Does Weak Atheism Reduce to Strong Atheism?
Offline This topic has been bothering me recently. Doesn't "weak" atheism simply reduce to "strong" atheism? If you have George Smith's understanding (also held by our own todangst) that religious language is meaningless, and if even the probability exists that non-material creatures somehow might "exist" in whatever sense they could, and even if you're just giving the concept of gods a fair shake ... can one really say that they are a "weak" atheist?
Saying you're only 99.999999999% sure that gravity will continue to work is admirable humility, but when do we say we're "agnostic" towards gravity or have a "negative" belief in some alternative to gravity?
It's my contention that weak atheism reduces to strong atheism, but I invite any criticism on that point.
Edit:
The position should be clarified. I'm saying that when discussing gods, either:
(1) As Smith says, all talk of gods is meaningless (employs empty names)
OR
(2) Descriptions of gods are meaningful, but internally inconsistent.
Either way, you have an untestable entity.
Therefore, everyone is agnostic, and the weak atheist is waiting for evidence that can never be applied to anything at all.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Anti-theism is not necessarily strong atheism. For example, one might say: "Holding theistic beliefs would be bad even if the beliefs turned out to be accurate" That's anti-theism, but it's not an explicit affirmation of the non-existence of something.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
K, so then what are these people believing in? If they're willing to go out on a limb and say "I believe in X", but they also say "X is something that cannot be described because we're not smart enough" ...
Honestly now. That's like saying "I believe in mystery". That's not a stretch.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Boo! Bad example. In the case of black holes, their necessity came from observation and mathematics. Their effects had been observed, then the math was created to explain the dynamics, and then it was explained. "Black hole" was never an empty name, because it referred to something that was only difficult to describe, not impossible to describe. Deities, on the other hand, fill absolutely no expository need at all.
You would probably do better to use examples from fiction, seeing as the dynamic for fictional characters and deities are the same.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Let's look at it, though. Your idea is that since the universe runs a certain way, it's according to something which has the capacity for "will". Does it necessarily follow that because something happens, it's because it was willed to happen? I can't see that as sound reasoning.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Will, for the time being, you've convinced me. I did some thinking about the nature of god-belief, and realized that the fundamental difference between god belief (and other woo-woo) and say, belief in black holes is that there is an endpoint to the chain of second-hand knowledge.
In other words, there are lots of things I believe, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of. Black holes are a great example. I don't have the ability to look at a sheet full of astronomical values and recognize the necessity of the existence of a black hole in a certain location -- but someone does. Someone has done the calculations, and now, some people have even looked at them indirectly through telescopes. There is an end to the chain. Someone found a black hole and told someone else, who told someone else, who told someone else, for however long it took until someone told me.
With god, it's an endless chain of second-hand, both with experience and definition. Lots of people claim that there's a potential or possible coherent definition, and when pressed, will defer to someone else "smarter than them." Only... that person doesn't exist. Everybody, from the Pope to the lowliest internet troll, is stuck with the reality that all anyone can do when attempting to define god is to pass the buck to someone else, or leave it vague.
So yeah, my point is that I can't think of any way that "weak atheism" is anything more than semantic niceness.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
True, just like weak atheism isn't necessarily agnosticism, even though it's often referrred to as "agnostic atheism." I was just giving an example of how strong atheism can be different than weak atheism. My anti-theistic point of view impacts how I choose to deal with being atheist. Much like how a monotheist isn't necessarily a fanatical terrorist, even though there are muslims who use their hate for western society (or brainwashing) to turn their monotheistic point of view into something more. Does being a Muslim mean you'll eventually become a terrorist? NOPE.
I'm honestly unsure where the confusion is in this thread. Just looking at the definition, strong atheist denies the existence of God. If you simply have no faith in a God you're a weak atheist, if you deny the existence of God because you believe mankind has made it all up, or feel you have a better understanding of a Godless universe based on your knowledge of Science, you're a strong atheist. If this explanation doesn't suffice, then I think we're getting to caught up on the semantics of the word atheism.
Oh, it's definitely a semantic argument.
Functionally, the two are practically the same. I think the distinction being made is that weak atheism grants more epistemological ground than it needs to. The end result is the same.
The thing is, there are two ways people voice weak atheism:
1) I'm not sure that there are no things at all that might be gods, so I reserve judgment based on the possibility that I don't understand it, or that it might make sense in the future.
2) The whole thing is incoherent, so there's nothing to accept or deny.
The first version of weak atheist is giving ground where none ought to be given. That's not to say he's wrong, exactly. He doesn't believe in god(s), and that's correct. It's that he's not acknowledging the fact that any coherent "god" can't be real, so anything that he's leaving room for discovering in the future would not be a god as currently conceived. Since it's not the god we're talking about, it's something else, and doesn't belong in the conversation.
The second version of weak atheist is really a strong atheist. What's the difference between these two statements?
1) All "god" definitions are incoherent. There's nothing to deny or accept.
2) I reject the existence of "god."
Functionally, there's no difference at all. Denying the coherence of a thing IS denying the existence of a thing.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I am inclined to think that applying all these caveats and distinctions to different degrees of belief, confidence, disbelief, etc in the idea that there is, or might be, some actual entity having attributes that most 'ordinary' people would accept as applying to 'God', is giving the whole category of 'God' ideas vastly more ontological weight than they deserve.
I really do believe that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and even Russell's teapot are more deserving of such 'respect' than 'God', as they are actually more coherent and defined.
Even if someone thinks they have a concept of God which is coherent, in that it is not strictly self-contradictory, if its attributes, such as a disembodied intelligence, are massively in conflict with actual observed and coherent extrapolation from current knowledge, then they do not deserve to be entertained as other than pure fantasy.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That's basically my point, Bob. I think a lot of what we're calling "weak atheists" are falling victim to the argument from popularity. That is, we don't bother with categories of disbelief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. The only reason I can think of that we give any ground at all with God is that so many people believe it exists.
From a straightforward unbiased point of view, there's no reason to do so.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well if we all acknowledge there are slight differences in the definitions of the categories, I can agree that these subcategories aren't necessary. So while I might not agree that weak atheism leads to strong atheism by definition, I will admit that the two terms should never have been split from a position of disbelief. I think the only categories there should be when discussing religion are:
1. Theist
2. Atheist
That's it. I'm opposed to "Agnostic," just as much as Weak Atheist or Strong Atheist, because I believe we're all agnostic and feel it should be used as an adjective, not a noun. (that was a whole other discussion in another thread).
I have not once heard a satisfactory refutation of the claim that if god does not exist, every human who has ever lived or will ever live is agnostic.
That makes it the most banal and useless word ever.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Really? I remember a Steven Hawkins program where I'm sure he said that the black hole concept came through a "what if?" and then this "what if" was later confirmed by evidence.
That said, even if I was wrong about what actually happened, my argument would work as a hypothetical.
If a theoretical physicist had described a black hole before there had been any evidence, your "empty names" argument would have claimed "strong atheism" on it and rules out their existence.
This clearly would have been wrong.
Without counter examples, the logical structure of the "empty name problem" argument should show it to be non-sequiter.
1) The formation of concept X was not caused by experience/evidence of an actual X
C) Therefore X cannot actually exist.
It can't be used as an argument for strong atheism.
Atleast not on linguistic/meaning grounds.
I can see how it can be used to distinguish between a strong scientific hypothesis that's yet to be confirmed and your average crazy possibility, but that's kind of a science vs non-science argument than a logic/linguistic/meaning one.
Lol! Yeah.
Back to Bruce Almighty and Monsters Vs Aliens!
That's a different objection though.
That's a "how can we know that X was willed to happen?" argument.
i.e. how can we find evidence for X being caused by a will
There's no argument here against the coherence or meaning of this God concept.
That said, it's a valid question in it's own right.
My answer is that there is a clear difference between acts of will and mechanical systems of nature.
e.g. If lightening was to strike near me, that happens in our observed systems of nature
But if I was to insult God somehow and then lightening strikes, and if a small raincloud appeared to put out the fire when I apologised, it would appear that nature was reacting to my conversation like a "mind" would - it would be a good reason to see these as an act of will.
So whether this "will that controls the universe" God exists would be a matter of observable evidence.
Does nature behave like it's controlled by a mind or does it follow laws of nature mechanically?
Anyhow, as I said earlier I see "Weak Atheism" and "Strong Atheism" as two extreme ends of a continuum.
Weak atheism is not evidence for but no evidence against either.
Strong atheism would be an absolute argument against.
My atheism is on the stronger side because it's more than just a lack of evidence.
From what I know of the world, from my worldview, God's existence just doesn't seem to fit and make sense.
It takes a billion ad hoc arguments to explain why this universe that is supposedly controlled by a mind, barely ever actually behaves like a mind.
e.g. the Lord works in mysterious ways etc...
Going back to the original question, I don't see Weak Atheism collapsing into Stronger Atheism.
It's quite possible for someone to have not seen enough to be convinced, but also not seen enough to be convinced of the case against.
Whether the case against is based around the history of religion, the discovery of the weakness of the pro-theist and pro-faith arguments, how the world as science describes doesn't really match one governed by God, or any other arguments that break the neutrality, until this case is put forward their atheism remains "weak".
I can see how this works as an argument that strengthen's atheism.
It compares the sources of "woo woo" and scientific theories and shows that one source is more trustworthy than others.
(A kind of epistemic rights based argument)
I just disagreed with it as an absolute argument for strong atheism.
How about the definition I gave above?
The continuum between "no argument against" and "absolute argument against"?
Weak being the "no argument" extreme" and strong being the other?
I think that might be something we all can agree on?
Well, I think in this case, "no argument against" and "absolute argument against" are the same thing in different linguistic clothing. I'm not saying they aren't perceived differently by the people espousing each belief. I'm saying that apart from one's feeling about the arguments, they are epistemologically equivalent.
So... I think that means we agree.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
There being no epistemological difference isn't quite what I was going for.
) but if your only argument is "I'm yet to be convinced by an argument" then you kind of have to meet their argument on their terms.
The difference between "no argument against" and "strong argument against" is that the "no argument" will be more open.
This is me when I was a teenager.
I didn't really believe, but because I had no argument against, it was easy for people to shake my non-belief.
They gave arguments that didn't convince me, but I didn't understand them and it would have been closed minded of me to write them off.
Being a weak atheist with no argument against is still justified non-belief, (is that what you meant when you said that they were both the same epistemologcally? That they were both justfied non-belief? If so, we do agree and I'm off being self indulgently pedantic again!!
Furthermore, with a subject you have little knowledge or understanding on, you're within your epistemological rights to trust the opinion of someone you feel does know what they're talking about.
A stronger atheist has an epistemological advantage of being justified in being a bit more cynical regarding their opponents position.
The theist needs to meet them on their terms if they want to try and shake up their non-belief.
"Arguments against" don't need to be absolute ones like George Smiths, but the stronger the arguments and the more numerous they are, the stronger the atheism will be and the less obligated they will be to consider opposing arguments.
Obviously they would have to consider refutations of their "arguments against", but this would mean that the theist would need to meet them on their terms with their defintions, rather than the atheist trying to decode he theist's own prefered definitions.
Both "strong" and "weak" atheism are both justified non-belief but stronger atheism has clear epistemological advantages.
I think I'm making sense anyhow...
I'm not disagreeing. Any definition of god that employs necessary ignorance is reflexively incoherent. I was more taken with the question of whether or not we can completely understand the nature of reality. This has nothing to do with whether we will understand it fully, but whether we are capable.
I'm simply suggesting that, if a distinction exists, a weak atheist/theist must claim that our ability to understand the nature of reality is fundamentally limited. A strong theist must claim we are perfectly capable of understanding the nature of reality. The question is where the incoherence lies: our inability to comprehend the nature of reality, or in the incompatibility of god with reality.
I guess that's all I was getting at. It's still an incomplete idea in my head. I'm sure some philosopher has covered this at some point, so I doubt it's anything novel, but it's a new thought for me.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers