Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[Mercutio]

I think that one problem is the conflation of several positive beliefs with one privative. One's opinions about religion are positively held; one could have no belief in any god whatsoever, but still think that religions, as systems of morality, ethics, and government, were worthwhile. Or one could hold a belief in a god (especially the nebulous "god is the unknown force in the universe" sort of belief) and think that religion is a load of twaddle.

I'd have to take a look at the posts around here, but it seems to me that even the "militant atheists" are not militant for the non-existence of god (which makes no sense to me), but rather for the dislike of one or more (or all) features of religious behavior of their fellow humans.

Yes, of course, we have the occasional thread around here arguing for the logical non-existence of god. It is my contention that such arguments have already accepted the ground-rules of the theist; go ahead if you like, but I'd rather not. As they say, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat. The ability to determine the ground rules for an argument gives power that is not part of what is really there.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'd have to take a look at the posts around here, but it seems to me that even the "militant atheists" are not militant for the non-existence of god (which makes no sense to me), but rather for the dislike of one or more (or all) features of religious behavior of their fellow humans.

From what I've seen there seem to be two stripes -- those who are militant against a particular religion (this includes most and seems to spring from a rejection of Christian upbringing in the West), and those who are militant that others should not believe in any god. In neither case is it militancy for the non-existence of god. But there do seem to be some who prosyletize for their position (the non-existence of god/gods) and are militant in that regard.

Edit

Or, in other words, I don't think that anyone is militant towards the non-existence of god, but there are some who are militant about the non-existence of god.

 

[hammegk]

Couldn't agree more, but do you think the churches which actually do charity work mightn't be a whole lot more effective if they didn't kneel around saying how cool their god-bloke was?

Where is the nearest atheist soup-kitchen to you? I don't know of a one, here.

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.

Possiblely. I suspect it depends on that definition of 'god' Paulie the Greek is so anxious about.

Er, and, please tell me more about this 'immortal soul' business.

 

[Jekyll]

By avoiding the whole "strength" metaphor?

How about by examining, not "strength" of non-belief (which is asinine)

Not really. If I stumbled over a little old man dressed in green with a thick Irish accent that proceeded to give me a bag of gold, I'd be prepared to consider the existence of leprechauns (or at least crazed eccentrics indistinguishable from leprechauns). On the other hand it would take more than a talking burning bush and a bag of gold for me to believe in something indistinguishable from god.

Different statements obviously have differing degrees of plausibility associated with them a priori and it makes sense to discuss the strength/influence of this.

 

[Mercutio]

Different statements obviously have differing degrees of plausibility associated with them a priori and it makes sense to discuss the strength/influence of this.

so... the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger you don't believe in it?

No--you simply do not believe in it; it is true that it would take more to get on board, but that is not because 0 is any lower, rather it is because, as they say, that first step is a doozy. That is not a measure of disbelief, but of the extraordinary nature of the claim.

 

[Jekyll]

so... the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger you don't believe in it?

No--you simply do not believe in it; it is true that it would take more to get on board, but that is not because 0 is any lower, rather it is because, as they say, that first step is a doozy. That is not a measure of disbelief, but of the extraordinary nature of the claim.

The only claims that I absolutely don't believe in are those with inherent logical contradictions which I'm aware off. Everything else can be said to be plausible to some degree or another, and the more plausible I find something, the less disbelief I have of it.

 

[drkitten]

so... the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger you don't believe in it?

You know, Merc, I can't even read that sentence without developing a facial tic.

How on earth did you manage to type it?

 

[Mercutio]

You know, Merc, I can't even read that sentence without developing a facial tic.

How on earth did you manage to type it?

I am glad it was appreciated for what it really is. It is, occasionally, my job to say things that are designed make everyone in the room squint one eye and tilt their head a bit to the left. What saddens me is that, too often, such things are simply accepted. Or worse, written down as profound--perhaps the only notes taken that day.

 

[Checkmite]

You are aware that's exactly what's happening in Africa right now, with these U.S. government funded and Catholic abstinence only-sex education programs, right? These people are often given no information besides anti-birth control rhetoric.

Seems to me that the STD epidemic so prevalent in some parts of Africa is the most solid kind of proof that the Catholic abstinence-only doctrines are being routinely ignored.

 

[Mercutio]

...and we all know that people attend to religious doctrine in an "all or nothing" fashion. If they are ignoring "abstinence only", they must also be ignoring "use a condom, go to hell".

Um... most of these are empirical questions. Are there any data anywhere?

 

[Checkmite]

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be, I'm not Catholic), it's not the condom that sends you to hell. All the birth control aid does is allow you to break the abstinence-only rule, the latter being what you go to hell for.

It makes no sense to assume that people who would disregard in general such an important and over-emphasized edict would concurrently and so strictly abide by some minor fine-print subset of the exact same edict.

"We're going to have sex; who cares if we go to hell. But wait - stay away from those condoms. Might go to hell, you know."

Seriously, come on.

 

[The Atheist]

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be, I'm not Catholic), it's not the condom that sends you to hell. All the birth control aid does is allow you to break the abstinence-only rule, the latter being what you go to hell for.

It makes no sense to assume that people who would disregard in general such an important and over-emphasized edict would concurrently and so strictly abide by some minor fine-print subset of the exact same edict.

"We're going to have sex; who cares if we go to hell. But wait - stay away from those condoms. Might go to hell, you know."

Seriously, come on.

Nearly. The condom is still definitely the no-no, married couples can't use them either.

 

[Mercutio]

Seriously, come on.

I thought you were more practical than this...

The contingencies of buying condoms are ... less immediate than the contingencies of having sex. No one buys condoms because of the heat of the moment; buying condoms represents a considered decision to act against what the pope says you must do. Possessing condoms implies a premeditated decision to have sex. Sinful. Having sex, without condom, is excused as the illogical, impulsive act of the moment. It is the same difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.

Seriously, come on... having sex means you are in love. Buying condoms means you are intending to disobey the Pope.

If the final decision was made at the time of buying the condom, there would be very few pregnant Catholics. But it ain't. So there ain't. The reasons for having sex are very different from the reasons for buying condoms.

No one ever said humans were logical... just lawful...

 

[The Atheist]

Where is the nearest atheist soup-kitchen to you? I don't know of a one, here.

We're in the fortunate position of not having soup kitchens in NZ. We have foodbanks for those who choose to spend their money on booze rather than their kids' food, but most of them are actually secular. Whether or not they're atheists, I don't know. For a charity to be atheist in origin, it would require a more tightly-knit atheist community than at present.

 

[Checkmite]

I thought you were more practical than this...

The contingencies of buying condoms are ... less immediate than the contingencies of having sex. No one buys condoms because of the heat of the moment; buying condoms represents a considered decision to act against what the pope says you must do. Possessing condoms implies a premeditated decision to have sex. Sinful. Having sex, without condom, is excused as the illogical, impulsive act of the moment. It is the same difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.

Seriously, come on... having sex means you are in love. Buying condoms means you are intending to disobey the Pope.

If the final decision was made at the time of buying the condom, there would be very few pregnant Catholics. But it ain't. So there ain't. The reasons for having sex are very different from the reasons for buying condoms.

No one ever said humans were logical... just lawful...

I disagree. I believe you're placing the "emphasis on the wrong syllable", as it were. We both agree that the decision to have sex is a spontaneous act; however, unlike you, I view "not buying condoms" as a direct extension of that spontaneous decision. It seems excruciatingly obvious to me that people don't buy condoms because when the urge comes no side-trip is going to get in the way, rather than as the result of some conscious "uh-oh, I'd better not buy these evil things" chain of reasoning.

When you're jonesing for a dance, you're jonesing for a dance right now, and nothing else matters - not even a rubber. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Possiblely. I suspect it depends on that definition of 'god' Paulie the Greek is so anxious about.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm too anxious about the definitions of words. From now on I'm going to discuss these deep philosophical concepts without concern for the meaning of the words. It'll be a sort of postmodern extravaganza.

For example, I'm just going to assume that the concept of god is incompatible with naturalism. After all, god is clearly supernatural. And then, just to show how laid back I've become, I'm not even going to worry about what supernatural means. Nor how a supernatural entity can interact with the natural world. With my new laissez-faire attitude toward language, I can spew incoherent gibberish with the best of them!

I'm so happy.

~~ Paul

 

[Dave1001]

I came across these definitions on wikipedia.

• Strong atheists claim that there is no god or gods.
• Weak atheists claim have no belief in god, but no not reject the possibility of god or gods might exist.
• Strong agnostics claim that the existence of god is unknowable.
• Weak agnostics claim that the existence of god in unknown.

I tried to figure out which one is the most rational position.

"Weak atheism" as you define it would describe me best.

 

[hammegk]

I've come to the conclusion that I'm too anxious about the definitions of words. From now on I'm going to discuss these deep philosophical concepts without concern for the meaning of the words. It'll be a sort of postmodern extravaganza.

For example, I'm just going to assume that the concept of god is incompatible with naturalism. After all, god is clearly supernatural. And then, just to show how laid back I've become, I'm not even going to worry about what supernatural means. Nor how a supernatural entity can interact with the natural world. With my new laissez-faire attitude toward language, I can spew incoherent gibberish with the best of them!

I'm so happy.

~~ Paul

I at least am sooo glad you are finally happy. Maybe you should define 'happy', though. And when you finish that, try for 'consciousness'. After that, explain what rational and logical meaning you assign to the word 'supernatural'.

I'm still waiting on a definition for 'energy', so I'm not happy, yet.

 

[Mercutio]

I disagree. I believe you're placing the "emphasis on the wrong syllable", as it were. We both agree that the decision to have sex is a spontaneous act; however, unlike you, I view "not buying condoms" as a direct extension of that spontaneous decision. It seems excruciatingly obvious to me that people don't buy condoms because when the urge comes no side-trip is going to get in the way, rather than as the result of some conscious "uh-oh, I'd better not buy these evil things" chain of reasoning.

When you're jonesing for a dance, you're jonesing for a dance right now, and nothing else matters - not even a rubber. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Buying condoms and having sex are two separate decisions, made at separate times. As you agree, the latter is seen as spontaneous (conveniently enough; this way you can say "we weren't planning to, we were overwhelmed by passion"). The former, though, is deliberate. If one has purchased condoms at time A, then at time B when overwhelmed by passion, no side-trip is necessary. At time B, neither party is listening to what the Pope has to say. At time A, there is time to deliberate. And the Pope's voice has a bit more impact. An "abstinence only" program that openly discourages condom use has its impact at time A. At time B, abstinence is the only remaining option, and if you say "[rule8] abstinence", then you are in the situation you describe above where a side trip is required.

 

[Checkmite]

You still don't understand. We're blaming a particular religion's policies for creating an STD problem amongst a population defined by extensive poverty and occasional violence. In such a place, there is never a "time A". None of these people, while shopping at a market and using what little money they have to keep themselves fed, is going to stop at the condom rack and enter into a religious debate over whether to buy something they couldn't afford to waste money on anyway. Two dimes says the local shops don't carry condoms anyway - but not because of some kind of religious restriction. Widely available birth control is not a sign of cultural enlightenment, it's a sign of luxury.