Absence of faith

[Montag]

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.

I find I am quite skeptical about most things and end up offending people if I disagree with them. I'm actualy not a rude guy and am quite polite.

Example, one of the teachers at school was telling me about how homeopathy cured her gripe (cold) after 3 weeks. When I dared to suggest that it was highly likely that 3 weeks was probably a reasonable time for an untreated cold to last my skeptisism was regarded as an assault on their belief system, but they would not accept that her suggesting I use water to cure something waas an assault on mine.

[Harryprice]

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.

Surely that depends on the psychology of the individuals involved. Some religious people may be offended if you say there are no gods but others might not (they may just pity you instead!). On the other hand, some atheists might get offended if, like Jehovah's Witnesses, you turn up at their door, uninvited, and insist there is definitely a god. Also, many people are vaguely religious, due to their upbringing, but can't define exactly what it is they believe in. They may find close questionning of their beliefs uncomfortable and so react rudely. Some people are easily offended, others are not.

[Floppit]

My take on it is that our beliefs aren't based on emotion and therefore disagreement is not an emotional assault. It is unfair but I don't think it's malicious or thought out, more that it's not seen as 'hurtful' to challenge ideas with people that challenge their own ideas, where as the same may not be true the other way round.

[Pebble]

Sorry if this has been answered.

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

.

Belief is an investment in a concept. Those who really believe will reorganise their life and world view around those beliefs. Absence of belief requires no such investment. So it follows that believers have more to lose if their position is challanged - hence the sensitivity.

Doesn't stop me challanging them, but a little sensitivity goes a long way.

[Harryprice]

Belief is an investment in a concept.

What about those that believe there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed? Might they not feel threatened by someone who assumes he did?

[Croydon Bob]

What about those that believe there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed? Might they not feel threatened by someone who assumes he did?

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.

[Harryprice]

OK, suppose you are watching a medium giving a demonstration of their 'gift'. Can you honestly say you don't BELIEVE that they are not really talking to the dead at all? And wouldn't you feel offended if they claimed to get in touch with a dead relative of yours?

[Pebble]

OK, suppose you are watching a medium giving a demonstration of their 'gift'. Can you honestly say you don't BELIEVE that they are not really talking to the dead at all? And wouldn't you feel offended if they claimed to get in touch with a dead relative of yours?

Logic suggests they are wrong, no evidence base over thousands of years supports their contention, so I have no reason for believing them. It is not necessary for me to adopt a position of belief in this instance.

Why should it offend me that they are deluded?

If on the other hand they choose to try and occupy my time with their anecdotal insights - irritation will follow.

[Harryprice]

Logic suggests they are wrong, no evidence base over thousands of years supports their contention, so I have no reason for believing them. It is not necessary for me to adopt a position of belief in this instance.

If there was good evidence that they could talk to the dead, would you not believe it? So if there is no evidence, don't you believe they can't?
Absence of evidence doesn't mean an absence of belief. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true.

Why should it offend me that they are deluded?

I would be offended if they claimed to talk to a close relative of mine when i was convinced they could not.

[Pebble]

If there was good evidence that they could talk to the dead, would you not believe it? So if there is no evidence, don't you believe they can't?
Absence of evidence doesn't mean an absence of belief. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true.



I would be offended if they claimed to talk to a close relative of mine when i was convinced they could not.

If there is good evidence for something, I accept the evidence - in said case I have knowledge not belief.

In the absence of evidence, I take an agnostic position if the concept is logical, if it is illogical I file it under nonsense until either there is a sufficient weight of evidence to cause me to revise, or the understanding of our universe has changed to render the idea plausible.

Why should you be any more offended by someone claiming to talk to your relative specifically. Either those claiming to commune with the dead offend you or not, who they think they are communing with is irrelevant, however irritating.

[Floppit]

If on the other hand they choose to try and occupy my time with their anecdotal insights - irritation will follow.

You tickle them with poison ivy don't you?

[Pebble]

You tickle them with poison ivy don't you?

What a lovely idea, now where did I leave that jehova's witness again?

[Floppit]

What a lovely idea, now where did I leave that jehova's witness again?

You keep them?

[Pebble]

You keep them?

I have a soft spot for lower forms of life, so long as they can be domesticated.

[Montag]

There is also the problem of 3rd parties. I don't know how many of you are teachers but we are a very immature bunch of people. Disagree with somebody and they go and complain to the head who wants a quiet word.

Had this over the homeopathy issue.

Deputy head "If you can't accept their beliefs why don't you just not answer"

My reply "why should I have to talk about their ideas when they don't respect mine"

DH "Yeah but you don't believe in anything"

I do like the argument that is is questioning their emotional investment, but I have an emotional investment in my (non) beliefs.

I teach physics so have invested time into "learning" my beliefs, but if somebody could rationally explain a concept to me that differs I would not hate them for it.