Proof of Strong Atheism

[andyandy]

did i miss the proof?

 

[Piggy]

I have a proposed subtheory that I would like you to analyze with your arguments. Some of you might recognize this proposed subtheory, from St. Anselm.

God is an entity, greater than which nothing can be conceived.

This definition merely reproduces the fatal plasticity of the uber-concept.

It also defines God in terms of human concepts, not in terms of phenomenal reality.

And it allows God to be merely the brute forces of nature.

 

[Piggy]

No I wouldn't. That's all I'm saying. Now hold on a minute because there seems to be a lot of the previous thread you guys were chatting in here. All I'm saying is that with sufficient evidence I'd accept pretty much anything to be true. Nothing more. If this is completely off topic then sorry, I thought it was... I didn't mean to offend, or be insulted... Thought we were having a friendly conversation here.

I don't mean to sound insulting. Typing can be tricky business b/c the inflection is gone. I'm typing in a flat tone.

Yes, I certainly agree that with sufficient evidence we must accept some pretty bizarre things (like the stuff we're discussing in the Big Bang thread).

But the question at hand is this: Is it reasonable to ask that God-theory not be discarded on the basis of expectation of new evidence?

My answer is clearly no.

Some propositions are so incoherent that no core qualities adhere -- such as the uber-concept of "god" -- and so there's nothing coherent for any alleged new evidence to apply to.

Some propositions -- such as flat earth, geocentrism, Lamarckian evolution, and controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers -- are so thoroughly debunked that we can move on, with no expectation of new evidence.

A generic appeal to the potential for some undefined "new evidence" is not sufficient to save these notions.

 

[Piggy]

did i miss the proof?

Perhaps.

Or perhaps I'm carrying over memories of what has been discussed in the parent thread, so I haven't expressed it thoroughly.

I have to go dance on a pole for money right now, but I'll post a succinct expression of the reasoning tonight.

But I will say that the challenge is real. In the context of this thread, it only requires one coherent definition of "God" which can be meaningfully said to possibly be real, and the books are held open a little longer at least.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But to me that's "weak" atheism. Strong, to me, is blind faith there are no gods and the utter refusal to admit any evidence to the contrary. That view, of course, is silly. Then again, I don't know of too many atheists who hold this view. Well, maybe certain philosophy students...

There really isn't any evidence of any gods. So if a person says "there are no gods" is it because of strong atheism or weak atheism?

 

[exarch]

Another Repost from parent thread:

That Infernal Ratchet

Asimov, in Yahzi's link, said it much better than I could.

And yet we continually run across this argument, from educated and sensible people, that because humankind has a history of being wrong about a great many things, we must therefore conclude that we might be wrong about everything. Popular misunderstandings of Kuhn have not helped the situation.

The problem with this notion is that, as Asimov points out, the very fact that we know we have been wrong is in itself proof that we can get it right. For some notions, there is a level of proof which serves as a ratchet, preventing us from ever returning to the old notions, unless of course we destroy our civilizations to such an extent that our accepted body of knowledge is wiped out.

Sorry if this post doesn't fit in this thread, but here's my 2 cents:

And yet, I think that in any debate about "existence", the default position should be "no, it doesn't", which can only change to "yes, we found it" when evidence for its existence is discovered. It works that way for hypothetical Kuyper-belt objects becoming the 10th planet in our solar system (and now that they've been found, dwarf planets). It works that way in biology (white grizzly bears might exist? Well, find one and you've proven your hypothesis). I don't see why "god" should be any different.

Yet believers work the other way around. They start out from the assumption that god exists, then work their way backwards to finding the proof that he does. That he must.

On a few occasions I've compared religion to a giant hovering ball of interlinked beams and ropes. It all looks very sturdy, everything is interconnected and no matter how much you shake the separate parts, nothing budges. It's some quality workmanship.
But in the end, you could crawl around all you want looking for a foundation, a connection to the ground, to reality, only to discover that it doesn't really exist, it's just suspended in the air. It all interconnects with each other, and some parts may look like they're connected to the ground, but they don't. And this is because the premise (god exists) is incorrect.
Of course, there's always a chance someone, some day will find that illustrious connection, at which point every atheist in the world will change their mind and become religious. But until then, it's all nothing more than a pretty theory (in the common language use of the word theory) just floating around, being not very useful at all.

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Hey I like that, good example.

I see this argument come from a couple of sources, one is the Pope. It is expressed something like - 'we should act like we have faith in God, even if we cannot have faith'. (paraphrased, I can look it up). I think this is based on the belief that faith is a source of knowledge about morality(?).

The other is of Islamic origin but sounds about the same - Without a belief in God we are left with taking the place of a god, and this lack of thankfulness or humility before something greater is fundamentally destructive. Therefore belief becomes rational because it is essential for evolutionary survival, etc.

The pope has his "Descartes For Dummies" under that big dress. The French Philosopher was indeed the source of this argument. And, much like Frank Sinatra, this is Descartes world, we just live in it.

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Wearing Me Out

There really isn't any evidence of any gods. So if a person says "there are no gods" is it because of strong atheism or weak atheism?

This is one that is wearing me out, quite frankly. There are no degrees of latitude in atheism/theism. That is linguistic and logical nonsense which seems to hover over this forum like stink on an old gym sock.

Theism is a postive affirmation of an hypothesis (e.g. that there IS a god, gods, diety, death spirit, tooth fairy, Santa Claus, whatever you want it to be.) Atheism is a rejection of that hyposthesis.

Agnosticism, which literally means, when translated into english, "a lack of knowledge" means that one has no knowledge of god or gods or the tooth fairy or whatever. All of us, are essentially, agnostics. No one has yet come forward in 10,000 years of civilization to make the credible claim that they have direct knowledge of the divine. The Million Dollar Prize awaits.

One can be a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic. But if one does not affirm a belief in god - even if that person says "I just don't know if there's a god" - then that person is an atheist. If they wanna say I'm a "strong atheist" - I really MEAN it! - fine. But that adds nothing to any of this debate other than unneeded confusion and semantic cowardice.

 

[Vox Humana]

Piggy,

First, let me say that as a relative neophyte in this arena, I have enjoyed this thread (and the prior,) and have endeavored to follow it to the best of my ability. I appreciate your direct manner in defending your position, and your attempts to clearly explain it. That being said...

So basically it's the difference between freely stating "there are no gods" (which I do) and stating "I will never accept the existance of any gods" (which I don't).

Neither do I. So why do you bring this up?

However, your first post in the original thread states:

I don't know of anyone who claims that it is impossible that there is a god (or gods).

You do now. Just for the record.

I, like Douglas Adams, hold a strong atheist position: There is no God. Period.

This is not an "opinion" or "belief", anymore than it's an opinion or belief that the sun and planets do not revolve around the Earth.

We know enough about the universe at this point to positively discount all theories of God, unless (as discussed above) they are framed so weakly as to be empty, in which case they are not theories at all.

How do you reconcile your affirmation of the statement

it is impossible that there is a god (or gods).​

with your rejection of the statement

I will never accept the existance of any gods​

Also, your argument as to the incoherence of the God-theory is still puzzling to me. Your position seems to be (roughly)

1. There are many different God-theories.
2. These theories contradict each other, such that any assertion by one theory is almost certain to be controverted by at least one other.
3. Therefore there is no common ground across all God-theories.
4. Therefore there is not one correct God-theory.

Please forgive (and correct) me if I've misstated your position. Assuming I haven't butchered you too badly: I'm with you through 3, but don't see how you conclude 4, for the following reason:

The possibility exists that one God-theory is correct, regardless of how many incorrect theories exist. The fact that an incorrect theory contradicts this correct theory can in no way affect the fidelity of the correct theory.​

It is somewhat difficult for me to argue against the position of strong atheism that you've put forward throughout these threads, because I generally agree with its conclusion; from a pragmatic standpoint I am willing to say that there is no God. I think my hangup, and the hangup of many others in these threads, is that while there isn't a pragmatic difference, there is a distinct philosophical difference between the positions:

• It is almost certain that there is no God.
• It is impossible that there is a God.

Thanks,

Vox

 

[Piggy]

Re Strong/Weak

The way I'm using the terms, "weak" means merely "affirmation is absent" or "this person holds no such belief", whereas "strong" means "the idea is positively rejected".

For example, I'm weakly a-bigfootistic. I have no belief in bigfoot, but since I haven't investigated the idea enough to say absolutely that no such large primate could exist anywhere on earth, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I know (even if it's true) that the idea can be positively rejected. Perhaps if I looked into it more, I'd discover that I could positively reject it. But I'm not merely agnostic -- I'd bet just about anything that the notion is wrong, and I don't believe it's inherently unknowable.

However, I'm strongly a-leprechaunistic. Those things are purely mythical beings with magical powers, and since magical powers aren't real and there's no real reason to propose that the critters ever existed, I positively reject the possibility of their phenomenal reality.

 

[Vox Humana]

There really isn't any evidence of any gods. So if a person says "there are no gods" is it because of strong atheism or weak atheism?

On its own the statement is one of strong atheism. If modified by "I believe that" or "as far as I can tell" it becomes a statement of weak atheism. Put another way, it's the difference between whether it's treated as an axiom or as a working theory*.

IMHO, of course.

*In the coloquial sense; i.e., a belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

The way I'm using the terms, "weak" means merely "affirmation is absent" or "this person holds no such belief", whereas "strong" means "the idea is positively rejected".

Thank you for your intellectual clarity in these posts and for your willingness to bring a very bright flashlight into a very dark cave.

Let me state by saying under these terms I, too, would be a "strong atheist," but I see little relevance to parsing the language into these degrees of semantics. Further, the idea that any hypothsis is "positively rejected" leads us toward the slippery slope. As you likely know, in science there is no truly positive rejection, there is merely a percentage of precision towards assuming the likely outcome that a stated hypothesis is affirmed. That's why, on the statistical scale, the linear representation of a given histogram will never touch the X axis. In short, even the most precise predictions can never be discussed in absolutes. To do so, especially with a quotient such as the "divine," which contains no real dependent variables, approaches the non-sensical.

While we can reject the hypothesis with a great degree of personal certainty, to affirm a "positive" rejection takes us out of the language of science and into the language of dogma. That's all I'm saying - in this instance I think precise language and precise argument is of the utmost importance and that is why I reject a linear scale for "measuring" degrees of theism/atheism. Such assumptions are logically useless. It is a binary reduction. Even if one is only .01% atheist (silly to say so) one is still an atheist. To bring this nomenal assertion down any further, again, forces us into an endless debate of what constitutes "gods," "evidence," "proof," and, SHUDDER, "disproof."

 

[Piggy]

As you likely know, in science there is no truly positive rejection, there is merely a percentage of precision towards assuming the likely outcome that a stated hypothesis is affirmed.

Yes, but I am not a scientist and we are not discussing a scientific proposition. So to ask for that sort of proof would be rather strange. There was someone on another thread who demanded mathematical proof, which was downright weird.

Later tonight I'll have an opportunity to try laying the entire reasoning out in one post.

 

[Yahzi]

In order to claim "existence" for Gods which do not contradict known fact, the terms "exist", "existence", and "real" have to be attenuated to such an extent that they are indistinguishable from their opposites.

Not just those words, but all language. Note how quickly "justice" becomes its opposite when multiplied by "infinite." And "love," "mercy," and so on.

This is what is meant by describing theology as meaningless babble: to practice it, you must continuly attenuate language into incoherence. Like de-tuning your radio until the raspy signal is replaced by pure noise, and then claiming the result is the kind of music you like.

Strong, to me, is blind faith there are no gods and the utter refusal to admit any evidence to the contrary.

That definition is a strawman invented by theists. It is no more useful than pretending there was no difference between Marx and Stalin while you rail against the evils of communism.

Here is what a strong atheist says: "Believing in God is as irrational as believing in the tooth fairy, for exactly the same reasons."

Have you answered the assertion that even if there were no god(s), we should behave as if there were?

Imagine we discovered a difference in genetics; one group really is smarter than another in some tiny way. Should we care? Shouldn't we live as if there were no differences?

In fact, people are all different in ability, and yet our law grants them all the same rights. My joy is no more important than another's, even if its pretty objectively obvious that I have a greater emotional range. And we all think that is both right and necessary.

I would go further and say: there is no consciousness or free will, and yet it is necessary that we act as if there were.

However, this does not extend to the god-concept for the simple reason that acting as if there is a god produces a net negative effect on human society, not a net positive one. Even the Pope does not want people to live as if God were really real; imagine how mortified he would be if people actually followed Paul's advice and stopped having sex altogether. Furthermore, acting as if life is a trial run, with no value of its own, tends to degrade the quality of life.

So emprical evidence suggests this god-concept is neither necessary nor helpful as a required approximation.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't mean to sound insulting. Typing can be tricky business b/c the inflection is gone. I'm typing in a flat tone.

Yes, I certainly agree that with sufficient evidence we must accept some pretty bizarre things (like the stuff we're discussing in the Big Bang thread).

But the question at hand is this: Is it reasonable to ask that God-theory not be discarded on the basis of expectation of new evidence?

My answer is clearly no.

Some propositions are so incoherent that no core qualities adhere -- such as the uber-concept of "god" -- and so there's nothing coherent for any alleged new evidence to apply to.

Some propositions -- such as flat earth, geocentrism, Lamarckian evolution, and controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers -- are so thoroughly debunked that we can move on, with no expectation of new evidence.

A generic appeal to the potential for some undefined "new evidence" is not sufficient to save these notions.

I'm all too familiar with problems in the lack of tone in typing. Smilies are the only recourse.

All I can add is I pretty much agree with everything you've stated there. All I was pointing out was something that likely didn't need to be pointed out to start with, excepting those religious folks who are convinced that atheists as a general rule are religious. I merely wanted to point out that it isn't a blind faith in the absence of gods, it's the lack of evidence being as convincing as the lack of evidence in Santa, and that the main difference is simply that if they provided the evidence, we'd believe it. I doubt that'll happen and I'm not about to keep the proposition "on reserve". I'll just disregard it entirely, because if they do come up with evidence I'm sure they'll remind me of what on earth they are claiming. I'm not saying anything more than that. Blindlingly obvious statement to make for us, yes, hence why you would ask "so what?". I just thought it was worth pointing out for the religious.

 

[andyandy]

One can be a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic. But if one does not affirm a belief in god - even if that person says "I just don't know if there's a god" - then that person is an atheist. If they wanna say I'm a "strong atheist" - I really MEAN it! - fine. But that adds nothing to any of this debate other than unneeded confusion and semantic cowardice.

There is a distinction between the following statements;

i do not believe in God (weak atheism)

God does not exist (strong atheism)

God is meaningless (ignosticism)

That people should point out the differences between the three statements does not strike me as especially lilly-livered. Do you really regard atheism as brave and agnosticism as cowardly? Such rhetoric really does nothing for your position.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The proposal I want to continue here is this: We know enough now about the universe to state without reservation that God is not real.

Anyone who makes this proposal is operating on flawed logic.

Mainly because they have not surveyed all space and time to state what you desire to as a fact.

That is, they have no way of knowing if god(s) (in general, not how humans describe them or write about them in books) exist somewhere/time.

 

[Piggy]

Hi, VH. I'm just sneaking some time in, here. Will have to reply to remaining stuff later, but wanted to mention this:

Also, your argument as to the incoherence of the God-theory is still puzzling to me. Your position seems to be (roughly)

1. There are many different God-theories.
2. These theories contradict each other, such that any assertion by one theory is almost certain to be controverted by at least one other.
3. Therefore there is no common ground across all God-theories.
4. Therefore there is not one correct God-theory.

The last step isn't accurate. My position is that we can't make any meaningful statements about the uber-concept. That said, we still cannot know, on those grounds alone, whether any of the sub-theories is possible or not.

So we have to be careful, as we proceed, not to lapse back into discussion of the uber-concept (the candy-dish concept). We are forced to deal with particular entities which fit under that enormous umbrella.

If claims are to be made, then, they must be made for specific definitions, not for the uber-concept, which is incoherent.

In the previous thread, one entity was proposed as a coherent and specific definition of a particular entity which -- per the claimant -- we are obliged to recognize as potentially being phenomenally real.

Unfortunately, the simple question of "Where?" appeared to scuttle that proposal.

 

[Piggy]

Blindlingly obvious statement to make for us, yes, hence why you would ask "so what?". I just thought it was worth pointing out for the religious.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Piggy]

How do you reconcile your affirmation of the statement

it is impossible that there is a god (or gods).​

with your rejection of the statement

I will never accept the existance of any gods​

Do you have a cite for me for the first one? I believe my claim has consistently been that it is not actual, not phenomenally real. In fact, I've twice rebutted the claim that logical impossibility is required to establish non-existence.