We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
Do you think that non-belief is a human possibility, or do we always believe in something or someone?
12 comments:
Michelle said:
it depends on your definition of belief and non-belief. i think that there is a possibility of a nonbelief in a higher power but there is not a possibility of a nonbelief in nothing. whether we believe in science, our community, a god, or a religion- we are lead to the belief in something whether that something is of that moment, the past or the future.
Edgar Julian said:
It seems pretty clear to me that humans can not believe in things. I do it all the time. I don't believe that Santa clause is real.
Michelle said:
but we believe in things constantly. when you sit on a chair you believe that the chair will be there to hold you up. so in a sense this sort of trust based on previous experience can become a belief.
Edgar Julian said:
I agree with you Michelle but I still think that it is possible to not believe in things (eg. Santa).
Michelle, Thanks. Good point. Seems like any non-belief will not be able to be a nothing belief, but that it will always be dependent on a belief in something or someone.
Julian, Thanks. Humans can not believe in things, but that's not the point if that not believing is always rooted in some other belief. If that's the case, then "not believing" is not an option. The non Santa belief will be connected to a belief.
Edgar Julian said:
I suppose it is true that any non belief is connected to a belief. So then wouldn't it be true also that any belief is connected to some non belief?
I don't think so, since belief and not non belief seems to be one of the core characteristics of being human. Maybe belief is always the context that non belief takes place in and not the other way around. This is simply the way we are. If this is the case, then whatever and whomever we believe should merit that belief. I would wager that our beliefs sometimes account for this, but other times do not.
Edgar Julian said:
So then is belief an act of the will? Or do we just come pre-programmed with a set of beliefs? I like to think that in part belief is an act of the will by the individual. It's a choice, and I can chose what I believe in and what I don't believe in. Of course there are things I can't help but believe and there are things I can't help but not believe. But it seems important to recognize that individuals, however limited it may be, have a will and can choose what and what not to believe in. On this basis I would say that non-belief is a human possibility even if there are a myriad of beliefs which are the context for it.
ulian, Good discussion. Thanks for your feedback and insights. I think that your first two questions are too either - or oriented. Belief can sometimes be an act of the will and we are not necessarily pre-programmed with a set of beliefs, but we humans do believe because that's part of being human. What and who we believe is another story. Your next sentence shapes up a bit better: "in part belief... ." True, I can choose what I believe and don't believe in, but I can't choose not to believe in something or someone. So, I'm for choice, though it takes place in something that precedes it, but doesn't necessarily determine it. Perhaps, belief is like trust and desire. We believe, trust, and desire because that's part of being human. But we do choose what and who to believe, trust, and desire. And yes, an act of the will is a relevant part of being human, yet we also want to recognize that we have needs - to breath, eat, and sleep - that we don't choose to need, and in these areas an act of the will is not going to significantly change my state of being.
Edgar Julian said:
But what about the person who says they do not believe in God? I want to take that person seriously and not just say to them "actually non-belief is epistemologically impossible" (is that what you are saying?) So even if non-belief really is just belief in something else and not not believing in something in and of itself, (Again, is this what you are saying?) it would seem only fair to take someone at their word.
Granted. Me too. I do take them seriously and at their word and in my context quite frequently, but I would also want to challenge them epistimically in order to show that any supposed neutrality is highly unlikely. If that's the case, it might help someone reflect on the merits of what they believe and whether or not it's worth believing. And I think that would be good for them. So, yes and yes. If someone doesn't believe in God, I want to ask them "why?"
Post a Comment