Recently a renowned internet scholar has said that most atheists are either agnostics who don't know their own positions or simply people who got "mad at god".
This, of course, is quite offensive, but probably because it belies a certain hatred of atheists. That's nothing new under the sun....atheists have always been distrusted by the religious. What is strange is that the person making the claim about only the most juvenile reasons to be an atheist is hiimself either an "agnostic" or a "seeker" depending on which day he's posting.
So I thought I'd, once again, explain atheism for people who don't really know much about it.
1. Not all atheists are like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
2. There are a couple types of atheism which differ in how the conclusion is reached
3. Atheists come to atheism through any number of paths. Some were born without religion, some came to it after long examination of their faith and yes, some were "agnry at god"...I don't think I've ever met anyone like that but I assume they DO exist.
So first off. I've provided some references to support the definitions here.
Let's start with the two flavors of atheism: STRONG (aka "explicit atheism") and WEAK (aka "implicit" atheism).
"Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. " (Cline, ref 1)
"Strong atheism" is the explicit denial of God's existence. It is the one that says "There are no Gods".
This may seem like a distinction without a difference (we'll get to the agnosticism later on) but it is a legitimate and established philosophy (easily found in the literature and I've provided references below). The real reason that one might prefer one over the other is the burden of proof necessary. In order to prove a universal negative claim like "there are no gods" one would have to be able to examine simultaneously the entire universe to ensure no god exists. It is an impossible task.
The IMPLICIT (Weak) position is simply failing to believe in God. That kinda sounds like the same thing but it is a significant difference in philosophy. While I don't necessarily disbelieve in the Strong Atheist claim, I am uncomfortable in tying myself to a philosophy that presents an impossible burden or proof.
The Weak position is actually more philosophically rational.
The frame I put around the weak atheist position I have belabored at length on this forum but I'll summarize once again for completeness sake:
In science, when we examine a claim we often test against the ABSENCE of what is claimed. Let's take an example of a life-saving drug. These were all tested this way. Does the drug work? If so it was because the tests provided sufficient evidence to NEGATE the claim that "the drug has no effect" (Null, absence of effect).
And conversely you are not taking horrible poisons that kill you on contact because those drugs FAILED to provide sufficient evidence to negate the claim. You are not given that drug because it was determined that it was insufficiently evidence to overcome the concept that there is no effect.
That sounds a bit convouted and will take a few times around to fully grok it. And it is admittedly subtle.
"But isn't this just agnosticism?": That's a fair question and one that many feel is true. The philosopher Michael Martin in 1990 wished to be more expansive on the definition and bring in the implicit application. As discussed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "...in defining “atheist” as someone who lacks the belief that God exists. This commits them to adopting the psychological sense of “atheism” discussed above, according to which “atheism” should not be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism”, according to these philosophers, should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods)." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Ref 2)
So, yeah, it's complicated and subtle and nuanced. But it IS what atheism is. According to the only people who matter on the subject: atheists.
So why isn't this considered "agnosticism"? Well, depending on whom you talk to, agnosticism can be simply the failure to have any opinion to the more rigorous belief that no solution can ever be achieved for the question. That it is technically impossible to ever know. And all shade in between.
The real difference is the "weak atheist" DOES have a positive position. We fail to believe in God. Which is pretty much the same (albeit somewhat subtle) as saying We don't believe in God.
Just like the drug that fails to reject the null hypothesis....we fail to believe that this drug has an effect. "We don't believe this drug works" (again there IS a subtle distinction there but not enough to completely derail the conversation over.
(This is all EXACTLY how the justice system is suppoed to work. So you can't say this is some arbitrary scientific concept...no, this is how one should test claims)
The other advantage of the Weak Atheist position is that it allows for more evidence to be gathered. Perhaps something will come up tomorrow that changes the calculus and suddenly we see sufficient evidence to change our position and REJECT THE NULL.
References:
1. https://www.learnreligions.com/strong-atheism-vs-weak-atheism-248406
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
This, of course, is quite offensive, but probably because it belies a certain hatred of atheists. That's nothing new under the sun....atheists have always been distrusted by the religious. What is strange is that the person making the claim about only the most juvenile reasons to be an atheist is hiimself either an "agnostic" or a "seeker" depending on which day he's posting.
So I thought I'd, once again, explain atheism for people who don't really know much about it.
1. Not all atheists are like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
2. There are a couple types of atheism which differ in how the conclusion is reached
3. Atheists come to atheism through any number of paths. Some were born without religion, some came to it after long examination of their faith and yes, some were "agnry at god"...I don't think I've ever met anyone like that but I assume they DO exist.
So first off. I've provided some references to support the definitions here.
Let's start with the two flavors of atheism: STRONG (aka "explicit atheism") and WEAK (aka "implicit" atheism).
"Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. " (Cline, ref 1)
"Strong atheism" is the explicit denial of God's existence. It is the one that says "There are no Gods".
This may seem like a distinction without a difference (we'll get to the agnosticism later on) but it is a legitimate and established philosophy (easily found in the literature and I've provided references below). The real reason that one might prefer one over the other is the burden of proof necessary. In order to prove a universal negative claim like "there are no gods" one would have to be able to examine simultaneously the entire universe to ensure no god exists. It is an impossible task.
The IMPLICIT (Weak) position is simply failing to believe in God. That kinda sounds like the same thing but it is a significant difference in philosophy. While I don't necessarily disbelieve in the Strong Atheist claim, I am uncomfortable in tying myself to a philosophy that presents an impossible burden or proof.
The Weak position is actually more philosophically rational.
The frame I put around the weak atheist position I have belabored at length on this forum but I'll summarize once again for completeness sake:
In science, when we examine a claim we often test against the ABSENCE of what is claimed. Let's take an example of a life-saving drug. These were all tested this way. Does the drug work? If so it was because the tests provided sufficient evidence to NEGATE the claim that "the drug has no effect" (Null, absence of effect).
And conversely you are not taking horrible poisons that kill you on contact because those drugs FAILED to provide sufficient evidence to negate the claim. You are not given that drug because it was determined that it was insufficiently evidence to overcome the concept that there is no effect.
That sounds a bit convouted and will take a few times around to fully grok it. And it is admittedly subtle.
"But isn't this just agnosticism?": That's a fair question and one that many feel is true. The philosopher Michael Martin in 1990 wished to be more expansive on the definition and bring in the implicit application. As discussed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "...in defining “atheist” as someone who lacks the belief that God exists. This commits them to adopting the psychological sense of “atheism” discussed above, according to which “atheism” should not be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism”, according to these philosophers, should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods)." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Ref 2)
So, yeah, it's complicated and subtle and nuanced. But it IS what atheism is. According to the only people who matter on the subject: atheists.
So why isn't this considered "agnosticism"? Well, depending on whom you talk to, agnosticism can be simply the failure to have any opinion to the more rigorous belief that no solution can ever be achieved for the question. That it is technically impossible to ever know. And all shade in between.
The real difference is the "weak atheist" DOES have a positive position. We fail to believe in God. Which is pretty much the same (albeit somewhat subtle) as saying We don't believe in God.
Just like the drug that fails to reject the null hypothesis....we fail to believe that this drug has an effect. "We don't believe this drug works" (again there IS a subtle distinction there but not enough to completely derail the conversation over.
(This is all EXACTLY how the justice system is suppoed to work. So you can't say this is some arbitrary scientific concept...no, this is how one should test claims)
The other advantage of the Weak Atheist position is that it allows for more evidence to be gathered. Perhaps something will come up tomorrow that changes the calculus and suddenly we see sufficient evidence to change our position and REJECT THE NULL.
References:
1. https://www.learnreligions.com/strong-atheism-vs-weak-atheism-248406
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
