Is belief in deities superior to non-belief in them?

[MineralMan]

I say both are equal philosophically. What say you all?

[dhol82]

1. Actually, I have a problem with one being considered superior to the other.

I think that religious thought is on a bell curve.
Some are extremely religious, some are atheist.
The problem seems to lie with the extremely religious who go apeshit with people who do not believe - in whatever god centric calculus is presented.
I consider it sad that the extreme end tries, and needs, to control the rest.

[Mariana]

3. I don't agree with you about where the problem lies.

The extreme religious end tries and feels the need to control the rest, yes. However, they wouldn't have a prayer (so to speak) of actually doing that if they didn't have the enthusiastic support of most in the middle of your bell curve.

[dhol82]

20. Don't think it's the enthusiastic support of the middle

Think it’s more the apathy of the middle.

[Mariana]

23. Apathy?

A large portion of that religious middle actively opposes things like marriage equality and women's reproductive rights, and actively favors things like forced prayer in public school and teaching Genesis in science class. Those are not fringe positions, and those who hold them vote accordingly. That's why the majority of Christian voters in 2016 cast their ballots for Trump.

There are also many religious people, about half or maybe a little less than that now, who consider any religious person to be better than any atheist, and they also vote accordingly.

[bitterross]

2. The question cannot be answered empirically.

The answers to the question can only be of a dogmatic and polemic nature with apologists for both sides doing nothing but arguing. There can be no agreement on terms, and values to assign to each side.

Just for starters, what is the measure for philosophical equality? Is it pounds, dollars, grams, gallons, miles per hour?

So, this is a useless thread that will produce nothing but frustrated people.

[MineralMan]

5. I an not frustrated.

Philosophy often addresses questions that lead to intractable disagreements. The question I raised is one such.

My response to the question is that neither point of view is superior, since there is no way to determine an answer. I simply accept that some believe, some do not, ans some are undecided.

[Bretton Garcia]

38. If someone is dumb, then blind obedience to a godlike authority. ..

.. might be best. For THEM.

But if someone is intelligent and/or well-educated?

[guillaumeb]

13. Agreed. eom

[Mountain Mule]

4. I would say that the two are roughly equal

The existence of a deity (or deities) cannot be proven. One's belief must be based on faith, not logic. Yet the same holds true for non-believers. I have yet to see a rigorous proof that a diety does not exist. One who is certain that there is no deity must also fall back on faith to support their stance.

Agnostics attempt to have the best of both worlds by avoiding the question altogether. I consider this to be a philosophical cop-out.

When you state that two different belief systems are equal philosophically and challenge us to make a case for one paradigm being superior to another, you need to define what makes a school of philosophy superior to others. If you wished to explain your question further, perhaps I could give you a more satisfying reply.

[MineralMan]

6. See my reply just above yours.

[Mariana]

10. Very few people claim to be certain there are no deities.

To be an atheist, one simply has to disbelieve theists' claims that any of their proposed gods is real. Certainty is not required.

[edhopper]

12. But one

does not have to prove that something, for which there is no evidence, does not exist.
The burden of proof is on those who make the claim for something.
When scientist found no evidence for the Ether in the 1800s, they abandoned the concept.
There is no need to prove that, or N-Rays or Cold Fusion exists.

Atheist do not need to sek proof God does not exist, though there is counter evidence for it.

And thy do not need faith for there being no God.

They simple need to see no reason to believe in any deities.

[Iggo]

32. Existence of a thing can be proven.

In this case, it hasn't been.

Put another way, there's a 100% failure rate of proving the existence of a god or gods.

That failure rate carries weight.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. I can't prove Flying Purple People Eaters don't exist.

So, I guess we have to treat belief in Flying Purple People Eaters and non-belief in Flying Purple People Eaters as equally valid conclusions.

Good news, everyone! We can believe whatever the fuck we want no matter how absurd as long as there is a sliver of doubt we can exploit to keep the skeptics on the ropes! I choose to believe ice cream cures cancer. You can't prove it doesn't!

[Voltaire2]

7. The skeptical position is superior.

When there is no evidence to support a belief, non-belief is a logically more sound position.

[MineralMan]

8. Perhaps.

From a personal perspective, I agree.

[Voltaire2]

15. But not from a philosophical perspective?

You think there is certain knowledge? I don’t. I think the best we can do is approach a strong confidence that a belief is true based on empirical evidence.

[guillaumeb]

18. On what evidence do you base this assertion?

Skepticism and non-belief are not equivalent.

[Voltaire2]

21. That is correct skepticism is not the same as non-belief.

Then again I didn’t say it was. However the skeptical position defaults to non-belief.

[guillaumeb]

22. Skepticism in philosophy defaults to a generalized non-belief.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. Maybe, maybe not.

You just love attributing beliefs to people who don't actually hold them, don't you?

[Voltaire2]

30. Either we are saying the same thing or you are being obtuse

Skepticism defaults to non belief for any given concept and then either stays there, which is pretty useless, or builds from a minimal set of assumptions. It is not the same as non belief.

[Thunderbeast]

9. I suppose that if one lived 5,000 years ago....

Theism would be what appeared to be a rational explanation for the cosmic and moral questions. It was also a terrific way for despots to consolidate power and justify cruelty.

Thankfully, I live in a time when more answers are available. We will always want to know more about our universe, and how it evolved conscious beings like ourselves.

The mysteries and unknowns do not require faith in a creator. We don't require a "mission".

I wish we could re-direct all of the treasure and effort wasted on organized religion. People have been conditioned for millennia to seek a higher, often judgemental power. Countless millions have suffered and died over the manufactured divisions created by "holy men". THINK what could be accomplished if those efforts were directed to more beneficial ends.

My perceptive window into the cosmos has been an incredible ride for 65 years. I hope I am lucky enough to have a few more. I feel incredibly lucky that the organic molecules made up of atoms born in the implosion of giant stars, found a way to organized themselves into the entity known as "me".

We don't need faith any more to figure out the outline of our cosmic history. These are known facts. I do not require a judgemental God to make me respect the immense beauty of those origins.

[MineralMan]

11. Yes. My thinking is along the same lines.

However, I reject the concept of one world view necessarily being superior to another, in a philosophical sense.

[marylandblue]

14. The question presupposes an answer to a different question

What are the criteria for determining that one belief is superior to another?

[guillaumeb]

16. Is belief in a deity superior to a "certain belief"

that there are no deities?

[Voltaire2]

17. Different question.

[guillaumeb]

19. No, simply reframed.

[Stargleamer]

24. only if the deities are. . .

the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[in2herbs]

25. If by belief in a deity(s) you mean a belief in something greater than one's self --

IMO it is impossible for humans not to believe in a deity(s).

This is based on my belief in reincarnation as what we gain from each of our incarnations is knowledge that there is something that exists greater than our self. It is what enables us not to lose all hope.

[MineralMan]

31. It's easy for me to believe there is something greater than myself.

There are greater writers, greater oboists and many, many greater athletes than I. None of those, however, are deities.

[in2herbs]

34. My bad.

My response was based on the definition of “deity” as contained in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, Oxford dictionary, Cambridge English dictionary, etc.

[Iggo]

33. The criminal justice system is a power greater than myself.

I learned that somewhere.

[populistdriven]

26. Its like Hope This Alleyway Won't Kill me vs Street Smarts

you get to decide (on a daily basis) which is better.

edit. I don't mean to imply that either one is the alleyway or the street smarts just that its a choice between what you are willing to invest in "feeling safer" versus making your best educated choice while moving on and still accepting randomness

[Upthevibe]

27. I love that you posted this to generate a discussion...

I'm too tired to jump in tonight but definitely will when I'm coherent. I'm spiritual but not religious. There's a huge difference. I look forward to hearing what others' thoughts are...

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. Are you talking about a generalized belief in deities?

Or belief in certain specific deities? How about monotheism vs polytheism?

I'd offer that in the abstract, belief and non belief are equal. But neither of those (belief nor non belief) exist in the abstract. In a culture that only had its belief system, with no other competing beliefs, (I'm thinking early or isolated groups here) it simply wasn't an issue. Belief in the local deities was a given, and I sort of doubt anyone openly challenged such beliefs.

Once you had a culture with multiple gods who could be worshipped or not, things changed a great deal. I sort of suspect that the path to atheism, or at least non-belief, opened at that point.

Even though these days what you're talking about tends to be seen as: do you believe in God (the God of one of the monotheistic religions) or not? I think the door is very open to lots of other possibilities.

For what my opinion is worth, I call myself a non believer. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, can recall from a very early age questioning what I was taught, and decades ago completely abandoned conventional (monotheistic/Christian) beliefs. I actually have very strong spiritual beliefs, but have zero need to convince anyone else to believe the same way.

To get back to your question, the idea that there can be a hierarchy of beliefs is itself interesting.

[gtar100]

36. America as a melting pot comes to mind with what you say.

That idea is unfortunately forgotten by the bigoted, right-leaning, neo-nazis of modern yore. That most of the world's cultures have been thrown together in the Americas is not appreciated enough. What a rare opportunity for us humans to see such variety in traditions and beliefs. It's enough to turn any orthodoxy on its head.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

37. Here's something else.

We live in a world (I'm talking us first world folks here) in which there is an underlying understanding of things like Freudian ideology, as well as the beliefs we got from the Enlightenment. If you live inside a cult that does not allow you contact with the larger world, that's one thing, and in that case you're not here on DU anyway. But all of the rest of us (most of us anyway) live in the context of a world that has many overlapping, often contradictory beliefs.

I strongly contend that people, no matter how smart and well educated, who lived before Freudian ideas were widespread, and before the Enlightenment, simply don't have the same take on things. Which is quite different from the fact that even now we can quite strongly disagree with each other. Even the deniers of Evolution or vaccines live in a world in which those ideas are out there. Which is why I cannot bring myself to read the novels in which a medieval monk is solving some murder mystery. Maybe he's doing it completely within the context of the knowledge available to him in 1348 or whenever, but I'm not willing to go there.

More closely in time, I've read far too many novels that take place in the 19th or early 20th centuries and the main character stoutly affirms that women are every bit as smart and capable as men. Sigh.

I really love the rare historical novel that presents genuine historical people, fictional or otherwise, with the beliefs and biases of their time. The Killer Angels is a standout here, as is Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove.

[gtar100]

35. Non-belief is a "null" value and is therefore not equal to anything.

"Superior" is a value judgment and therefore "in the eyes of the beholder". And superior in what way?

And how one defines "deities" is most often, if not always, rooted in personal experience and interpretation of other's ideas...therefore, the meaning of what is a deity is likewise is "in the eyes of the beholder".

So a seemingly either/or question really has answers that are outside the apparent limitations of the question on face value. And if one were to make a choice within the limits of the question, one would be "stepping into shit" either way.

However, if one were in the unfortunate circumstance in which there was no choice but to answer yes or no or risk enduring the wrath of an unstable mind, I'd say it's whatever answer keeps your head on your shoulders long enough to get away from the scoundrels ready to lob it off should you pick the wrong one.

[Pope George Ringo II]

40. In the abstract, there's at least an argument that they're equal in one dimension.

Unfortunately, once we get to specifics, theism's business model pretty much requires it to go off the rails almost immediately with all sorts of absurd claims about magical accomplishments, usually followed by the wizards' ransom demands. From that point forward, non-belief is pretty clearly superior.

But if you can limit the belief to a really vague thing which doesn't claim really anything, then that's at least conceivable. It just rarely stops there.

[demigoddess]

41. for me, it is the fact that I have never heard of an atheist kill anyone because

Last edited Tue Jul 17, 2018, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

of the sect of atheism that the person belongs to. Catholics have slaughtered protestants, Protestants have slaughtered Catholics. Various Protestant denominations have declared other denominations Satanic or atheistic because of a small detail of belief. There also have been Protestants who have killed other protestants. Then we have the people who bomb mosques. Sunnis have warred against Shiites. Explain to me why belief is better.

And I forgot to mention the 6 million Jews killed because they were Jews, by Christians.