Strong atheism vs. weak atheism.

Great Debates
1

I have long considered myself a “weak” or negative atheist.

For those who are unfamiliar with the different distinctions and consequent dillema, a "strong or positive atheist is one who says “No gods exist” while a “weak” or negative atheist is one who does not assent to a positive theist’s claim that a god or gods exist(s).

It is widely considered amongst philosophers that the positive atheist position(not to be confused with the philosophical “Positive Atheism” of Gora) is untennable because it makes an assertion which cannot be proven(that “no gods exist”).

Lately I have been mulling over this quite a bit.

It seems to me that if the default condition of an existential claim is FALSE when that claim is not rationally justified through empirical evidence or logical argument, then why can’t we say that no gods exist(until such time as the claim IS rationally justified)?
After all I can still keep my agnosticism(the conviction that no knowledge of God could be had even if one DID exist) while saying no gods exist, it seems(I am also an agnostic as well as a weak atheist).
I have no problem saying Wile E. Coyote is a made up thing.His behavior and mannerisms point to human invention and he is easily understandable and sensible when I aknowledge the human motivations behind him but he becomes nonsensical when I assume he is an actual coyote(with aknowledgements to Charles Fiterman).Same with God/gods.

What say you other atheists, agnostics and even rational theists?

2

My take on this i think is similar to yours:

I see no evidence for the existence of God. It is therefore rational to assume God doesn’t exist until such time as someone can prove otherwise.

Noone can ever prove that God doesn’t exist, in the same way that noone can ever prove that General Relativity is correct. However given the data available to us, it is rational to assume that God doesn’t exist, and General Relativity is correct.

I guess this makes me a weak atheist.

3

I think it is a problem with philosophers that they often insist on treating beliefs as 100% or 0% or ignorance. I believe some things very strongly, say that the earth is round, at a very high percentage, say 99.9999, but there is always the tiny possiblility that I am the victim of a massive conspiracy to mislead me about earth’s roundness. Personally I think that the existance of any being that is at all similar to the descriptions I hear about God is very unlikely - say 99% likely to be false. I cannot prove with mathematical certainty that God does not exists, or for that matter that the world is round. For practical purposes I would say that God does not exist because it seems a priori unlikely and the evidence typically put forth for God’s existence seems woefully inadequate. Am I a strong or weak atheist? I don’t think the categories are very meaningful.

4

I say that I’m a strong atheist for the exact reasons you mentionned in your OP. There are plenty of things I don’t have any reason to believe in and don’t believe in them, and I’m never called on them. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people don’t believe in them, either.

But for some reason, when god is involved (or more exactly when current religions are involved… essentially nobody would tell me I shouldn’t rule out the possibility that Osiris and Quetzalcoatl actually exist), I’m supposed to be more cautious, to be a “weak atheist” or some some sort of “agnostic”, and, though I don’t believe in him, not to exclude the possibility that god might exist.

My answer is always the same : then, should I also apply the principle to all beings I believe don’t exist : ancient polytheist gods, djinns in a bottle, unicorns, etc…, to all things that are believed by some people (for instance, what’s the proof that one of my friend is actually schizophrenic? Perhaps the military is really spying on his brainwaves and some TV programms are reallly broadcasted just in order to send him messages), and even to all things nobody believes in but can’t be disproven (trees are actually sentient beings, they unroot, wander around and discuss with each other in loud voices when nobody’s around).

So, yes, I definitely say “There’s no god” rather than “I don’t believe there’s a god” because I’ve no reason altogether to believe in such a thing, because essentially everybody is a “strong non-believer” in plenty of things and nobody thinks it’s worth a debate, essentially nobody would say one can’t exclude the possibility that unicorns actually exist and I’ve no particular reason to treat god a different way.

IMO, either you state that plenty of things, including god don’t exist, either you doubt about everything, even the most crazy and unheard of concepts and beliefs. Yes, it’s theorically possible that god exist. It’s simply not worth mentionning because it’s similarily theorically possible that my tree gatherings at night actually take place (and don’t try saying that contrarily to god, one can observe trees and disprove this theory, it’s impossible. Not only they’re very clever, but also I’m allowed to come up with plenty of supernatural or “magical” explanations for everything…I’m even allowed to “unknowable mysteries” if need be).
I would even go so far as telling that a significant part of the weak atheist or agnostics are actually “weak believers” who aren’t sure whether they should believe or not. Simply because if they were actually following a general and logical reasonning, they would apply the same principle to every kind of belief, and, in their overwhelming majority, they don’t. They might tell you “I believe there’s no god, but nobody can know for sure”, but won’t tell you the same thing about fairies. From that, I conclude they aren’t actually using a rational and consistent system of thought, but rather are unwilling to reject a particular belief in a particular supernatural entity.

5

The strong atheist seem to be tring to draft the agnostics.

The definition I have seen of agnostic is: A person who believes it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God.

I decided I was an agnostic at 12 but I do’t have a problem with rejecting definitions I consider to be stupid. I regarded an agnostic as a person who simply admits he doesn’t know whether or not there is a God. If one is ignorant of a thing how can you tell if acqiring the knowledge is impossible or merely extremely difficult. Of course an Apatheist doesn’t know and doesn’t give a damn.

Once upon a time it was “impossible” to fly, right?

People usually say believe or know. What about suspect? Just because something is true doesn’t mean you can get enough reliable info to know it is true. Just because something is false doesn’t mean you can get enough reliable info to know it is false. We just have to learn to live with uncertatinty.

I suspect there is a God and S/HE runs the system on reincarnation.

the heretical, Dal Timgar

6

Whether or not you want to design a default property to irrational or supra-rational notions, is a matter of personal preference as long as it doesn’t contradict the other tools of the mind.

Empirical evidence is a tool of science. Hence there’s no need to add something for which we have no empirical evidence to the knowledge of science. However, science is ill suited for many of the psychological needs that religion fills. Science and even rational thought are specialized tools for specialized knowledge. They’re not meant to determine the existence/non-existence of supernatural entities or provide a sense of belonging and purpose to a human being.

For example, if we wish to view the universe as an interconnected whole wherein there is an unfathomable sort of “intelligence” it probably adds nothing to the realm of science, but it can be inestimable for the human pysche. Once on peels away the cosmology and the fetishized beliefs in virgin births and the like, religions can still offer sensible moral advice and balanced interaction with society and the universe. This isn’t always true of course. Religions that resist change and growth tend to have an unbalanced and outdated view of the world.

This may go slightly out of the scope of this argument, but the irrational belief in god has largely been replaced with an irrational belief in the self. The self is the perfectly subjective experience, no one else will ever experience it. The self isn’t neccessary to understand the chemical processes in the brain. It’s possible science has no use for this belief, yet it still persists.

7

Because “No gods exist” is ALSO be an existential claim that, by your logic, is provisionally false.

8

Of all the claims out there, this one is the MOST ridiculous, because it is self refuting. How can anyone know that it is impossible to know something?

Which is exactly why I argue for dumping the strong/weak atheist nonsense and just sticking with atheist: one who lacks god belief. That way, one who disbelieves in god is still an atheist: just one making an anti-theist claim.

9

I think it’s a valid distinction. The “weak” atheist is simply saying, “I have seen no evidence of a God, but such evidence might turn up tomorrow.”

The “strong” atheist says, “There can be no such thing as ‘God,’ as commonly defined, since the concept is self-contradictory.”

(Both atheists might accept the possibility of some super-powerful alien species – “Q” from Star Trek, for instance – but not the existence of ‘God’ as Judaism/Christianity/Islam conceives.)

Trinopus

10

Could you elaborate on this just a bit? Because it almost seems like you’re trying to justify a fundamental belief about the nature of the universe using a technicality of human-constructed rules of scientific argument. I’m not sure if that’s what you really mean. :slight_smile:

Here’s another technicality for you: in argument, whoever makes an assertion must support it. That’s why weak atheism is such an easy position to take: because no assertion is made at all, so there’s no burden of proof. If, on the other hand, you assert that no gods exist, it would be presumptuous to expect any credence without providing some proof on your part. “No gods exist” is not an existential claim, but it’s still an assertion. When you say “the default condition of an existential claim is FALSE”, that doesn’t mean that you automatically assert the negation of the claim. Do you know about hypothesis testing in statistics? Failing to reject a certain hypothesis and accepting that hypothesis are not the same thing at all, and they require very different standards of proof.

Actually, it isn’t. An existential claim is a statement of the form “There exists X.”

11

Unfortunately, people often misstate what the assertion is. If I say that I don’t believe in God, then the assertion is that I don’t believe in God. Do I have an obligation to provide evidence that I do in fact not believe in God? Seems to me that people should just take my word for it. When I say that I don’t believe in God, and someone responds that I am asserting that God doesn’t exist even though I can’t prove it, I conclude that that person has severe cognitive difficulties. If I say that I don’t believe in God, then I mean that I don’t believe in God. If I had wanted to state that God doesn’t exist, I would have said so.

If this were applied to almost any other area of life, the silliness would be widely recognized.
“I think the Yankees will win the World Series this year”
“You have not been able to present definitive proof that this will happen, therefore believing it is untennable”

It’s also odd that the people who claim that “the atheist position… is untennable because it makes an assertion which cannot be proven(that “no gods exist”)” are almost always the same people who assert with certainty that God does exist.

12

Hmm: “God does not exist” is a claim. It’s making an assertion about the state of something’s existence. I’d say it’s pretty obviously an existential claim, you objection to the contrary. You might want to carve out special rules for your own pet ideas, but the fact is the statement “X does not exist” is just as reaching as “X exists” and just as demanding of evidential support, not just default status.

There is, for instance, no reason why X couldn’t stand in for “a possible world in which Y does not exist.”

13

It continues EXACTLY the wrong idea: the idea that “full” atheism requires claiming that gods don’t exist. The claim “there is no god” is not any sort of atheist claim, though only an atheist can make it. It is an anti-theist claim.

Worse, it unecessarily splits the most useful distinction, which is simply that one is a non-theist. Non-theists have all sorts of other different beliefs, not just whether or not they assert that god exists or not. There’s no useful point in dividing atheists up along that category alone.

14

Apos, I was only reacting to your argument that “No gods exist” is an existential claim, and thus defaults to “false” using the convention GodlessSkeptic brought up in the OP. I only meant to point out that “No gods exist” wouldnt’t fall under a convention that applies to existential claims because it isn’t an existential claim.

You:

Me:

We obviously agree so I suggest not pursuing it further.

15

A repeated proposition you’ve thus far put exactly 0 effort into justifying.

16

How so?

It clearly is a denial of the existential claim “Gods exist,” thus is not provisionally false.

17

Apos, we could talk about it some more, but it would be a hijack. You say “no gods exist” requires evidence; I say the same. We say it for the same reasons too, but we differ on the meaning of one word.

[hijack]

…giving you “there exists a possible world in which Y does not exist.” This isn’t the same thing as saying “Y does not exist.” Have you studied predicate logic? The negation of an existential statement is a universal statement. An existential statement begins “for some…”, as in “for some thing in this world, that thing is a god.” A universal statement begins “for all…”, as in “for all things in this world, those things are not gods.” If you can rephrase that last sentence to begin with “for some…” and preserve its meaning, then I’ll believe you that it’s existential. I don’t think it’s all that relevant to this debate.
[/hijack]

18

No, I am not trying to justify any fundemental beliefs using technicalities but I should have defined “gods” better.When I use the word “gods” above I mean gods in the supernatural sense(for instance it is obvious that the sun exists, divine emporers existed and little wooden statues exist).Here is an analogy to illustrate my point:

Coyotes exist, independent of our creative whims and emotional or psychological needs and desires.However, Wile E. Coyote does NOT exist in such a way.He is a made up thing…a caricature of an actual coyote in the same way that supernatural gods are often caricatures or exaggerations of human beings.

I know this, hence the dillema I bring up in the OP.That is what this whole thread is about.What I am questioning here is whether one who says that the existential claims of supernatural gods are FALSE is actually making an assertion at all.Nothing can be disproven but it seems to me that there is no more evidence for gods than there is for a 1000’ tall fire-breathing ape and yet no one would fault me for saying that 1000’ tall fire-breathing apes do not exist on this planet and I think no one SHOULD fault me for saying gods do not exist in this universe(and if these things exist in another universe who cares?The agnostic argument would apply then that their existence would not matter anyway.We could never know about them!).

19

I suppose there might be a theist or two who would say “I know in my heart that Wile E. Coyote is real, that he died for my sins (and always get resurrected), and that he loves me.” This makes as much sense as anything else they say.

But seriously, the whole dichotomy between “strong” and “weak” atheism has to do with the epistemological issue of certainty. You might ask yourself “What would it take to make me certain that there is no god?”. Would you have to look into every nook and cranny in the universe in order to be certain, or are there realistic logical criteria? If you conclude that we can’t really be certain of *anything, * well, are you really *certain * of that?

20

Denial of a claim is no different than an assertion of it from the perspective of a burden of proof. Both are assertions requiring argument.