A lack of belief in the supernatural does not equate to a lack of conviction.
Mike, there’s evidence that a chair will hold me up but that does no mean that it is has truth value. That is my point really. You have a strong conviction in your god but that belief is not self evident in the same way that the existence of a chair or a rock is.
Comment by: Raghu Mani
8These are more-or-less objective beliefs. The reason I say ‘more-or-less’ is that some of these may be arrived at through a complex piece of reasoning that some may not be able to follow or, even if they follow, may not agree with.
These are entirely subjective beliefs. They may be held by huge numbers of people but there is no possible way of logically verifying whether or not they are true.
And a lot of the problems we see in the world today are the result of people taking their strongly-held subjective beliefs and insisting that they are objective.
Raghu
Comment by: Jason
9Raghu, yes, I agree on the distinctions between objective and subjective beliefs. Some beliefs are considered a priori as well when they should either be categorised not as knowledge (objective belief) or as a posteriori knowledge. That’s really the subject for another post though.
I must say though that belief in the supernatural (such as God) cannot ever be categorised as either knowledge or belief that has truth value. This is simply because the idea of proof does not apply. Not that there is no proof but that proof is not valid as a means of understanding.