"weak atheism" vs. Agnosticism

[UnrepentantSinner]

To add one more veggie to the Stone Soup of dis/non-belief. Some folks think a deity or deities might or might not exist, but don't think they're interested enough in humans to warrent much consideration if they do. Such a person would be empirically agnostic deist.

Technically.

For some good essays on the subject you might want to consult this page on the Secular Web

 

[Cain]

And, were we to do so, we would certainly be wrong. It is perfectly possible to insist that the existence of God is unknowable and, nevertheless, believe in God(s) solely on the basis of faith alone. Though strange bedfellows, agnosticism and theism are not irreconcilable.

In which case you're redefining agnosticism, which holds that God is both *unknown* and unknowable. Most theists already believe that God is unknowable (Smith in _A:tCaG_, if I remember correctly, quotes some Catholic dictionary describing God as "incomprehensible"). Your definition does nothing to distinguish agnosticism from theism in a remotely meaningful sense.

Agnosticism is an epistemic stance. For Huxley, it was likewise a methodological stance not dissimilar to methodological naturalism. That you find it to be "a silly word" perhaps says far more about your understanding than Huxley's.

And as an epistemic stance it is an incredibly silly word -- Huxley knows (on what grounds?)that God is unknowable.

 

[CWL]

Many people will agree that unicorns do not exist because there is no evidence of such and many stories have been shown that unicorn sightings have no validity.

Why do agnostics/weak atheists make a huge jump that "god" is such a special mythical creature that it holds to a different standard?

I think consistency should be introduced here. If someone wants to say that "it cannot be known if a god exists or doesn't" then they should say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not."

I will gladly say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not". Proving a negative may indeed be virtually impossible. However, I will also gladly say "notwitstanding, I do not believe in the existence of unicorns in the absence of convincing evidence". That is the very same thing I say about the existence of God.

See, no different standards at all. One simple epistemological point of departure: "doubt in the absence of evidence".

I believe the above would in principle make me a "soft atheist".

It should be noted however that my attitude towards the existence of "God" varies, depending on which definition of "God" we are talking about. Certain mythical creatures are logically impossible or unlikely and it is therefore rather safe to assert that they do not exist.

If we talking about the concept of "God" as an "omnipotent and benevolent being" I am willing to say that such a God cannot exist as the existence of such a God cannot be reasonably reconciled with the existence of suffering in the world. In relation to such a "God" I suppose I am a "hard atheist".

I am under no circumstances an agnostic. Simply saying "I don't know" merely indicates in my book that one hasn't given much thought to epistemological issues.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I will gladly say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not". Proving a negative may indeed be virtually impossible. However, I will also gladly say "notwitstanding, I do not believe in the existence of unicorns in the absence of convincing evidence". That is the very same thing I say about the existence of God.

At least some people are consistent. Others happen to place the god-myth on a totally different standard than the other myths.

To the ones that insists Santa and Unicorns have been disproven, please show me that they have. The only difference between "god" and the rest of the mythical creatures is that more people believe in the "god" thing.

 

[Checkmite]

Care to elaborate?

I think santa clause is actually the only one that fits. THe other things he mentioned have been disproven more. But there is no more proof of a god than there is of santa clause.

I'm saying I don't agree that every single specific concept of God has been disproven.

 

[synaesthesia]

People who take a firm stance and positively state "there is no God" haven't been doing a lot of thinking.
...
Which position would you say is the educated one? Which position is more in alignment with a scientific method?

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no God and all current scientific thinking supports the idea of rejecting *any* being of arbitrary complexity and arbitrary flexibility.

I have done a lot of thinking on this topic, I believe that God is a fiction. You conditional is therefore false because the antecedent is true and the consequent false.

 

[jj]

Well, I've always had some trouble with the "strong", "weak", etc definitions, I think you believe what you do, and don't believe what you don't.

I'm one of those people that conclude, based on the (lack of any) evidence that there is no god.

It is not a belief, per-se, because I arrive at the decision based on the lack of evidence and laco of need for an explaination of the universe.

It is not strongly held, a great face ripping the firmrament (sic) and looking down at all of us (and being seen by more than me) would convince me otherwise, as would actual evidence that could be tested, etc.

It is, however, not weakly held, either, because I am asserting the statement "I conclude there is no god".

I call the idea "scientific atheism" for lack of a better title. That choice is not for quite a few obvious reasons the best title, though, either.

 

[CWL]

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no God and all current scientific thinking supports the idea of rejecting *any* being of arbitrary complexity and arbitrary flexibility.

I have done a lot of thinking on this topic, I believe that God is a fiction. You conditional is therefore false because the antecedent is true and the consequent false.

I believe that God is fiction too - but I cannot conclusively prove it (depending on which definition of God that we use). That was my point. Can you prove it?

 

[synaesthesia]

I believe that God is fiction too - but I cannot conclusively prove it (depending on which definition of God that we use). That was my point. Can you prove it?

Can it be proved that when people talk about God, the origin of that God element in their words is historical and social evolution? Yes, of course, there is abundant indirect and direct evidence that God is a fiction.

Can it be proved that elements of God theory are totally unacceptable for all human epistemology? Yes, beings of arbitrarya complexity have no place in any coherent philosophy. There is no way that I can possibly imagine by which I could be convinced of such a thing.

And no, the inconclusivity of knowledge does not depend upon which definition of God you use, any one could be 'true', even self-contradictory ones. Of course Helium will sooner freeze solid, pigs will sooner rule the universe and Santa Clause will sooner use lottery winnings to build a nuclear bomb.

Get it?

 

[metacristi]

Joshua Korosi

I am often puzzled by the fact that almost all english speakers I've met on the net put the equal sign between belief and 'mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something'-www.dictionary.com-implying certainty for them.Or,as I've seen,the english meaning of belief is also 'an opinion, especially a firm and considered one'-Encarta dictionary-this definition does not imply certitudes.Exactly this is the meaning of belief in my acceptance and,as I will point out further,has important consequences relating with the classification of different positions regarding objective knowledge and belief including my position regarding the whole of the so called 'lack of belief' position.

Under the former definition of 'belief' strong atheism has two different varieties based on the statements:

1.'God does not exist' and as a consequence 'I do not believe in God [defined,for the moment,merely as the creator of the universe]'.I label this type of strong atheism as being 'extremist strong atheism' for,of course,it does not stand the logical scutiny:we do not have sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist from all available objective evidence.

2.Simply 'I do not believe in God','I disbelieve based on observed evidence'.This type of strong atheism does not sustain having objective certitudes but only that from known objective knowledge there is no sufficient reason to believe,moreover it is sufficient to not believe.Clearly enough to be backed by logic.

The problem with both types of strong atheism is that they can be easily labeled as being simple beliefs too,simple opinions.That's why many atheists,who 'felt' that their position must necessarilly have the edge over that of believers,decided that the 'simple (dis)believer' label should be avoided with all cost.The solution found was the 'invention' of 'lack of belief' 'weak atheism' and 'agnostic atheism',both based on the alleged 'lack of belief'.But,as anyone can easily observe,the 'lack of belief' position is characteristic for all types of agnosticism and atheism.Generically agnosticism refers entirely at knowledge but,as can be easily seen,the 'classical' definition of agnosticism 'God cannot be known (forever)'-'hard' agnosticism in my acception-is not the only possible respecting the basic characteristics of agnosticism 'neither believe nor disbelieve'.The claim of many self labeled 'weak' atheists that only the classical definition of agnosticism is the real agnosticism is one of their maneouvers in order to defend their 'artificial' position.

'Hard' agnosticism- 'God(s) cannot be known [forever]'.This type of agnosticism is often mistaken as the only type of agnosticism.Given that it is self-defeating logically (implying that we already know objectively that 'God can never be known' is TRUE) many concluded from here (wrongly) that agnosticism is not a valid position.


2.'Weak' agnosticism-'I suspend judgement regarding disbelief/belief until I will have sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve'.
Weak agnostics DO NOT sustain that God cannot be known [forever] but only that today we have no sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve.'Sufficient reason' to believe/disbelieve does not mean necessarilly 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but only enough evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief.Anyway,usually,scientific objective knowledge is required.

In the light of that is clear that 'lack of belief weak atheism' is a position that belongs entirely to the 'weak' agnosticism for its main characteristic 'I simply lack belief,I will believe when I will have sufficient reason (evidence) to believe' place it entirely within 'weak' agnosticism.
'The onus is on the believer to conclusively prove his assumptions'-taken from logic-is an interesting addition however there is no necessity for the believer to do that and anyway this does not strenghten at all the alleged 'independence' of the 'lack of belief weak atheism' stance.'Weak atheism' says nothing about its position about 'disbelief' but this cannot save it from being a subset of 'weak agnosticism' for (implicitly) it does not stand that the existing evidence is enough to disbelieve.If it were otherwise then we would be in the second case of strong atheism (as presented above).
The so called 'lack of belief agnostic atheism' explicitly accepts that there is no sufficient objective knowledge either way claiming also 'lack of belief' but as in the case of 'weak' atheism it is only a subset of 'weak' agnosticism.

As a conclusion the majority of self labeled atheists who claim only 'lack of belief' as the main characteristics of their position are 'weak' agnostics in fact but without even be aware of that!The rest,a minority of people,aware of that basic limitation,want to avoid with all cost the 'believer' status.It's as simple as that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Joshua Korosi

As a conclusion the majority of self labeled atheists who claim only 'lack of belief' as the main characteristics of their position are 'weak' agnostics in fact but without even be aware of that!The rest,a minority of people,aware of that basic limitation,want to avoid with all cost the 'believer' status.It's as simple as that.

I think you are missing the fact that agnosticism is a position/opinion about what can and cannot be known.

Atheism is a position about what that person believes.

One can be atheist and agnostic, or theist and agnostic.

To me, agnosticism is simply an evasion to the question "Do you believe in god?", they evade the question by saying "It cannot be known if a god exists or not." The answer given is not one that actually addresses the yes or no question. But hey, if you agnostics feel unconfortable saying whether you believe or not, that's fine. Just quit trying to state that atheism is illogical, because atheism is a state of being, not an opinion.

I do not believe in god because 1. no clear definition of god and 2. no evidence for the undefined god. Gods have all the characteristics of fictional beings.

 

[CWL]

And no, the inconclusivity of knowledge does not depend upon which definition of God you use, any one could be 'true', even self-contradictory ones. Of course Helium will sooner freeze solid, pigs will sooner rule the universe and Santa Clause will sooner use lottery winnings to build a nuclear bomb.

Get it?

Well, it does depend on the definition. What I meant was that some "Gods" are easier to disprove than others. For instance, an "omnipotent and benevolent God" clearly cannot exist given the amount of suffering in the world. IMO, the existence of such a "God" is therefore disproven. But there are other definitions which are not so easy to disprove. Proving negatives can be awfully tricky business...

 

[synaesthesia]

Under the former definition of 'belief' strong atheism has two different varieties based on the statements:

1.'God does not exist' and as a consequence 'I do not believe in God [defined,for the moment,merely as the creator of the universe]'.I label this type of strong atheism as being 'extremist strong atheism' for, of course, it does not stand the logical scutiny:we do not have sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist from all available objective evidence.

2.Simply 'I do not believe in God','I disbelieve based on observed evidence'.This type of strong atheism does not sustain having objective certitudes but only that from known objective knowledge there is no sufficient reason to believe,moreover it is sufficient to not believe. Clearly enough to be backed by logic.

But the revelation that there is no serious possiblity of a God as we have concieved is a useful one. It permits more accurate, more skeptical evaluation of human history and social organization.

Accepting this item as continuous with what I know, accepting it's truth, owes to it's vastly eludicating simplification.

Anti-Realists such as Vaan Frassen would, however, cast doubt on the notion that the evident utility of information justifies any sort of acceptence of truth.

The problem is that he is missing the real question: Is our best information not that knowledge of ourselves feeds upon our interaction with our universe, other people and memory encoded in books? If there is such essential continuity within knowedge, why does Vaan Frassen believe that knowledge about our internal state remain infallibly sealed from reality?

 

[synaesthesia]

Well, it does depend on the definition. What I meant was that some "Gods" are easier to disprove than others. For instance, an "omnipotent and benevolent God" clearly cannot exist given the amount of suffering in the world. IMO, the existence of such a "God" is therefore disproven. But there are other definitions which are not so easy to disprove. Proving negatives can be awfully tricky business...

Gods I object to in particular are those that play a historical role in the universe. (Either setting the cosmological constants, creating humans, starting the big bang, whatever) Intelligence is a very dubious form of explanation for that sort of thing, particularly when we can' t put any limits on this intelligence!

So we are left with gods that not only don't do anything, never have done anything. These sorts of things simply constitute a potential pitfall in our epistemology, waste thought in the meantime and encourage us to ignore the problems with invoking ghosts.

 

[metacristi]

thaiboxerken

I think you are missing the fact that agnosticism is a position/opinion about what can and cannot be known.

Atheism is a position about what that person believes.

One can be atheist and agnostic, or theist and agnostic.

Agnosticism is a position about knowledge (supporting/falsifying soundly the God hypothesis) in general.The majority of agnostics understand by 'knowledge' objective knowledge,reliable,scientific knowledge.Unfortunately science cannot settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence soundly.That's why,finally,all types of agnostics arrive at the conclusion that we do not have sufficient knowledge to settle the problem of God either way (at least today) therefore they prefer to 'neither believe nor disbelieve'.

I've never denied that one can be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.In fact I define myself as an agnostic theist though my definition of God has the minimum of attributes assigned-God being the creator or at least the formator of the actual order in the universe.Even an agnostic atheist position is conceivable.Only that simple 'lack of belief' is not allowed.A viable 'agnostic atheism' should contain the word 'disbelief' also.
The problem is that 'I don't believe that God does exist' (or simple 'I don't believe in God') is equivalent with 'I believe that God does not exist'.A simple opinion because the current objective knowledge cannot settle the problem;it cannot even prove soundly that God is unlikely to exist...


'Lack of belief' does not equal 'disbelief'.

To disbelieve something one must have sufficient reason (indeed only if they want to be rational till the end;the majority of rational people want that) to disbelieve,must justify the decision at least for themselves,whilst to simply 'lack belief' one does not need that...they will believe when they will have sufficient reason for that.Also since today's 'objective knowledge' is not enough,not providing definitive answers in the case of 'hypothesis God',the 'lack of belief' 'weak' atheists try to avoid the 'believer' status implied by simple 'disbelief'.The difference is subtle but essential from a logical standpoint.
Unfortunately for them by doing so they neither believe nor disbelieve,a characteristic of 'weak' agnosticism.
As you see the problem is much more complex but there are enough many atheists working hard to fix this problem...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Unfortunately science cannot settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence soundly.

Yes, because science doesn't waste it's time trying to disprove fiction. Science has yet to disprove Santa Clause.


therefore they prefer to 'neither believe nor disbelieve'.

It's a yes or no question, one either believes or they don't believe. It's a matter of conviction, some people believe but will be easily swayed to the other side and vice-versa, but there is no middle area of belief. Agnostics tend to just evade the question.


Only that simple 'lack of belief' is not allowed.A viable 'agnostic atheism' should contain the word 'disbelief' also.The problem is that 'I don't believe that God does exist' (or simple 'I don't believe in God') is equivalent with 'I believe that God does not exist'.

This is false, newborn babies lack a belief in any gods. They do not believe "no gods exists". People ignorant of gods will also fall into this category. I, however, will state that there are no gods and it's perfectly reasonable, as there is NO evidence of such a being. There is no reasonable definition of "god" and there is no reasonable reason to believe in a god. However, some people just don't believe the god stories and are waiting for someone to convince them. I will be swayed to believe in god as well, just as soon as someone provides the evidence.

The way you state it, it seems as if you are trying to make atheism a positive assertion that must justify itself with evidence. This is wrong, though, because the position "i don't believe in god" or "there are no gods" is entirely dependant on the positive assertion "there is a god". It seems like you are trying to set up an appeal to ignorance, the classical and fallicious "prove there is no god".


A simple opinion because the current objective knowledge cannot settle the problem;it cannot even prove soundly that God is unlikely to exist...

There is no intelligent reason to believe in a god. There is no clear definition of what "god" is. There is no evidence to support this undefined god. These are the traits of a paranormal claim. Gods are just more paranormal claims.


To disbelieve something one must have sufficient reason (indeed only if they want to be rational till the end;the majority of rational people want that) to disbelieve,must justify the decision at least for themselves,whilst to simply 'lack belief' one does not need that...they will believe when they will have sufficient reason for that.

I don't totally agree. I think to disbelieve, one must have sufficient reason to believe but just will not. Creationists, for example, disbelieve evolution despite all of the evidence and facts that support evolution.


Also since today's 'objective knowledge' is not enough,not providing definitive answers in the case of 'hypothesis God',the 'lack of belief' 'weak' atheists try to avoid the 'believer' status implied by simple 'disbelief'.The difference is subtle but essential from a logical standpoint.

I don't know what logic you are using, but my logic doesn't appeal to ignorance. It is totally illogical to believe in undefined creatures that have no evidence associated with it. It is perfectly reasonable to say that an undefined being just doesn't exist.


Unfortunately for them by doing so they neither believe nor disbelieve,a characteristic of 'weak' agnosticism.
As you see the problem is much more complex but there are enough many atheists working hard to fix this problem...

One either believes or they do not believe. Many agnostics just avoid telling people if they believe in a god or not.

 

[metacristi]

synaesthesia

But the revelation that there is no serious possiblity of a God as we have concieved is a useful one. It permits more accurate, more skeptical evaluation of human history and social organization.


There is no logical reason and/or experimental data which to make 'God hypothesis' less probable.Besides I'm not at all sure it is really useful,even from an epistemological standpoint,to not consider this hypothesis at least as being reasonable.That does not mean at all that we should use God in our scientific hypotheses only because we cannot explain some observed phenomena.All I suggest is that in spite of its non scientific status (it is non falsifiable-at least now) nothing forbids the possibility to obtain experimental evidence of God in the future.An axiomatic sytem having God as an extra axiom beyond those of science is equally valid in spite of being more complex.A belief in God is perfectly rational in this light (as much as a rational justification does exist for this belief).

The real problem I see is dogma and the tendency of religious aspects to interfere with the scientific quest.But this is not at all restricted at what we name 'religion'.Seen from this perspective (the existence of dogmas) all social movements that interfere with the free development of science according with the scientific method are harmful.The soviet type of communism is a good example,even if we were to look at lysenkoism vs mendelianism problem or the 'decree' that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is 'idealistic'.Nazism is another and so on.

But as far as there is no organized strive to 'seize' science for some cause I see no problem (of course I am refering only at the problem we discuss here-for I do not agree with nazi ideology,for example,even if it would have not interfered destructively in science's problems).There is no contradiction to believe in God (having a rational reason) and be a great scientist.As much as science is free nothing impedes such a scientist to make later the constatation that God is unlikely to exist if some new evidence,not necessarilly counting as a proof,persuade him.Unfortunately a proposal like yours can be easily interpreted as 'seizing' science for the cause of atheism.I don't think atheism needs that 'boost' in order to be (still) a viable alternative (from a logical standpoint)...




Accepting this item as continuous with what I know, accepting it's truth, owes to it's vastly eludicating simplification.

Even if I accepted naturalism as being 'scientific truth' due to its simplicity we must never forget that it is only fallible truth since science itself is fallible.Personally I prefer to name naturalism a conjecture.




Anti-Realists such as Vaan Frassen would, however, cast doubt on the notion that the evident utility of information justifies any sort of acceptence of truth.

I think Van Fraasen has a very good point because,indeed,there is no need to believe that all theoretical constructs (but unobserved yet),posited by a very succesfull otherwise scientific theory,are necessarilly real.Moreover even for proved (indirectly) to exist entities,for which we have succesfull theoretical descriptions,there is enough room for skepticism.For example we know very well that an entity named electron does exist but we cannot be sure that the fundamental attributes we assign to it (spin for example) are real.

But I do not believe that we can be pure realists or pure anti-realists,everything is dependent by specific situations.For example I am a realist with respect to the quantum level-I am a supporter,as an opinion,of 'hidden' variables (in spite of the subdetermination problem)-but I am antirealist in many other cases.I am not at all sure for example that space is exactly depicted by the currently accepted non-euclidian geometries.Indeed,generally,there is no reason to consider scientific theories and many of its constructs as being something more than simple models,useful tools 'working' for all our practical purposes.Exactly as Van Fraasen I think this is the real goal of science though science can attain even certitudes.

Anyway what counts is that from science and from currently observed facts we do not have the right to infere that 'God does not exist' is a TRUE statement.Not even that 'God hypothesis' is less probable.In spite of 'confirming' naturalism everyday there is no need to believe that it is true.Finally naturalism is best defined by the term 'conjecture'.