Is strong atheism "faithy," dishonest, awkward, or hard to defend?

[Unbeatable]

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think it may be Type 2 Gods that keep me from being comfortable with strong atheism. Those are the types which elude falsifiability, right? If so, I think I have to be agnostic about them.

You are agnostic about whether nothing is something? I would say that those are the class that is most easily dismissed. You don't need to prove that nothing is non-existent; non-existence is part of the definition.

I am agnostic about whether something indistinguishable from nothing is something. To say that something is indistinguishable from nothing is to make a statement about its appearance. But a statement about something's appearance is really just a statement about our own perceptions, our own ability to derive testable hypotheses from it. I am agnostic about the existence of things which elude our capacity to perceive them. One characteristic that seems to be shared by all types of gods except Type 3 is agency. I am agnostic about the existence of an agent which can actively hide from and sabotage our efforts to detect it.

 

[Kharakov]

We have sufficient evidence, in the 21st century, to rule out the existence of any entity that meets the criteria 'ruler of the universe' implying 'power over nature or human fortunes'; there is, quite simply, no mechanism by which such an entity could act that has not been ruled out; If it were there, it would be detectable. If an entity exists that has, and uses, power to change reality in ways not explained by science, then we would have detected it. We have not.

That's an idiotic, illogical assessment of the situation.

If an entity exists that has and uses power to influence the outcome of natural events, it is not necessarily observable at all times- it could hide itself from detection.

By suggesting a god that does not qualify in those terms, it is you who is committing a fallacy - you are expanding the definition of that which you seek to prove, to make it encompass concepts to which it never previously referred.

Some of the definitions are pretty general. Creator of the universe is a pretty general conception of God that a lot of theists throw around.

 

[bilby]

You are agnostic about whether nothing is something? I would say that those are the class that is most easily dismissed. You don't need to prove that nothing is non-existent; non-existence is part of the definition.

I am agnostic about whether something indistinguishable from nothing is something. To say that something is indistinguishable from nothing is to make a statement about its appearance. But a statement about something's appearance is really just a statement about our own perceptions, our own ability to derive testable hypotheses from it. I am agnostic about the existence of things which elude our capacity to perceive them. One characteristic that seems to be shared by all types of gods except Type 3 is agency. I am agnostic about the existence of an agent which can actively hide from and sabotage our efforts to detect it.

Me too; but as such an agent would not fit the definition of a god, it has no bearing on atheism, strong, weak or otherwise. Every god ever proposed by anybody has been described in such a way as to make it clearly distinguishable from nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

That's an idiotic, illogical assessment of the situation.

If an entity exists that has and uses power to influence the outcome of natural events, it is not necessarily observable at all times- it could hide itself from detection.

It cannot hide from detection AND use power to influence the outcome of natural events - by influencing natural events it renders itself detectable; and by failing to do so in order to remain hidden, it puts itself outside the definition(s) of a god as established by theists.

By suggesting a god that does not qualify in those terms, it is you who is committing a fallacy - you are expanding the definition of that which you seek to prove, to make it encompass concepts to which it never previously referred.

Some of the definitions are pretty general. Creator of the universe is a pretty general conception of God that a lot of theists throw around.

And I dealt separately with that illogic earlier.

 

[Unbeatable]

I am agnostic about whether something indistinguishable from nothing is something. To say that something is indistinguishable from nothing is to make a statement about its appearance. But a statement about something's appearance is really just a statement about our own perceptions, our own ability to derive testable hypotheses from it. I am agnostic about the existence of things which elude our capacity to perceive them. One characteristic that seems to be shared by all types of gods except Type 3 is agency. I am agnostic about the existence of an agent which can actively hide from and sabotage our efforts to detect it.

Me too; but as such an agent would not fit the definition of a god, it has no bearing on atheism, strong, weak or otherwise.

What "definition of a god"?

Every god ever proposed by anybody has been described in such a way as to make it clearly distinguishable from nothing.

I don't believe that's true, or see how it would be relevant if it was true.

 

[bilby]

Me too; but as such an agent would not fit the definition of a god, it has no bearing on atheism, strong, weak or otherwise.

What "definition of a god"?

This one.

Every god ever proposed by anybody has been described in such a way as to make it clearly distinguishable from nothing.

I don't believe that's true, or see how it would be relevant if it was true.

Sure. There is probably a lost tribe in the Amazon who pray to absolutely nothing every day to do nothing at all, while quaking in whatever footwear they use at the idea that he won't do it.

 

[Unbeatable]

This one.

These definitions

1 (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu

seem consistent with the aforementioned agent.

We have sufficient evidence, in the 21st century, to rule out the existence of any entity that meets the criteria 'ruler of the universe' implying 'power over nature or human fortunes'; there is, quite simply, no mechanism by which such an entity could act that has not been ruled out; If it were there, it would be detectable. If an entity exists that has, and uses, power to change reality in ways not explained by science, then we would have detected it.

"can actively hide from and sabotage our efforts to detect it" implies the ability to prevent us from detecting the mechanism by which it can act. "Nature", after all, includes all of our technology, sensory organs, historical records, memories, etc.

 

[bilby]

These definitions

1 (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu

seem consistent with the aforementioned agent.

We have sufficient evidence, in the 21st century, to rule out the existence of any entity that meets the criteria 'ruler of the universe' implying 'power over nature or human fortunes'; there is, quite simply, no mechanism by which such an entity could act that has not been ruled out; If it were there, it would be detectable. If an entity exists that has, and uses, power to change reality in ways not explained by science, then we would have detected it.

"can actively hide from and sabotage our efforts to detect it" implies the ability to prevent us from detecting the mechanism by which it can act. "Nature", after all, includes all of our technology, sensory organs, historical records, memories, etc.

The mechanisms by which it could act can only be those which we now understand; we have ruled out the existence of any other means to interact with the universe at scales relevant to humans. If we can't detect it, it can't interact with us.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

The same argument regarding the impossibility of a 'soul' that interacts with physical humans applies to gods; they can't possibly exist, because there is no way for them to interact with reality at human scales, that we would not have detected.

A god who is actively concealing himself from all of humanity simply does not meet the definition - such a being cannot have power over humans and still remain concealed.

 

[Unbeatable]

The mechanisms by which it could act can only be those which we now understand; we have ruled out the existence of any other means to interact with the universe at scales relevant to humans. If we can't detect it, it can't interact with us.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

Unfortunately, this writer lost me here:

Obviously this is completely crazy. Our conviction that green cheese makes up a negligible fraction of the Moon’s interior comes not from direct observation, but from the gross incompatibility of that idea with other things we think we know. Given what we do understand about rocks and planets and dairy products and the Solar System, it’s absurd to imagine that the Moon is made of green cheese. We know better

I think my agnosticism goes much further than just the idea of gods or souls. I don't share this writer's conviction that reality as a whole is this coherent, comprehensible system where a physical law that functions at one point in spacetime is also applicable at all the others.

Ultimately, my non-belief in souls is based just as much on wishful thinking as the theist's belief in souls. I strongly hope that consciousness permanently ends at death, but I ultimately can't defend the claim that it definitely does-- I'm not knowledgeable enough about physics to draw a line from what few, if any things I "think I know" to any of these conclusions. So a position of strong atheism would be a misrepresentation of the state of my knowledge and certainty.

 

[bilby]

The mechanisms by which it could act can only be those which we now understand; we have ruled out the existence of any other means to interact with the universe at scales relevant to humans. If we can't detect it, it can't interact with us.

Unfortunately, this writer lost me here:

Obviously this is completely crazy. Our conviction that green cheese makes up a negligible fraction of the Moon’s interior comes not from direct observation, but from the gross incompatibility of that idea with other things we think we know. Given what we do understand about rocks and planets and dairy products and the Solar System, it’s absurd to imagine that the Moon is made of green cheese. We know better

I think my agnosticism goes much further than just the idea of gods or souls. I don't share this writer's conviction that reality as a whole is this coherent, comprehensible system where a physical law that functions at one point in spacetime is also applicable at all the others.

Ultimately, my non-belief in souls is based just as much on wishful thinking as the theist's belief in souls. I strongly hope that consciousness permanently ends at death, but I ultimately can't defend the claim that it definitely does-- I'm not knowledgeable enough about physics to draw a line from what few, if any things I "think I know" to any of these conclusions. So a position of strong atheism would be a misrepresentation of the state of my knowledge and certainty.

Fair enough; but that does not imply that it would also be a misrepresentation of everybody's state of knowledge and certainty.

 

[Unbeatable]

Fair enough; but that does not imply that it would also be a misrepresentation of everybody's state of knowledge and certainty.

Which is why my answer to the OP's question is essentially "not necessarily"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No. Your logic is a no-true-scotsman. You can't relationally reject the idea just because such a god is too "small" to attack. There stands every reason within the logic of possible reasons for a good god to create for the atheist loving god, and every logical necessity for 'hands off' within the scenario. It wouldn't change the obligation to be an atheist in any way, and in fact does have a real implication that we have a duty to be weak atheists, or at least act like it regardless.

Just because life is hard and shitty and short and we have to work for all the nice things doesn't mean that there isn't a god. All it means is that we shouldn't state negatives with certainty. That's called faith.

It still stands that there is out there a really good reason why a god that has a reason for creating wouldn't act upon the creation. It also means that IF there is a non-evil god, he wants you to be an atheist. I see no problem with this position. I could be friends with such an entity. I never claimed gods must be powerful or useful. I never claimed that they should be worshipped. I am a weak atheist, and I am one because that is the only logical course of action whether or not there is a god behind the existence of the universe. As I said, it is not a particularly important distinction between the ethical implications of either position. Both mean the game has the same rules. It is just that strong atheism requires faith, and assumes the negative where such an assumption isn't necessary.

FWIW you have demonstrated that people make gods up to help them cope with their experiences. Pretend things like gods are not real, wish and hope as one might.

 

[untermensche]

The idea of absolute knowledge is a religious concept.

To say one knows for certain some thing does not exist is an expression of faith.

All a rational person can say is that the odds are strongly against it.

So, in your opinion, there may be a god who can do anything but can't defeat iron chariots? There may be a god who can be seen but can't be seen? One who is all-loving but tortures people forever in Hellfire?

We can't rule any of those out?

The more specific the claim the less likely.

But strong atheism makes a general claim, not a specific claim.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, in your opinion, there may be a god who can do anything but can't defeat iron chariots? There may be a god who can be seen but can't be seen? One who is all-loving but tortures people forever in Hellfire?

We can't rule any of those out?

The more specific the claim the less likely.

But strong atheism makes a general claim, not a specific claim.

But that's the whole point. The general claim is a wrapper term for all of the more specific claims that it encompasses.

It's like if you're saying vampires don't exist. It means that you're saying that traditional vampires don't exist and that Japanese vampires don't exist and that Indian vampires don't exist and that sparkly vampires don't exist and that angsty vampires who fight crime don't exist, etc, etc. Anything that someone can define which would fall under the category of vampire is something that you're saying doesn't exist or wouldn't actually fall under the category of vampire. Anything that someone can't define ... isn't defined. You're not disbelieving in it, believing in it, reserving judgement on it or anything else in regards to it - you simply don't have anything to take a position on because you haven't been given any information about it.

It's the same thing with gods. The claim that gods don't exist is a general wrapper term for how all the more specific definitions of gods don't exist. No matter what type of god one defines, it is either a fictional entity or one which shouldn't be called a god. Anything that someone can't define ... isn't defined. You're not disbelieving in it, believing in it, reserving judgement on it or anything else in regards to it - you simply don't have anything to take a position on because you haven't been given any information about it.

There is a big difference between the "I don't know" of "We currently do not have sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion" and the "I don't know" of "You have made a nonsense statement that I can't respond to". Atheism, agnosticism, etc refer to the former. Random phrases which one has not provided a definition for refer to the latter.

 

[Wiploc]

Originally Posted by untermensche

The idea of absolute knowledge is a religious concept.

To say one knows for certain some thing does not exist is an expression of faith.

All a rational person can say is that the odds are strongly against it.

So, in your opinion, there may be a god who can do anything but can't defeat iron chariots? There may be a god who can be seen but can't be seen? One who is all-loving but tortures people forever in Hellfire?

We can't rule any of those out?

The more specific the claim the less likely.

But strong atheism makes a general claim, not a specific claim.

Let me see if I understand.

When you make the general claim that we can't know anything, you're only talking about specific things.

Do I have that right?

 

[jonJ]

A god that has no influence on reality could potentially exist; but that is not what the word god means.

On Quora -- where I now spend most of my forum time -- I've started using the phrase 'any god that matters'. I'm also careful to refer to 'your God' when responding to theists, just to try and limit this kind of definitional bait-and-switch.

 

[ronburgundy]

A god that has no influence on reality could potentially exist; but that is not what the word god means.

On Quora -- where I now spend most of my forum time -- I've started using the phrase 'any god that matters'. I'm also careful to refer to 'your God' when responding to theists, just to try and limit this kind of definitional bait-and-switch.

I like that strategy. The biggest problem in debates on the plausibility of God is the dishonest refusal of theists to provide a specific definition that defines the particular attributes, abilities, and actions of this God. Without this, the phrase "God exists" is meaningless and thus cannot be assigned a plausibility.
All believers have a specific God in mind, because otherwise belief is impossible and amounts to nothing other than "I like to utter to empty phrase 'God exists'".

Once a God is specified its a priori probability becomes 1/infinity, because the possible universes without that God are infinitely more than the ones with that God. Thus, in the absence of extreme evidence for a God it must be rejected as false with as much certainty as any idea can be rationally rejected. This applies to all specified God's (none of which have anything close to sufficient evidence to override the a priori probability of near 0). Thus, strong atheism is the only rational position.

 

[Wiploc]

Once a God is specified its a priori probability becomes 1/infinity, because the possible universes without that God are infinitely more than the ones with that God. Thus, in the absence of extreme evidence for a God it must be rejected as false with as much certainty as any idea can be rationally rejected. This applies to all specified God's (none of which have anything close to sufficient evidence to override the a priori probability of near 0). Thus, strong atheism is the only rational position.

Good argument!

 

[jonJ]

I also like to point out that the descriptor 'God' is a position statement; it refers to an entity who is responsible for doing certain things. If those things don't get done, or the entity doesn't do them, then it's not a god, regardless of whether or not it has the capacity to do them if it wanted to. If Barack Obama took a one-way teleport to Arcturus IV tomorrow, then he would soon cease to be POTUS, regardless of his capacity for or his rights to the position. Presidents earn their title by doing President things. God-candidates become gods by doing god-things.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A god that has no influence on reality could potentially exist; but that is not what the word god means.

On Quora -- where I now spend most of my forum time -- I've started using the phrase 'any god that matters'. I'm also careful to refer to 'your God' when responding to theists, just to try and limit this kind of definitional bait-and-switch.

Many Christians hold that not all Gods are worthy of worship. Indeed not all Gods matter. For example The Process God concept.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On Quora -- where I now spend most of my forum time -- I've started using the phrase 'any god that matters'. I'm also careful to refer to 'your God' when responding to theists, just to try and limit this kind of definitional bait-and-switch.

Many Christians hold that not all Gods are worthy of worship. Indeed not all Gods matter. For example The Process God concept.

What I've noticed about most Christians, and it's probably true about believers generally, is that they see people of other faiths that don't even worship or recognize their god as real as fellow believers. That always seemed odd to me. It's beginning to make more sense, however, as I've heard the sentiment expressed frequently that everyone worships the same god, the same lord. If that's true then the only thing separating these people is a common religion.

I think a lot of believers confuse worship with god. They share a need to worship and so invent their gods. So when it comes time to discussing religion and atheism, they can claim how so many more people are believers than not, even if the majority of those believers are atheist with regards to their god.