Strong vs Weak Atheism

[46AND2]

This is mostly a question for the atheists on the board, but I’d certainly welcome comments from anyone.

Edit to add definitions: For the sake of clarity, I define weak atheist as someone who is both agnostic and atheistic. Whereas strong atheism is only atheistic. Strong atheists could be considered gnostic, but not to be confused with what we know as traditional gnosticism. Gnosis just means knowledge.

Agnosticism refers to the lack of knowledge. As a weak atheist, I do not claim to know that there are no gods, so I am agnostic with respect to the existence of gods. However, I do not believe in any god, therefore I am also atheistic, as atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god.

I had a conversation with my brother tonight. He is a strong atheist, in that he holds the positive claim that there are no gods. My argument was that according to the scientific method, nothing can be absolutely proven; that this is what makes the scientific method work. Nothing is immune from skepticism, or we would not be open to consider any and all possibilities, and let future evidence guide us to a conclusion. I also mentioned that you cannot prove the absence of something; at least not without accounting for everything else in a given space.

His first response was that the idea of god is not science but philosophy. I don’t think this distinction matters. But his point is that if we have been given no evidence of something, there is no reason to consider it a possibility; that just because somebody conjures up a belief of something out of nowhere, does not mean that we should count it among things that may produce evidence in the future.

To which I said that he is overstating my position of considering something “possible.” If I am running an experiment, I have no need to consider the “possibility” that god may be influencing the data. One can have zero belief in something, and yet not rule out the possibility of being proven wrong in the future. Indeed, one can believe that it is irrational to accept something, and still maintain skepticism, citing unknown future observations. He does not see a distinction. Basically, he feels that if you have zero belief in something, you have already ruled it out, and considered it impossible.

Anyway, just curious about how you handle this issue in relation to the scientific method, and maybe correct any misinterpretations I may have.

 

[Radagast]

Isn't your "weak atheism" just agnosticism?

 

[46AND2]

Isn't your "weak atheism" just agnosticism?

No.

 

[Jro]

I think it's difficult to maintain strong atheism simply because of the diversity of deities. You can argue that certain critters might have internal incoherencies that prevent their existence, but some versions of 'gods' are just overpowered dungeons and dragons characters. I'd have difficulty distinguishing between the powers of some of the aliens described by Arthur C. Clarke and those of Greek gods, for example.

 

[46AND2]

I think it's difficult to maintain strong atheism simply because of the diversity of deities. You can argue that certain critters might have internal incoherencies that prevent their existence, but some versions of 'gods' are just overpowered dungeons and dragons characters. I'd have difficulty distinguishing between the powers of some of the aliens described by Arthur C. Clarke and those of Greek gods, for example.

I made the same point, essentially. His feeling is that none of those propositions should have even been posited in the first place, without evidence, therefore no consideration need be given to rule out or in.

 

[46AND2]

I made the same point, essentially. His feeling is that none of those propositions should have even been posited in the first place, without evidence, therefore no consideration need be given to rule out or in.

And I think he has a point, IF you can know that no evidence has ever been provided. For example, we know that there has not been any evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can't prove that it doesn't exist, but neither should we consider it as a future possibility.

However, we cannot rule out that a god may have interacted with people 2000 years ago, but no longer does so. In that case, the claim of a god is not simply an arbitrary concoction of primitive minds. We can speculate that it probably was, and through inconsistencies we can rule out the definitions that people currently hold about the nature of any god. But we cannot rule out that these inconsistencies might only be derived from embellishments in the descriptions of true events.

 

[contango]

This is mostly a question for the atheists on the board, but I’d certainly welcome comments from anyone.

I had a conversation with my brother tonight. He is a strong atheist, in that he holds the positive claim that there are no gods. My argument was that according to the scientific method, nothing can be absolutely proven; that this is what makes the scientific method work. Nothing is immune from skepticism, or we would not be open to consider any and all possibilities, and let future evidence guide us to a conclusion. I also mentioned that you cannot prove the absence of something; at least not without accounting for everything else in a given space.

What you call "strong atheism" appears to be an active belief in the non-existence of gods, so presumably "weak atheism" is a passive non-belief which might be better described as agnosticism.

The statement "I do not believe in God" could mean an active "I believe there is no God" or a more passive "I have no active belief either way", i.e. "I am undecided".

To use some specific examples I have an active belief that there is a keyboard on my desk - I am typing using it. I have an active belief that there is no unicorn hiding under my bed. I have a passive belief that the state of Nevada exists even though I have never been there and never seen any specific evidence for its existence that couldn't be fabricated.

His first response was that the idea of god is not science but philosophy. I don’t think this distinction matters. But his point is that if we have been given no evidence of something, there is no reason to consider it a possibility; that just because somebody conjures up a belief of something out of nowhere, does not mean that we should count it among things that may produce evidence in the future.

There's little point trying to use science to dis/prove something that transcends science.

Your brother is using clever ideas to try and bring down your discussion when those same clever ideas fail spectacularly when applied elsewhere.

I have been given no evidence of the existence of the state of Nevada. I've spoken to a guy who claims to come from Nevada, I've seen maps showing a place called Nevada on the map, and I've seen satellite photos on Google Maps. But I've seen no evidence that couldn't be easily fabricated, so therefore I have no reason to consider the existence of Nevada to be a possibility.

To which I said that he is overstating my position of considering something “possible.” If I am running an experiment, I have no need to consider the “possibility” that god may be influencing the data. One can have zero belief in something, and yet not rule out the possibility of being proven wrong in the future. Indeed, one can believe that it is irrational to accept something, and still maintain skepticism, citing unknown future observations. He does not see a distinction. Basically, he feels that if you have zero belief in something, you have already ruled it out, and considered it impossible.

Most things faith-based cannot be falsified and so scientific methods don't really work. If you start looking at "possibilities" then before long you can do silly stuff, like claiming that gravity is a myth and the reasons things fall to the earth is because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is hiding under the ground with a giant vacuum cleaner.

Anyway, just curious about how you handle this issue in relation to the scientific method, and maybe correct any misinterpretations I may have.

In some ways science is trumped by personal experience, when that experience contradicts the known laws of science. Even then it doesn't explicitly prove the existence of deities but it does suggest that something is missing from the known laws of science.

Just as I might deny that the state of Nevada exists, the person who lives there might shrug and invite me to deny it all they want because they've been there, they've seen it, they've lived there, so they know for a fact it exists. I could argue all I want that what they have experienced is really an extension of Utah (which itself may or may not exist) but their direct personal experience trumps my disbelief.

In the same way if you have experienced God your experience will trump the disbelief of another. Even so, the person who doesn't want to believe isn't going to believe your accounts. It has been said that the atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a burglar can never find a policeman.

 

[46AND2]

For the sake of clarity, I define weak atheist as someone who is both agnostic and atheistic. Whereas strong atheism is only atheistic. Strong atheists could be considered gnostic, but not to be confused with what we know as traditional gnosticism. Gnosis just means knowledge.

Agnosticism refers to the lack of knowledge. As a weak atheist, I do not claim to know that there are no gods, so I am agnostic with respect to the existence of gods. However, I do not believe in any god, therefore I am also atheistic, as atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god.


There doesn't seem to be a consensus about the meaning of these words, so I should have included this explanation in the OP. My bad. FWIW, these are the definitions which I accept, and how I would like them to be used to cover the discussion. Ultimately, the distinction between my brother and I is that he actively believes there are no gods, and I do not accept the same positive claim. Labels are irrelevant; the philosophies are what is important here.

 

[Jamin4422]

just because somebody conjures up a belief of something out of nowhere,

What evidence to you have that would lead you to believe that God is a conjured up belief. What evidence do you have that God does not exist even if there are people with a false conjured up belief? If you can find one person with a conjured up belief does that falsify the chance that God could exist? God does not need us, it is us that needs God.

 

[46AND2]

What evidence to you have that would lead you to believe that God is a conjured up belief. What evidence do you have that God does not exist even if there are people with a false conjured up belief? If you can find one person with a conjured up belief does that falsify the chance that God could exist? God does not need us, it is us that needs God.

I've already stated that I can't prove any of these things, and that is why I cannot rule out a god. Those are questions you would have to ask my brother. He's the one making the positive claim, not me.

That said, you probably don't want to ask him. If you think I'm bad, he's much more anti-religion than I.

 

[46AND2]

What evidence to you have that would lead you to believe that God is a conjured up belief. What evidence do you have that God does not exist even if there are people with a false conjured up belief? If you can find one person with a conjured up belief does that falsify the chance that God could exist? God does not need us, it is us that needs God.

My previous post aside, I do have reason to at least consider the possibility that god was a conjured belief. Mostly due to the lack of adequate evidence and the inconsistencies between all religions I have looked into; both internally, and when compared against each other. But that would only be evidence that gods don't exist as they are defined by current religions. It does not rule out a god that does not currently have an accurate description.

 

[46AND2]

What you call "strong atheism" appears to be an active belief in the non-existence of gods, so presumably "weak atheism" is a passive non-belief which might be better described as agnosticism.

The statement "I do not believe in God" could mean an active "I believe there is no God" or a more passive "I have no active belief either way", i.e. "I am undecided".

To use some specific examples I have an active belief that there is a keyboard on my desk - I am typing using it. I have an active belief that there is no unicorn hiding under my bed. I have a passive belief that the state of Nevada exists even though I have never been there and never seen any specific evidence for its existence that couldn't be fabricated.



There's little point trying to use science to dis/prove something that transcends science.

Your brother is using clever ideas to try and bring down your discussion when those same clever ideas fail spectacularly when applied elsewhere.

I have been given no evidence of the existence of the state of Nevada. I've spoken to a guy who claims to come from Nevada, I've seen maps showing a place called Nevada on the map, and I've seen satellite photos on Google Maps. But I've seen no evidence that couldn't be easily fabricated, so therefore I have no reason to consider the existence of Nevada to be a possibility.



Most things faith-based cannot be falsified and so scientific methods don't really work. If you start looking at "possibilities" then before long you can do silly stuff, like claiming that gravity is a myth and the reasons things fall to the earth is because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is hiding under the ground with a giant vacuum cleaner.



In some ways science is trumped by personal experience, when that experience contradicts the known laws of science. Even then it doesn't explicitly prove the existence of deities but it does suggest that something is missing from the known laws of science.

Just as I might deny that the state of Nevada exists, the person who lives there might shrug and invite me to deny it all they want because they've been there, they've seen it, they've lived there, so they know for a fact it exists. I could argue all I want that what they have experienced is really an extension of Utah (which itself may or may not exist) but their direct personal experience trumps my disbelief.

In the same way if you have experienced God your experience will trump the disbelief of another. Even so, the person who doesn't want to believe isn't going to believe your accounts. It has been said that the atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a burglar can never find a policeman.

Thanks for the response. I'll have to reply later. I've got to get some sleep.

 

[AV1611VET]

An agnostic is an atheist under conviction.

 

[contango]

There doesn't seem to be a consensus about the meaning of these words, so I should have included this explanation in the OP. My bad. FWIW, these are the definitions which I accept, and how I would like them to be used to cover the discussion. Ultimately, the distinction between my brother and I is that he actively believes there are no gods, and I do not accept the same positive claim. Labels are irrelevant; the philosophies are what is important here.

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I agree that the labels are irrelevant, but clarification is good so that people know where others are coming from. If someone identifies as "atheist" it's good to know whether they mean "I do not believe in God" in a passive way, or "I believe there is no God" in a more active way.

 

[Elendur]

See:
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that I fall into a mixed category of "Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism", "Ignosticism", "Weak agnosticism" and "Spiritual agnosticism".
(Given those explanations in the wiki)

• I don't know if there exist, or not, a deity.
• There is no clear evidence that I know of, that either indicates one or indicates the lack of one.
• There is certainly no proof of one, or against.

These three points might change with time, but right now there's two points for me that won't change:

• Discussing the existence, or non-existence, of a 'god' is useless if no one have defined clearly what the concept is. (If the definition is bad, then it's up for debate)
• I judge you by your actions, not your belief.

I have my hopes for several things, but hold no belief in them.

As for the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, meh I think you made a good distinction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Basically, he feels that if you have zero belief in something, you have already ruled it out, and considered it impossible.

If I understand that right, he's basically saying there's no difference between strong and weak atheists. I would disagree; I see the distinction, even if in many cases it's a distinction with no difference. A lack of belief is not a belief in a lack.

I consider myself a strong atheist, primarily because I can't state the 'weak' position on similar matters with a straight face. Weak a-fairyism: "I lack belief in fairies." No, that really doesn't go far enough. "I believe there are no fairies." That truthfully reflects my opinion.

Certainly what you say about skepticism and the scientific method is true: all knowledge is tentative and subject to revision, based on further evidence or a better hypothesis.

But there are worse things in the universe than being wrong about something, and having to change your mind. I would be delighted if compelling evidence of fairies were produced, and I had to discard a false belief I previously held.

"nothing can be absolutely proven" - If proof is the threshold for belief, then one would be able to believe very few things, apart from mathematics.

 

[Michael]

His first response was that the idea of god is not science but philosophy. I don’t think this distinction matters. But his point is that if we have been given no evidence of something, there is no reason to consider it a possibility; that just because somebody conjures up a belief of something out of nowhere, does not mean that we should count it among things that may produce evidence in the future.

To which I said that he is overstating my position of considering something “possible.” If I am running an experiment, I have no need to consider the “possibility” that god may be influencing the data. One can have zero belief in something, and yet not rule out the possibility of being proven wrong in the future. Indeed, one can believe that it is irrational to accept something, and still maintain skepticism, citing unknown future observations. He does not see a distinction. Basically, he feels that if you have zero belief in something, you have already ruled it out, and considered it impossible.

Anyway, just curious about how you handle this issue in relation to the scientific method, and maybe correct any misinterpretations I may have.

I would say that you are correct on this point. There is in fact an "empirical" way to define "God":

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

At some point all cosmology theories and questions about our origin become "philosophical" in nature. For instance, is it "acceptable" to simply "make up" new forms of matter and energy to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the universe? Is 96 percent of the universe really 'unseen' in any lab on Earth, and if so, isn't that also a 'philosophical' claim?

In my experience the "strong atheistic claim" that God is not a "scientific" topic is directly related to that 'gnosis' thing you mentioned. Since he assumes "knowledge" that God does not exist, he *imagines* that no scientific explanation of God could ever exist. It's a "belief system" that stems from his strong atheism, and he cannot defend it. Invite him to participate in that thread, and I'll be happy to demonstrate that point to him.

 

[contango]

Good point above - "I believe there is no God" is as much a statement of faith as "I believe there is a God".

 

[essentialsaltes]

For instance, is it "acceptable" to simply "make up" new forms of matter and energy to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the universe?

Dark matter or dark energy are not 'made up' to 'fill a gap' in understanding. They are supposed because we *do* understand something about the universe, namely general relativity. If GR is correct, then these entities are required to match observations. If GR is incorrect... well, there are scientists working on alternatives and variations.

(As an analogy, the idea of an iron core to our planet (which has never been directly observed) is required by our understanding of gravity, magnetism, density, geology, and models of planetary formation. It is not 'made up' to fill the 'gap' in our knowledge, due to the fact that no one has ever taken a journey to the center of the earth to see what's there.)

 

[Davian]

What evidence to you have that would lead you to believe that God is a conjured up belief.

The inability for individuals, such as yourself, to substantiate your claims for the existence of your god.

What evidence do you have that God does not exist even if there are people with a false conjured up belief?

Is not asking others to prove a negative is an act of desperation.

If you can find one person with a conjured up belief does that falsify the chance that God could exist?

Provide a testable definition of what you mean by "God".

God does not need us, it is us that needs God.

Speak for yourself, Jazer.