Forget the church, follow the man
- Thread starter Grumpy
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure where I first encountered that phrase. Probably on some discussion board, probably before I arrived here. (alt.atheism, maybe, back in the day...) I don't recall seeing the distinction between 'strong atheist' and 'weak atheist' being used very much in the professional philosophy of religion literature though. It's more of an internet thing, I guess.
What do I mean by 'strong atheist'? Somebody who asserts 'I believe that God doesn't exist'.
As opposed to 'weak atheist' who says 'I don't believe in God', intending it to mean 'I lack belief in God' without denying God's existence.
You already know (we've already argued about it enough) that I don't think very highly of attempts to identify all atheism with simple lack of belief.
As for me, I'm quite willing to say that I'm reasonably certain that the Biblical Yahweh doesn't correspond to anything in reality beyond human myth and imagination. I'm a lot less certain about it when the word 'God' is defined Greek-style as some of the philosophical functions: first-cause, ground-of-being etc. I don't have a clue what, if anything, corresponds to those ideas.
So I'm a strong atheist regarding Yahweh, Allah, Krishna and that crew. And I'm more of a weak atheist ontologically and an agnostic epistemologically regarding the philosophical functions, the object(s) (if any) of mystical experience, and whatnot. I don't really know what accounts for the universe being here, but I don't actively believe in any supernatural first-causes at this point either.
Yazata
Dawkins has a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being a theist who says "I know god exists , he talks to me every day"(IE a Strong Theist) and 7 being an atheist who says "There are no gods in any form"(IE a Strong Atheist). Both one and seven are indefensible positions as no evidence of the truth of those claims can be produced. 4 is a pure agnostic, not tilting toward either side. A 2 would be a theist who claims to be sure a god exists(his specific god)(a Weak Theist), 3 an agnostic who leans toward the theist side but cannot say what his characteristics might be. A 5 is an agnostic that doubts the existence of gods(but cannot know), a 6 is an atheist that has concluded god does not exist, but cannot be certain(a Weak Atheist). On this scale I, like Dawkins himself, am a 6.9. I cannot say with certainty that there is no god, but I think the probability he does exist is exceedingly small. As a scientist(using the term loosely)that is about as certain as it is possible to be and still be reasonable.
A Strong Atheist, to me, says there are no gods, period. I was just asking if this is what you meant(I do not feel I should assume anything about others meanings).
Grumpy
Dawkins has a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being a theist who says "I know god exists , he talks to me every day"(IE a Strong Theist) and 7 being an atheist who says "There are no gods in any form"(IE a Strong Atheist). Both one and seven are indefensible positions as no evidence of the truth of those claims can be produced. 4 is a pure agnostic, not tilting toward either side. A 2 would be a theist who claims to be sure a god exists(his specific god)(a Weak Theist), 3 an agnostic who leans toward the theist side but cannot say what his characteristics might be. A 5 is an agnostic that doubts the existence of gods(but cannot know), a 6 is an atheist that has concluded god does not exist, but cannot be certain(a Weak Atheist). On this scale I, like Dawkins himself, am a 6.9. I cannot say with certainty that there is no god, but I think the probability he does exist is exceedingly small. As a scientist(using the term loosely)that is about as certain as it is possible to be and still be reasonable.
A Strong Atheist, to me, says there are no gods, period. I was just asking if this is what you meant(I do not feel I should assume anything about others meanings).
Grumpy
Adstar
Not in 6000 years, they don't.
Grumpy
Not at current speeds they don't. Have you ever heard about pole shift.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Adstar
Yes, and all sorts of other woo as well. Such explanations IGNORE science, they are not scientific explanations. Such a sudden shift would generate so much heat in the crust that it would melt. The shifting of continental plates represents HUGE amounts of energy, it drives earthquakes, for just one thing. If a sudden shift occurred the rubble of the rubble would bounce just before it all melted into a puddle. The only reason the crust doesn't melt from this energy is that it is spread over millions and hundreds of millions of years.
If it is the shift in the magnetic poles you are speaking of, it has little effect on the material of the crust other than to change the orientation of the fields frozen into the lava coming from volcanoes(that's how we are able to track those changes in the magnetic fields). The magnetic poles have shifted many times throughout the history of the world with no geological effects at all.
Grumpy
Yes, and all sorts of other woo as well. Such explanations IGNORE science, they are not scientific explanations. Such a sudden shift would generate so much heat in the crust that it would melt. The shifting of continental plates represents HUGE amounts of energy, it drives earthquakes, for just one thing. If a sudden shift occurred the rubble of the rubble would bounce just before it all melted into a puddle. The only reason the crust doesn't melt from this energy is that it is spread over millions and hundreds of millions of years.
If it is the shift in the magnetic poles you are speaking of, it has little effect on the material of the crust other than to change the orientation of the fields frozen into the lava coming from volcanoes(that's how we are able to track those changes in the magnetic fields). The magnetic poles have shifted many times throughout the history of the world with no geological effects at all.
Grumpy
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Not quite accurate. (I'm not sure if these are Dawkins' definitions or your paraphrases. I hope they're yours because I'd hate to be the one claiming Dawkins made a logical misstep.)
7 is indeed indefensible; it is impossible - even in principle - to prove a negative, such as to know that something does not exist.
But 1 is quite defensible.
1] It could - in principle - be proven true tomorrow, if the clouds parted and a colossal bearded man with a staff appeared and carried us all up into the clouds. (The same cannot be said for 7. We atheists will never have irrefutable proof.)
2] It is often argued that there is "evidence" of God's existence all around us. The fact that us atheists people do not consider it convincing evidence does not mean that evidence was not brought forth. God is one explanation for the universe and life on Earth, it's just not one that atheists can get behind.
Anyone remember the catchphrase for Project Bluebook? "We can't tell you you didn't see something."
So, 7 ("I know God does not exist") is a flawed stance in both principle and practice.
1 ("I know God exists") is a valid stance in principle, though in practice atheists and theists disagree.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
That's a bit of internet folk-wisdom, I think. Unfortunately, it isn't exactly true. There isn't any principle in formal logic that says 'one can't prove a negative'. Logicians do it all the time, it's totally routine.
For example, I want to know whether there's a sock in my drawer. So I open my drawer and look. There are three objects in the drawer and I look at each of them in turn, and none of them is a sock. So I demonstrate, by simple enumeration in this example, that there's no sock in my drawer.
General statements about all X's can be disproven too, if the statements in question can be shown to imply a contradiction. That's a reductio-ad-absurdem proof and they are routine in logic and mathematics.
It can get complicated, but it's possible to show using more advanced model theory, that sometimes it's a lot easier to prove a negative than to prove a positive. That depends on issues like the nature of the universe of discourse.
I'm going to disagree with that one too.
I think of this as the "Independence Day problem'. (The reference is to that 1990's science fiction movie where 15 mile wide flying saucers appear over the world's major cities.)
The thing is, no matter how impressive the light-show, we still don't know whether whatever is responsible for it is a god. In other words, we don't know whether the responsible party is a suitable object for religious worship.
The underlying philosophical issue is that events that transcend our human experience occupy a logical space that we can call the unknown. If any gods exist, then presumably they are out there in the unknown too. The problem is that if everything out there is unknown, just by definition, we aren't going to have any means of distinguishing the divine stuff from the non-divine stuff.
I think that the universe is probably consistent with many different theologies. That's to be expected if the theologies were dreamed up by beings that are resident in the universe.
It depends on how strongly we construe the word 'know'. If it means 'no possibility of error', then I agree with you. But probably no real-life human statement could ever satisfy that strong condition. If it means something weaker, like 'I personally believe with a high level of subjective certainty', then #7 is probably fine.
I think that similar problems exist with that one too. As I suggested up above, there's a problem with human beings knowing whether any of their experiences is truly an experience of a god, a being worthy of religious worship. Believers might possess a high level of subjective certainty, but they can't evade the possibility of error.
@Adstar --
Gunna need a citation for this....or is it merely your opinion?
@Dave --
As others have already said, it is quite possible to prove a negative when the parameters are properly defined. For example, if you hand me a box and tell me that there's a cat in it I can prove that there isn't in numerous ways. If I shake the box and it turns out to be empty then I have conclusively proven that there isn't a cat in that box, alternatively I could simply open it and see that there is no cat in there, again proving a negative.
Similarly an absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence when the evidence should be there.
Gunna need a citation for this....or is it merely your opinion?
@Dave --
As others have already said, it is quite possible to prove a negative when the parameters are properly defined. For example, if you hand me a box and tell me that there's a cat in it I can prove that there isn't in numerous ways. If I shake the box and it turns out to be empty then I have conclusively proven that there isn't a cat in that box, alternatively I could simply open it and see that there is no cat in there, again proving a negative.
Similarly an absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence when the evidence should be there.
The way I see it, the pressing issue in these discussions about God and God's existence is the private and public relevance of a person's knowledge claim in the social context the person lives in.
In a monocultural, monoreligious society, making a knowledge claim about God is an ordinary and desirable phenomenon (and the more in line with the accepted religious doctrine the claim is, the less there is any request to support it scripturally/doctrinally/in any other way).
That same claim, but spoken by someone living in a multicultural, multireligious society, will be treated differently by the people living in said society. Quite likely, the person will be criticized, and also requested to provide arguments to convince anyone who has expressed doubts about said knowledge claim. This can be a never ending process with serious negative effects is the maker of the claim isn't able to control the impression other people have of him.
This way, living in a multicultural, multireligious society brings on justificatory and practical social challenges that people otherwise do not face.
Sure, but normally, this isn't a problem, as all major religions request their followers to develop humility, which tempers prideful certainty.
But like I said - living in a multicultural, multireligious society brings on justificatory and practical social challenges that people otherwise do not face. And I think that underlying many discussions and debates about God (and negative feelings in them) are precisely people's efforts to maintain, on the one hand, faithfulness to what one believes to be true, as well as, on the other hand, a good reputation.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's not folk wisdom; you must appreciate the context in which the statement is made. I'll elaborate (pehaps I shouldn't have used shorthand in the first place). While it's true you can prove something is not "in a box"; you can't prove something doesn't exist at all - which is what this is about.
Well, that's true. I'll give you that one. The ol' 'can an omni-powerful being create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it' gambit.
Therein lies madness. It raises the question: is there anything at all that could convince us that God exists? What would he have to do blow up a star? Make day into night? Introduce us to our dead loved ones?
Scientifically, we know theory is not a theory if it can't be falsified. But the corollary is also true: a rejection of a hypothesis is not a valid rejection if there is no possible condition under which we could ever accept it. It is simply closing one's mind. So, we must allow the possibility that some condition as defined by us being met will cause us to accept that the creature before us is God - while remaining content that that condition will never be met.
How about "I know and can demonstrate it to others"?
It is conceivable that a theist could present some evidence that demonstrates God's existence. There's no way an atheist can demontrate God's nonexistence. The best an atheist can do is demonstrate that the universe works perfectly well without his interference.
i.e. perhaps He exists but has retired.
The parameters are "exists at all".
Well, it is open to debate, even among theists, just how much God dabbles in our lives. What constitutes evidence that "should" be there?
The fact that we can satisfactorily prove that the Earth was not created 6000 years ago, is not evidence that God does not exist. It is simply evidence that He is not meddling as much as theists used to think. They can revise their theories too.
(Of course, the problem with that is nicely highlit by Sagan's Invisible Garage Dragon. We can't prove it does not exist, especially since they'll move the goalposts every time we devise a test. The atheist's defense though it that we don't need to prove it in order to move about our business with the extremely confident assumption that it does not.)
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. I was conceding. It is possible to demonstrate the a thing X does not exist anywhere in the universe if you can demonstrate it contradicts itself.
No, I think Grumpy was saying that the "omnipotent being creating a rock so heavy even he cannot lift" is itself a contradictory argument, so you had nothing to concede.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
:sigh: Let's review.
I claimed one cannot prove the nonexistence of something somewhere in the universe. (i.e. One cannot prove there is no God in the universe)
It was pointed out that one can prove a thing's nonexistence if one can show it to be self-contradictory.
I conceded that that was true. The simple concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory, therefore it is, in some circumstances, possible to show the nonexistence of something.
Let's move on. It was a small concession. My claim was too simplistic.
My original statement still stands. You still cannot prove that there is no God anywhere in the universe.
I am not saying anything about whether that means he might exist; I am simply pointing out that, in principle, theists have a stronger argument than atheists. Theists can be vindicated; atheists cannot.
@Dave --
You're right about that, especially given the legion of god concepts we're presented by various theists. You can't demonstrate or falsify something that lacks properly defined parameters.
However given that a god is both not needed as an explanation for anything and not demonstrable I feel fine with leaving on the wayside until it's either demonstrated or needed.
You're right about that, especially given the legion of god concepts we're presented by various theists. You can't demonstrate or falsify something that lacks properly defined parameters.
However given that a god is both not needed as an explanation for anything and not demonstrable I feel fine with leaving on the wayside until it's either demonstrated or needed.
In the meantime, you'll talk about these topics as if you knew them as clearly as the back of your hand.
Indeed, why should it ...