Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[Foster Zygote]

"Closet Dualist" works too.

But couldn't a theist also be a monist? I can imagine someone who believes in a god but does not believe that he has an immortal soul that exists separately from his physical brain.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, it's me. I just did a spell check in word to make sure I'm not an idiot....but as it turns out.

I just forgot switch the font back.

Spell check? YOU ARE POD-TOM!!!

*points finger*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!

 

[joobz]

The whole concept makes no sense unless viewed with theistic assumptions. It makes sense to ask how much one believes in X (say, on a scale of 1-10), and dichotomize some to "strong" and others to "weak" belief. But the absence of a belief is just that. There is no 0! that is greater than 0, but less strong than 0!!!. The terminology seems to be a sneaky way to be able to claim that atheism is a belief system just like theism (and therefore--to take one possibility--we cannot ask the schools to disallow school-sponsored prayer, because that means they are promoting an atheistic belief system). (see the "atheism is a faith" thread.)

When asked to label myself with these silly labels, I have always refused. The labels do not apply, and any attempt at forcing them to fit leads to misunderstanding. I am an atheist. That's as far as I need go. It makes no sense to ask if I "don't believe there is a god" or "believe there is no god". The whole concept of a god is defined by those who believe in them, so the question is utterly irrelevant to me, and I will not play that game.

This is the viewpoint I'd expect and would hope for from an atheist and why I find this thread curious.

This isn't an attempt by theists to place labels on atheism. It is atheists placing labels on themselves.

In a similar fashion, I find it strange to hear the label, "evolutionarian". I accept evolution as a working theory, becuase evidence says so. Am I also a "mendelian" because I accept dominant recessive genes as real? am I a "newtonian" becuase I accept principia mathematica's modeling of mechanics? Am I a "circadian" because I accept that the sun will rise tomorrow?

These labels seem to arise in the existence of a conflict. There are starkly apposed viewpoints in the sense of ID vs. ev. Also in atheism vs. theism and theism vs. other theisms.

So, is there a strong conflict inherent within the atheist community that requires these labels?

 

[Mercutio]

This is the viewpoint I'd expect and would hope for from an atheist and why I find this thread curious.

This isn't an attempt by theists to place labels on atheism. It is atheists placing labels on themselves.

Is it? My own limited experience has been that these labels are coming from non-atheists. Once a label gets established, however, it will be used to the extent that it makes conversation easier. I don't know how many atheists use these labels in any context other than odd debates with theists about the logic of atheism (and theism, for that matter*). If atheists don't as a general practice, think about the question (as I suggested earlier), then such specifics about "strong" vs. "weak" should not necessarily be seen as strongly held positions. Suppose I ask you "if you had the choice to be any animal, which would you choose?" Suppose further that you have never ever contemplated this. Should we take your response to the question as terribly meaningful, and ask you to defend it, and draw conclusions based on your defense or lack therof? No, it is an artificial situation, and your answers should be taken with that in mind. We can talk about the different animals we would choose, but it should not be seen as important.

*Theism is an odd word. I have a tough time imagining many people (outside of this forum) who would be comfortable with the label "theist". It is not specific enough. Catholics are theists, Baptists are theists, but Catholics are not Baptists, of course. If we find out that someone is a theist, we have found out very little--only that they are not an atheist. "Theist" is a collection of positively defined groups--groups defined by a belief system that includes one or more gods. It does not accurately describe any member of that collective. And of course, "atheist" does not describe the members of that negatively defined group either, other than to say this person is not catholic, baptist, JW, swedenborgian, hellenic pantheist, flying spaghetti monsterist, or a thousand other categories.

So, is there a strong conflict inherent within the atheist community that requires these labels?

The atheist community? We are negatively defined. Is there a "none of the above" support group?

To take your question seriously, it cannot be taken seriously. There are radical atheists, thoughtful atheists, knee-jerk atheists, never-thought-about-it atheists, anti-theists, and unlabelable atheists, and more. I doubt (my hunch, that's all) that most atheists have given the labels much thought. What sort of animal would you like to be?

 

[joobz]

Is it? My own limited experience has been that these labels are coming from non-atheists.

perhaps. But I've never heard of strong/weak atheism until I came to JREF and I heard it from atheists. So, I have to say that it is a self-label. Now, I can't speak knowledgable as to the origins of the term, but it doesn't seem like a label placed onto atheists from a theist prespective. If anything, most theists (at least christians) would lump all athiests together into the most vile description possible without giving thought to the differences between denial of god vs. never considered god before...

Once a label gets established, however, it will be used to the extent that it makes conversation easier. I don't know how many atheists use these labels in any context other than odd debates with theists about the logic of atheism (and theism, for that matter*). If atheists don't as a general practice, think about the question (as I suggested earlier), then such specifics about "strong" vs. "weak" should not necessarily be seen as strongly held positions. Suppose I ask you "if you had the choice to be any animal, which would you choose?" Suppose further that you have never ever contemplated this. Should we take your response to the question as terribly meaningful, and ask you to defend it, and draw conclusions based on your defense or lack therof? No, it is an artificial situation, and your answers should be taken with that in mind. We can talk about the different animals we would choose, but it should not be seen as important.

I do not know if it is as such a benign subject. The way in which we view the world stems from this. It seems most here define their atheism as a logical conclusion from a rational view of thier world. But it is possible to be atheistic for completely irrational/illogical reasons.

*Theism is an odd word. I have a tough time imagining many people (outside of this forum) who would be comfortable with the label "theist". It is not specific enough. Catholics are theists, Baptists are theists, but Catholics are not Baptists, of course. If we find out that someone is a theist, we have found out very little--only that they are not an atheist. "Theist" is a collection of positively defined groups--groups defined by a belief system that includes one or more gods. It does not accurately describe any member of that collective. And of course, "atheist" does not describe the members of that negatively defined group either, other than to say this person is not catholic, baptist, JW, swedenborgian, hellenic pantheist, flying spaghetti monsterist, or a thousand other categories.

The atheist community? We are negatively defined. Is there a "none of the above" support group?

To take your question seriously, it cannot be taken seriously. There are radical atheists, thoughtful atheists, knee-jerk atheists, never-thought-about-it atheists, anti-theists, and unlabelable atheists, and more. I doubt (my hunch, that's all) that most atheists have given the labels much thought. What sort of animal would you like to be?

Not to sound stupid, , but how are you using "negative and positive " here? Are you using it as a description of something being good/evil, benevolent/malevolent? Or do you mean
positive-describing a group with a shared view
negative-describing a group with a shared non-view?

But I do not know if your claim is true about atheists not thinking about it. In a setting where one is raised athiest, I'd agree. But with such a large presence of religion existing in our world, I can't believe that most athiests aren't exposed to other views and/or weren't raised in a religion. So, there must be some self-definition that occurs as one evaluates what the believe or don't belive in.

 

[drkitten]

Not to sound stupid, , but how are you using "negative and positive " here?

The technical term for the distinction he's using is "privative." A privative is a concept that is defined by the absence of another entity -- as such, it is the "default" state of everything until and unless the other entity comes into existence, but it's often considered to be secondary.

For example, "sober" is a privative; until alcohol was discovered/invented, everyone was "sober" all the time. But, of course, we didn't have a word for "sober" prior to the discovery of alcohol, either.

Similarly, "cold" and "dark" are both technically privatives (to physicsts) -- "heat" is a well-established thermodynamic concept, but "cold" is just "the absence of heat."

Similarly, all oysters are atheist, but they don't realize it. They don't realize much of anything, oysters being notorious for not being into the whole self-refection thing. That's because "atheist" is a privative; it says something about what isn't there (belief in god or gods), not what is. And in a culture where no one had invented the concept of God, everyone would be an atheist, but no one would have a word for it.

In this sense, the word "theism" is an intellectual precursor to the word "atheism"; you need to know that a concept exists before you can create the corresponding privative, even if the privative was actually there first by default.

 

[chriswl]

God is (in the problem of evil) defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are the terms I think should be defined invoking the problem of evil as evidence - for a start. It is particularly the term 'omnibenevolent' that disturbs me. And since you mentioned it, 'imperfection' would be another one.

The average believer doesn't seem to have much doubt what these things mean until you start asking them hard questiions. Then their definitions become exactly as flexible as they need to be to fend off your arguments.

Strictly speaking, for the purposes of the argument, God doesn't need to be omnipotent or omniscient, just very powerful indeed, which no believers dispute. And his other attribute can just be summed up as "goodness". We don't need to define this or define what we mean by "imperfection" of the world. We just take our understanding of "goodness" and our judgement of the state of the world and attempt to reconcile them. Either we conclude there is no good God or we conclude that we don't really understand what "good" means anyway. But the latter is disastrous, we can no longer make any moral decisions and our claim that God is good looks like a pure guess (we wouldn't know goodness if we encountered it).

There is similar slam-dunk evidence for the existance of God as well. By getting into the definitions of terms used in this evidence, philosophers have proven it to be useless - yet it is still occasionally discussed. I would be surprised if the same had never been done with the problem of evil.

I don't see any symmetry here at all. The problem of evil is an obvious, almost childishly simple (which doesn't mean it's wrong) argument. Alleged proofs of Gods existence are much more complicated and contrived.

 

[Mercutio]

The technical term for the distinction he's using is "privative."
[snip]

Thank you! I had never heard this term. I love it when my ignorance is exposed.

My explanation was always simply that there is a set of characteristics that defines, say Catholics. They have a set of beliefs that are Catholic doctrine, which define them separately from, say, Baptists or Mormons, who have their own doctrine to define them. These are "positive definitions". A negative definition is what is left over; "none of the above".

"Privative" is a much more concise way of explaining it. Thanks again.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I think I misunderstood you. I was thinking you were saying something like even having an idea of god (that you didn't believe in) forced dualism. Of course most of the typical definitions of god require dualism if you actually believe in them, but if you don't? It's not an issue.

That said, I don't see how any of that refutes "weak atheism" as a position.

 

[Mercutio]

That said, I don't see how any of that refutes "weak atheism" as a position.

It doesn't. It simple renders the whole concept irrelevant to an atheist. Degrees of strength apply to belief. Lack of something is simply lack of something, not strong or weak lack of something.

I admit there are a handful of atheists who appear, frankly, evangelical about it. I am amused a bit by this, and perhaps irritated. I think they have taken bait that they should not have.

Tangentially...I think that, given the definitions of "strong atheism" et al., the strongest of the strong atheists are also strong theists. There are none so sure that Thor does not exist, as those who are certain Yahweh does. And, probably, vice versa. I mean, given that each theistic belief is separate, shouldn't each lack therof be separate? (no, not serious, pointing out the ridiculous position) So we have a-Thorists, a-Yahwehists, a-Zeusists, etc., do we not? And Yahwehists are a-Thorist, a-Zeusist, and a-alltherestist, far more "strongly" (in the sense of the definition) than any plain vanilla atheist ever was (possible exception of Dawkins).

And what if you were absolutely certain of the non-existence of many, but not all, gods? You perhaps give a 20% shot to each of the Hellenic Pantheon, but are not certain--but are 100% certain that Thoth is a fictional character? What do we label you?

Sorry, the whole "strong, weak, yadda yadda" label is couched in terms that really are irrelevant to me. I will continue to pass.

 

[joobz]

Sorry, the whole "strong, weak, yadda yadda" label is couched in terms that really are irrelevant to me. I will continue to pass.

So does that make you a medium weakly strong athiest? Sorry, couldn't resist.

So apathy towards all religious views is the practical state of atheism?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

It doesn't. It simple renders the whole concept irrelevant to an atheist. Degrees of strength apply to belief. Lack of something is simply lack of something, not strong or weak lack of something.

I admit there are a handful of atheists who appear, frankly, evangelical about it. I am amused a bit by this, and perhaps irritated. I think they have taken bait that they should not have.

Tangentially...I think that, given the definitions of "strong atheism" et al., the strongest of the strong atheists are also strong theists. There are none so sure that Thor does not exist, as those who are certain Yahweh does. And, probably, vice versa. I mean, given that each theistic belief is separate, shouldn't each lack therof be separate? (no, not serious, pointing out the ridiculous position) So we have a-Thorists, a-Yahwehists, a-Zeusists, etc., do we not? And Yahwehists are a-Thorist, a-Zeusist, and a-alltherestist, far more "strongly" (in the sense of the definition) than any plain vanilla atheist ever was (possible exception of Dawkins).

And what if you were absolutely certain of the non-existence of many, but not all, gods? You perhaps give a 20% shot to each of the Hellenic Pantheon, but are not certain--but are 100% certain that Thoth is a fictional character? What do we label you?

Sorry, the whole "strong, weak, yadda yadda" label is couched in terms that really are irrelevant to me. I will continue to pass.

I see what you're saying and I agree. Though, I don't think that these various definitions of atheism are supposed to be "levels" of it, just two different viewpoints. a-theism, the literal definition based on the etymology, is no real belief at all, but it had to get a label of "weak" only because of the straw man of "you just BELIEVE there is no god", which was called "strong atheism".

I agree all the details about it are rather silly in the end, but it's an important distinction to make if only because the entire reason I might argue with a theorist is not to really convince them there is no god but really just to teach them to think rationally, and that "no god" follows from that. I'm only incidentally an atheist, and the incidence is that I live in a universe without a god. I'm rationalist above all else, and had this universe HAD a god and sufficient evidence had been presented, I would be a theist by definition and that would actually be the logical viewpoint. My point is it's critical thinking and empiricism I'm pushing for here, not atheism or evolution or any of the viewpoints which follow logically from that. The only reason I make the distinction is a bunch of religious peoples are quick to say it's just a belief and I want to burst that bubble as rudely as I can so they don't have that comforting thought.

 

[Mercutio]

So does that make you a medium weakly strong athiest? Sorry, couldn't resist.

God will get you for that.

So apathy towards all religious views is the practical state of atheism?

What a wonderful question!

I am afraid, though, that I cannot answer it. I am one atheist. All that I share with millions of other atheists is the lack of a positively defined belief in one or more deities. I honestly don't know what their "practical state" is. I may be typical; I may be exceptional. If I am typical, I honestly believe that it is mere coincidence.

I think part of the problem is, the whole debate is couched in the terms of the majority (which, frankly, it probably should be). From their view, it might be seen as apathy--from mine, that word is too loaded. How can I "not care" about something that is not part of my world view? (In truth, that is a bit of a lie--I am part of the community that defines these things in different ways than I do, and in order to communicate with them, I use these words...so it is part of my world view in a sense...just not in the same sense as the majority...see, now, this is exactly the problem--I can't explain the problem of being outside the community except by the terms understood by the community. This is why those "strong, weak, etc." terms are ones I reject.)

 

[The Atheist]

There are a few though. I think "The Atheist" claims to be a strong atheist, as does Thaiboxerken. But if pressed, you will find that what they really mean is that their certainty is so close to 100% that the difference is insignificant. They will usually admit that 100% certainty requires absolute knowledge.

That's about spot on, the 100% argument is a silly one, because I can equally contend that very few things are 100% certain.

Isn't this thread having a severe case of deja vu? Why is it so popular? Do lots of atheists really wonder about it that much? Or is there more uncertainty out there than I suspected?

 

[Tricky]

The technical term for the distinction he's using is "privative." A privative is a concept that is defined by the absence of another entity -- as such, it is the "default" state of everything until and unless the other entity comes into existence, but it's often considered to be secondary.

For example, "sober" is a privative; until alcohol was discovered/invented, everyone was "sober" all the time. But, of course, we didn't have a word for "sober" prior to the discovery of alcohol, either.

Similarly, "cold" and "dark" are both technically privatives (to physicsts) -- "heat" is a well-established thermodynamic concept, but "cold" is just "the absence of heat."

Similarly, all oysters are atheist, but they don't realize it. They don't realize much of anything, oysters being notorious for not being into the whole self-refection thing. That's because "atheist" is a privative; it says something about what isn't there (belief in god or gods), not what is. And in a culture where no one had invented the concept of God, everyone would be an atheist, but no one would have a word for it.

In this sense, the word "theism" is an intellectual precursor to the word "atheism"; you need to know that a concept exists before you can create the corresponding privative, even if the privative was actually there first by default.

EX-cellent! I was just trying to explain this concept to a fairly new fellow over in the "Atheism is a faith" thread. This summarizes it wonderfully. I shall add "privative" to my lexicon and use it at every opportunity. People will hear me and marvel at my wisdom and erudition. I won't give you any credit. I'm just that way.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Yes, thank you dr kitten. You put the point well. Now I have a word to reflect that.

 

[Rocky]

That said, I must say I don't care for the term "weak atheist". It sounds too wishy washy to me. To me it coveys the impression that my position is not based on years of rational thought.

We should change "Strong Atheist" To "Uber-Atheist" and the rest of us can just be plain "Atheists".


-R

 

[The Atheist]

We should change "Strong Atheist" To "Uber-Atheist" and the rest of us can just be plain "Atheists".
-R

Even better, we can be Extreme Atheists!

I hate that "uber" stuff. Didn't we win the ####ing war?

 

[Rocky]

Even better, we can be Extreme Atheists!

I hate that "uber" stuff. Didn't we win the ####ing war?

How about Fundamental Atheist?

-R

 

[The Atheist]

How about Fundamental Atheist?

-R

Nope, been down that road.