I know there is a distinction. My point is, the vast majority of self-described atheists are the weak atheist sort. If we’re going to make “atheist” a shorthand for either weak or strong atheist, surely we should choose the one that most people are? Use strong atheist or something else if you want to talk specifically of that sort.
ETA: Also since strong atheists are actually a subset of weak atheists, it makes little sense to shorthand atheist to the subset. What word would we use for “weak atheist” then? Since we’re going to be using that word more…
ETA2: The reason this bugs me is many theists use atheist as a strawman, implying that “weak atheists” are “strong atheists”, saying things like they have just as much faith.
It’s not that they believe there is no god as much as they *don’t believe *there is a god. It’s a subtle difference, but it’s important. I have absolutely no reason to believe there’s a god. Give me evidence that can be tested the way everything else in this world is tested, and I might change my mind.
If you don’t post the reasoning behind your posting of a thread like this, don’t be surprised when people assume you’re doing it to prop up a strawman.
Excuse me, but cite? When have I ever once defined atheism as anything other than how I’m defining it in this thread? I have on occasion drawn the “strong/weak” distinction, but “strong” atheism is a subset of atheism, and I have never defined the whole set of atheism as anything but a lack of belief. To put it another way, a lack of theistic belief, in itself, is sufficient to define somebody as an atheist, and I defy you to find a post where I’ve ever said anything to the contrary.
Dawkins, I assure you, knows the difference. I think the poster you’re talking about was confusing agnosticism with weak atheism (which a lot of people do).
Various posts have touched on the point I’m going to make. But since I have a copy of Jammer to hand, it is worth spelling it out explicitly.
The OP offered the following quotation as Einstein:
When challenged for the cite, ITR champion pointed to Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion as his source for this.
However, turning to the quotation there (in the original Princeton University Press hardback edition of 1999, p48), Jammer has the significantly more hesitant wording:
Which is accurately quoted from his source.[sup]*[/sup]
Given that Dawkins’s main argument, with which the OP seeks to vehimently disagree, is specifically that Einstein is best described as a pantheist, that’s one hell of a bit of misquoting in the OP.
[sub]* Brian’s 1996 biography Einstein: A Life, in turn quoting Viereck from 1930 (which I haven’t seen). Brian adds a bit more context. Einstein was being asked whether he believed in the God of Spinoza. His answer starts “I can’t answer with a simple yes or no. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist …” It’s simply perverse to present the interview as providing an unambiguous statement that he was not a pantheist.[/sub]
Wow. I thought to check the Dawkins book to see if Dawkins was being misrepresented (which I think he was) - I hadn’t anticipated Einstein being misrepresented as well.
But i’m not assuming Einstein is talking about some version of the Christian God. I’m assuming ITR is talking about some version of the Christian God. Like I said, it seems very much to me as though Einstein could be construed to have believed in a Deistic god, or some god or force that exerts itself in the universe. In the very post you quoted I was talking about him seeing it more in terms of the effects, the things that are done in the world, than in terms of the potential cause itself (and the ascribing of motivations to it). It seems to me that “god”, when used by Einstein, does seem to describe more of a force of nature rather than a thinking, personified being.
Beyond that though, i’m not sure it’s all that fair to assume because of his work he would think of gods purely in those terms. There we have to ask, was he speaking as a physicist/cosomologist, presenting a view in those terms, or was he speaking just as himself, taking everything into account?
To me it seems like Einstein fell for the watchmaker fallacy - he saw majesty and complexity in nature and natural law, ergo, it was created. Boom - he’s a pantheist.
But he clearly was 100% atheistic towards the Christian god.
But the OP has none of what you claim. I think it fair to accept the discussion as he has laid it out. If he then tries to pull a fast one in drawing equivalence between the more deistic Creator-God that Einstein was, I think, clearly referring to, then it would be fair to challenge him on it at that time. One thing I find both amusing and annoying in these discussions is when people who do know better confuse the philosophical Theist/Atheist decision with the subsequent decision which MAY then take place concerning religion and flavor of God. The discussion needn’t go there and shouldn’t until some particular religious claim is made.
Revised by whom, Einstein’s writings, or all on second hand accounts of how someone else interpreted his writings?
Another poster wrote:
To which you asked for a cite for this.
Type in on a google search, “Leading Scientist still reject God” of which 93% are either agnostic are atheist, the majority being in the latter group. Here is one such cite. Here’s one pertinent part:
Bold type mine.
He did leave it out here, and this has been pointed out many times in this thread. There is no personal in front of it, behind it, or around it. Bold type this time, you need it:
** “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”**
But the OP does have what I claim, as I pointed out; ITR says that it “sounds like a God” to him. Not “sounds like a god”. The big-G is rather more specific a claim that is the small-g generic name. Likewise, in the title, ITR does not claim “Einstein believed in a deistic god” or even “Einstein believed in a god”, but “Einstein believed in God”.
I’m not sure how much traction this particular argument will make with you, since you yourself appear to use God as a generic term for gods in general, but as far as I have seen it is by far the commonplace standard that “god” could mean any god, while “God” refers specifically to the Christian one, being capitalised. There is, to my eye at least, quite a difference between saying “I believe in a god” and “I believe in God”.
I do not believe Einstein was a diest, he seemed to believe the word God to be what ever is, not a ‘being’ but being. At least that was the impression I got when I heard him speak once.
Me, me! I’m long past being a teenager. I know that there are no gods. (Note grammar - plural nor a common noun. Not singular and a proper noun.) And I’ve given much more thought to this delusion than it deserves.
Because any phenomenon which is close to being a credible feature of any model of reality which I would be willing to accept, I would describe as ‘not a god’. Magic fairies don’t exist, they are fictional. Forces like gravity (or even the Lord Gravity if you like) are not gods. YMMV.
By the way, you know that outside the USA this discussion was settled long ago? Everyone with any sense or education became an atheist or agreed to act as if they were one. Okay, not quite everyone - the Pope still acts as though he believes in god. Conversely, it is considered rude to press an Anglican priest too closely on his precise beliefs. Don’t ask, don’t tell is the principle.
Actually, I’m just joshing with you. I know that gods exist. I’ve seen dozens of them. Carved in wood and stone and metal, in alcoves and on plinths. Dozens of them. Apparently some of them are abstract with no physical incarnation. Pray to them if it comforts you. They aren’t listening. Because they’re just carvings.