Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:I wonder what edwardmurphy would make of the following argument I happened to stumble upon
Ed?
1) Lack of belief on a subject entails one is unaware to that subject of belief.
2) The moment one becomes aware to a subject of belief, they conceive of something about that subject of belief.
3) If you conceive something about a subject, then that something counts as a belief about that subject.
4) Therefore, one has a belief on any subject that they become aware to. (from 1, 2, 3)
Let's extend this argument...
5) The person who claims "to lack a belief in the subject of a belief" shows an awareness of that subject of belief.
6) It is not possible for a person to lack a belief in a subject that they are aware to (from 4).
7) Therefore, it is a contradiction to say "I lack a belief on some subject" since such presupposes an awareness to that subject.
And finally...
Atheists who claim that they lack a belief of God are full of doodoo. (from 7)
Kuriuo
I know this argument was not directed to me, but I’m curious how this works.
If Ed said I might have ice cream in my freezer; (thus the subject of belief is "ice cream in my freezer") but I never said anything about it, since you can’t simply lack belief either way; would you assume
a. I do not have Ice cream in my freezer
b. I do have Ice cream in my freezer
Where would your belief lie?
Hi Kenny,
Ok, so I've gone to Ed's house.
Do I know Ed? Is he a stoner? If so, then he most definitely will have ice cream.
Unless, he's eaten it all -- but I'm sure he'd be well stocked.
You know, if a diplomat working in another country reported, "
I have intelligence that our embassy is going to be stormed and people shot, and the government can't/isn't go to do much to prevent it." What proof is there? The Government of the diplomat's country and President might decide, "
No, the diplomat is bonkers. We have good standing relations with the country, and there's been no tangible evidence." While there is no real tangibility the diplomat stresses that in his communication he can feel in his gut something is amiss, and overheard whispers. He seriously advises that it would be prudent to withdraw at least temporarily.
If I was the President sitting back at home away from it all, well my gut intuition may not be the best indicator of things. But, someone who is closer to any issues in another country, on the ground and mixing, well their gut intuition is probably going to be more accurate. So I would take the advice and withdraw not based on something tangible, but trust in my operator even if they didn't give me something tangible other then they feel.
What am I getting at here?
Well, when we're around someone or closer to the scene if you will (as in the diplomat), we come to know the situation better.
We are so much more complicated with all the information we absorb to put it always down to an I saw this, so that means this. It could be, they smiled a certain way at me and followed me down the street, you just know that something is amiss!
You know, I can tell by the look on my sons face when he's done something wrong. He can lie so smoothly. But, when I suspect something is up -- I don't know what it is and may not have any evidence -- but, I'll get the bottom of it! I
know my son.
We can know someone so well, that it's like we can read their thoughts even before they do something. I'm sure we've all said to someone, "
Don't even think about doing what you're thinking!" And then they innocently respond with a grin, "
What? I wasn't going to do anything."
Question: What would you call this kind of "knowledge" Kenny? Is it even knowledge. What is it based upon?
Back to Ed's ice cream.
I might just know Ed. That he loves his ice cream and stocks up.
And so based upon my knowledge of Ed, and maybe gut intuition (he's glanced his freezer a few times already after scoffing down some pizza), well - he's most definitely got ice cream! I know Ed's mannerisms and body language. It's as clear to me as if he spoke.
On the other hand, let's say I have no knowledge.
I'm in someone's house I don't really know and your question comes to mind: "Do they have ice cream in the fridge?"
Well, the one thing I most definite won't say is that: "
I lack a belief about the existence of ice cream/ice creams and freezers!" Because:
1) I believe something of ice cream itself, and
2) I evidently believe in freezers, that many people have them and know freezers are where people normally store ice cream because it keeps it ice cold.
And what I won't say, is exactly what Ed wants to claim when he says that his Atheism is the lack of belief in Theism or a theistic proposition.
The argument that you quote of main is not aimed at someone who says they're agnostic or doesn't know. Rather it is aimed squarely at those who try to say their lack a belief entails absolutely no belief about the contents of the proposition.
Now when I walk into a strangers house, I may not know whether they have ice cream right?
So what this is actually called is being agnostic as to the proposition.
I'm not going to try and say, no I'm Atheist and I have no burden of proof to show that ice cream doesn't exist in the freezer because I lack a belief in the proposition itself. That would be silly talk wouldn't it?
The positions re: beliefs really are simple at the end of the day, but people can get carried away.
Especially if they're trying to get the corner on a debate as lively as whether or not God exists.
There are three basic positions:
1) I believe ice cream exists. (Icecreamist)
2) I believe ice cream doesn't exist. (Aicecreamist)
3) I have no bloody idea. (Agnosticecreamist)
I believe I've answered your question.
Happy to answer any follow ups.
