Absence of faith

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Sorry if this has been answered.

My question is "Why does absence of belief seem to be less important than belief?"

The example I give is vegetarians. They come to my house I serve them veggie food, but if I go to theirs they don't feed me meat.

Or if we are discussing religion it isn't deemed offensive if my religious friends tell me there is a god, yet offence is taken if I state there is not.

Welcome, Montag.

I see a difficulty in what you are saying. Let's take the guest-hospitality question, which I have discussed often with fullblooded zoophile vegans. Their reply to the question you raise is this: " We think meat-eating is wrong, so we neither consume meat nor offer it to guests. However, we have never met a meat-eating host or guest who thinks that consuming roots or fruits is wrong *— but if we do, we shall reconsider." You may disagree with them ( as I do ), but they are not being logically inconsistent. Their maxim is: do not offer to a guest what he thinks it wrong to consume ( unpalatable is another story!)

Your maxim seems to be: give your guest what he wants. That too is logically consistent. The trouble is that the maxims are inconsistent with each other.










* There's a jolly good and almost certainly untrue story about Beau Brummel attacking his meat and ignoring his greens at table. When the lady sitting opposite asked whether he disliked vegetables, he paused for a moment and then replied " I believe I once ate a pea."

[Pebble]

Trying to explore that idea a little further.

Suppose a non smoker tried your argument. They think it is wrong to inhale cigarette smoke, so they will not allow you smoke in their house, and will not allow you to smoke when they are in your house. The have never met a smoker who thinks it is wrong to breathe un polluted air, but when they do they will reconsider.

We have the same level of logical consistency, the only thing I have changed is that now they can insist that your freedom is curtailed by their view of right and wrong.

In essence the issue is not coherence of argument, it is intolerance of others beliefs. Should they not be regarded somewhat as social lepars, for refusing to treat others with the respect they expect to receive.

[Tony Williams]

In essence the issue is not coherence of argument, it is intolerance of others beliefs. Should they not be regarded somewhat as social lepars, for refusing to treat others with the respect they expect to receive.

I'm not sure that it is such a good example, since I think even smokers have given up arguing that it does no harm, so anyone who smokes indoors in the presence of a non-smoker might be said to be "refusing to treat others with the respect they expect to receive." (Actually, I'm uncertain who the "they" are who you think should be treated as social lepers - the smokers, or the non-smokers for their intolerance?)

[ChrisOfNottingham]

Do you know anyone who "believes" that?

I know a few people who think that he probably didn't exist, because of the lack of evidence. I think that there probably was a historical person who became the mythical character. Neither position requires any belief. It is the idea that he was the living embodiment of a magic space pixie, cured lepers, etc, that requires belief.

Believers don't have logic on their side. They have to get huffy and feel insulted because it is the only form of defence they have to rational argument. The alternative would involve having to think about the point made and they don't want to do that.

I don't believe in a historical Jesus!

I'm not going to try to convince you to do the same and I understand that it isn't a provable belief. However, it is genuinely what I think. My view is based on a certain amount of investigation and started out with me thinking he probably did exist as a person. After a while I found my level of belief in him dropped to about the same level as for Spider Man, or if you want a religious equivalent, Krishna. I suppose I'm not a True Dis-Believer in the faith type of mold but I know that I don't believe he existed. Shame really, it makes the "which two guests would you invite a dinner party" question a lot harder. Albert will just have to put up with Alyson Hannigan.

[Pebble]

I'm not sure that it is such a good example, since I think even smokers have given up arguing that it does no harm, so anyone who smokes indoors in the presence of a non-smoker might be said to be "refusing to treat others with the respect they expect to receive." (Actually, I'm uncertain who the "they" are who you think should be treated as social lepers - the smokers, or the non-smokers for their intolerance?)

The data in terms of second hand smoke is increasing, but not yet overwhelming. It is certainly fair to argue that prolonged exposure to significant quantities of exhaled smoke is associated with increased risk of smoking related diseases. To attempt to suggest that any level of exposure is damaging is well beyond the evidence, and given that most live in polluted cities, certainly demanding an unreasonable level of consideration from one group of polluters.

However, that is not the issue - it is demanding that others modify their behaviour to comply with beliefs that are not shared. If smoke offends you, don't go to the house of a smoker. If the smoker is so desperate for your company they may agree to modify their behaviour for you, but that should be an apriori agreement not an expectation.

Likewise with vegetarians, just because there is meat on the plate, does not force them to eat it.

[Croydon Bob]

I don't believe in a historical Jesus!

I'm not going to try to convince you to do the same and I understand that it isn't a provable belief. However, it is genuinely what I think. My view is based on a certain amount of investigation and started out with me thinking he probably did exist as a person. After a while I found my level of belief in him dropped to about the same level as for Spider Man, or if you want a religious equivalent, Krishna. I suppose I'm not a True Dis-Believer in the faith type of mold but I know that I don't believe he existed. Shame really, it makes the "which two guests would you invite a dinner party" question a lot harder. Albert will just have to put up with Alyson Hannigan.

But why do you call your lack of belief a belief? Do you have an irrational faith in the idea that there was not a historical Jesus? No. You're basing an opinion on available evidence. If someone finds a new contemporary record that makes reference to Jesus and his followers being thrown out of a village for anti-Roman rabble rousing, would that destroy your life? Would you refuse to accept the new evidence and stick with your belief? I don't think you would. So I don't think you are a believer in non-Jesus, just not a believer in Jesus.

Surely you don't "believe" there is no Spider-man, it's not a matter of faith to you. There just isn't a real one.

A lack of knitting isn't knitting. Having no water isn't a type of having water. An absence of belief in something is just a lack of belief, not a different kind of belief; they are not the same, they are not equal.

I think that your first sentence would be more accurately written as:

I don't think that there is a historical Jesus!

or

I see no evidence for a historical Jesus!

I'm afraid that I don't believe you have belief.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Trying to explore that idea a little further.

Suppose a non smoker tried your argument. They think it is wrong to inhale cigarette smoke, so they will not allow you smoke in their house, and will not allow you to smoke when they are in your house. The have never met a smoker who thinks it is wrong to breathe un polluted air, but when they do they will reconsider.

We have the same level of logical consistency, the only thing I have changed is that now they can insist that your freedom is curtailed by their view of right and wrong.

In essence the issue is not coherence of argument, it is intolerance of others beliefs. Should they not be regarded somewhat as social lepars, for refusing to treat others with the respect they expect to receive.

Yes, that's a good point. There are other maxims in play here, one of which is that the host makes the rules. The non-smokers in the case you mention would have their work cut out to show that they have a right to make the rules in another's house! They are in his house by permission, not by right.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

But why do you call your lack of belief a belief? etc.

In the presence of someone doubting that anyone would think "there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed" I felt compelled to own up. That is what I believe. In fact I believe there is evidence that he didn't exist!

Some people might only be comfortable assigning probabilities but my internal processes eventually flip over in believing or not. Call it what you like, but I just wanted to point that my belief (or whatever) is that there never was a historical Jesus. And I'm having my doubts about Santa Claus too.

[Pebble]

In the presence of someone doubting that anyone would think "there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed" I felt compelled to own up. That is what I believe. In fact I believe there is evidence that he didn't exist!

Some people might only be comfortable assigning probabilities but my internal processes eventually flip over in believing or not. Call it what you like, but I just wanted to point that my belief (or whatever) is that there never was a historical Jesus. And I'm having my doubts about Santa Claus too.

Many positions can arise in respect of putative historical characters.

One may simply not care - this requires no belief

One may having been told that such a person existed choose to either believe or disbelieve without seeking evidence either way

One may decide to seek evidence, setting levels of evidence that are sufficient to convince you of their existence, or indeed non existence - where there is a good case for evidence being accessible, in these cases you have knowledge rather than belief.


So if you state that you have looked for evidence, but yet do not believe, I presume that you consider your efforts at searching for evidence inadequate, or are allowing latitude in terms of what 'jesus' may really have been.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

Many positions can arise in respect of putative historical characters.
...
So if you state that you have looked for evidence, but yet do not believe, I presume that you consider your efforts at searching for evidence inadequate, or are allowing latitude in terms of what 'jesus' may really have been.

Well they must be inadequate to convince a True Believer (by definition) and they probably are inadequate to convince a completely rational skeptic who needs a high level of convincing. But the evidence was good enough for me

It was quite interesting actually. I expected to discover that Jesus was some kind of hippy guru and the stories about him just got out of hand. What surprised me however was the complete lack of contemporary historical evidence, the attempts by the early church to fabricate evidence and the seemingly bizarre idea that the very original members of the cult that grew into Christianity didn't require the existence of Jesus. It just appeared to me that the evidence was all one way.

This isn't meant to be a thread on the historicity of Jesus but anyway... The notion the he was a healer and the stories just grew is an interesting thing to explore. The problem with that explanation is not that there isn't a suitable candidate but rather that there are too many. So on the one hand you have a multitude of healers claiming to be the new messiah around that time. And on the other you have the Jesus stories, which are a combination of literary fulfilments to the OT and standard narratives taken from mythologies of the day. How can you link the two together? There is no reason to say, Oh, you mean that Jesus.

[DrS]

In the presence of someone doubting that anyone would think "there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed" I felt compelled to own up. That is what I believe. In fact I believe there is evidence that he didn't exist!

For example?

[Tony Williams]

Yes, that's a good point. There are other maxims in play here, one of which is that the host makes the rules. The non-smokers in the case you mention would have their work cut out to show that they have a right to make the rules in another's house! They are in his house by permission, not by right.

That is true, but you have to consider social politeness as well.

I was never a regular smoker but did enjoy the occasional cigar up to about ten years ago. Since I have stopped (and most especially since smoking in public places has been banned) I have noticed something: I have lost my tolerance of tobacco smoke. If I go into a smoky room now I find it extremely unpleasant, and simply walk out again.

In the days when smoking was normal and public places filled with a constant haze, it would have been totally unreasonable for a non-smoker visiting a smoker to expect the latter not to smoke. Now that fewer people smoke (and most of those seem to be concentrated in certain socio-economic groups) the onus is shifting towards the hosts, having invited people into their home, showing consideration to their guests and not smoking in their presence if they find the smell offensive.

Having said that, I don't think that there are currently any rights or wrongs with this one - the social norms are in a process of transition.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

In fact I believe there is evidence that he didn't exist!

For example?

I'm not interested in convincing anyone about the (non) historicity of Jesus, I won't be able to remember the references and it probably wouldn't convince anybody anyway. It's the sort of thing you need to research on your own. The only point I was trying to make was that "this is my belief". I didn't mean for it to become an issue in its own right. I admit my last post did go further into the explanation territory than I intended.

[DrS]

I'm not interested in convincing anyone about the (non) historicity of Jesus, I won't be able to remember the references and it probably wouldn't convince anybody anyway. It's the sort of thing you need to research on your own. The only point I was trying to make was that "this is my belief". I didn't mean for it to become an issue in its own right. I admit my last post did go further into the explanation territory than I intended.

But it's the principle I'm interested in. You are claiming that there is, or can be, evidence of an absence. How?

[ChrisOfNottingham]

But it's the principle I'm interested in. You are claiming that there is, or can be, evidence of an absence. How?

Well, it was to do with something I mentioned in one of the other posts. It seems that the early cult didn't base itself on the teachings of an actual person. They used the notion of someone who would have the characteristics of "a Jesus" to give them a model for a new way of living. It's a bit like us setting up the notion of "Skeptic Boy" and working out what the perfect skeptic would do in different situations. We might say, Skeptic Boy would think that the correlation between CO2 and global temperature is high but he needs a causal mechanism too... This kind of approach is not uncommon, I seem to remember Rational Man in some part of philosophy.

Anyway, eventually it seems that this esoteric paragon was a bit too non existent for certain people as the cult grew bigger and older, and so they developed a bit of helpful history. As I say, I can't give you any references now and certainly don't take my word for it. But if you were just wondering the form it might take, then that is the form.