Strong and weak atheism make a clear distinction between rejecting a belief in god [practical behaviour as if god doesnt exist, even though he just might] and asserting the belief that god doesn't exist [an ideological claim that claims the god is knowable and that he doesnt exist]. I want to try and reconcile the two and say that the difference is a matter of probability - to the knowability of god and his existence. High knowability [gnostism] gives rise to strong a/theist while the opposite leads to weak a/theist. Belief in belief is another plane independent of these two. I use below a slightly modified former post of mine.
God, if omnipotent, is under no obligation to do anything his omnipotence makes him capable of doing. So omnipotence couldn't rule out agnositism, and the choice in belief can be therefore independant of the "contradiction". On the other hand, this doen't leave the situation 50-50. The point that if god is omnipotent he should make himself observable is not an absolute measure of god's presence, but its a good probabilistic weight against the claim of theism. Theists sometimes miss out that the stand of atheism is not a belief claim or a denial of god because its a probablity claim.
No sensible atheist would say that god doesn't exist for sure, because the prime reason as well as the main alternative to theism is science [though the two could coexist and do so for about 7-9% of the scientific elite]. One could therefore only make a claim of probability [as required by scientism], like the existence of god being as likely as...say....spagetti monster, pink unicorn, celestial teapot, bigfoot, santa, etc. but a claim of absolute atheism [strong atheism] is a faith claim, its a claim similiar to saying you know exactly how many heads or tails will come up in 10K flips. Weak atheism is akin to saying that the exact number is unknowable [until flipped] and till then based on weighting of the coin and motion of the hand, etc, a probability of around 45-55% can be ascertained.
The claim to existence of god is similiar, but the coin is weighted - by observations, philosophy and the sciences. The yes side is losing the weight and the no side is being reinforced by science and philosophy, thereby shifting the probability, [IMPO] to somewhere around 85-95%. Like Zeno's paradox, we would never call it an even 100, it will always be 99.something, like it is today for the animal spirit that warns warblers when a cat approaches [fictitious example animism in tribal people]. Which is where the scientific methods of modelling and theorising come in, and the naturalist model is maintained as the only one, given its theories are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a fitting and parsimonious explaination - like coincidence, placebo, baises, etc. And that is how [IMO] atheists resolve their rejection of the belief in God, something they cannot be certain about, only so much sure.
God, if omnipotent, is under no obligation to do anything his omnipotence makes him capable of doing. So omnipotence couldn't rule out agnositism, and the choice in belief can be therefore independant of the "contradiction". On the other hand, this doen't leave the situation 50-50. The point that if god is omnipotent he should make himself observable is not an absolute measure of god's presence, but its a good probabilistic weight against the claim of theism. Theists sometimes miss out that the stand of atheism is not a belief claim or a denial of god because its a probablity claim.
No sensible atheist would say that god doesn't exist for sure, because the prime reason as well as the main alternative to theism is science [though the two could coexist and do so for about 7-9% of the scientific elite]. One could therefore only make a claim of probability [as required by scientism], like the existence of god being as likely as...say....spagetti monster, pink unicorn, celestial teapot, bigfoot, santa, etc. but a claim of absolute atheism [strong atheism] is a faith claim, its a claim similiar to saying you know exactly how many heads or tails will come up in 10K flips. Weak atheism is akin to saying that the exact number is unknowable [until flipped] and till then based on weighting of the coin and motion of the hand, etc, a probability of around 45-55% can be ascertained.
The claim to existence of god is similiar, but the coin is weighted - by observations, philosophy and the sciences. The yes side is losing the weight and the no side is being reinforced by science and philosophy, thereby shifting the probability, [IMPO] to somewhere around 85-95%. Like Zeno's paradox, we would never call it an even 100, it will always be 99.something, like it is today for the animal spirit that warns warblers when a cat approaches [fictitious example animism in tribal people]. Which is where the scientific methods of modelling and theorising come in, and the naturalist model is maintained as the only one, given its theories are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a fitting and parsimonious explaination - like coincidence, placebo, baises, etc. And that is how [IMO] atheists resolve their rejection of the belief in God, something they cannot be certain about, only so much sure.
