"Strong" atheist vs. "weak" atheist - what's the difference?

[The Laughing Man]

And what makes you or someone else one or the other? Please provide an objective answer that goes beyond anything that amounts to, "Because I say I am," or, "Because I say they are."

[Vorkosigan]

And what makes you or someone else one or the other? Please provide an objective answer that goes beyond anything that amounts to,

There's a massive thread going on at the moment about that. Dee Dee's Do Atheists Deny God? thread.

Because I say I am," or, "Because I say they are."

Jinx, please explain how a definition can ever be anything but someone's subjective opinion elevated to a position of general agreement. All definitions take the form of "because I say they are." That's what a definition is, Jinx.

Vorkosigan

[WinAce]

(1) see other thread.
(2) the mountain of evidence for the non-existence of gods.

[AtheistArchon]

- I think this is an essential question, and one which the answer(s) to may be buried in the other big thread, so I'll post a little about it here.

1. "I do not believe in god" - weak atheism
2. "God (as defined) does not exist" - strong atheism
3. "I don't know if god exists or not" - agnosticism, also weak atheism

- The first position is the most common one. It's the one I usually take as well, unless the god in question is defined with logically contradictory traits (omnibenevolent, but also just), in which case it's a simple matter to back up a claim to #2. #3 is a wishy-washy position, IMHO, but not totally unacceptable. Agnostics are not believers... only people who think god exists can be believers. Therefore agnostics are weak atheists (they disbelieve because they do not claim to know whether any exist).

- The onus of proof is always on the claimant, we can all agree on that. Additionally, nobody disagrees that the theists are making a claim. The only thing a weak atheist claims is... not to believe. Weak atheism is philosophically a MUCH stronger position than strong atheism, since it requires no defense. You have to work to convince a weak atheist, and his skepticism is justified (as is yours whenever we bring up unicorns and dragons, as worn out as those analogies are).

- Now, the strong atheist is indeed making a claim, and in such cases where I do so, I always back that claim up. I can tell you that it just doesn't happen very often, because in order to make such a claim you have to have agreed upon characteristics of the deity in question. Sound easy? Gods are immaterial, "spiritual", unknowable beings whose traits ebb and flow at the whim of their proponents. I'd love for someone to actually sit down and construct a list of traits their god incoporates, and then not move the goalposts later on. Even so, such a person is bound to come under fire from other believers whose interpretation differs dramatically!

- There's the difference. From here, there are only two directions a theist can travel in. He can either attack the justification behind skepticism (in which case I have some lovely land in Florida he will be interested in and cannot afford to pass up), or he can present arguments for the existence of god to try and convince the weak atheist, or debunk the strong atheist.

[Jezz]

AtheistArchon:
1. "I do not believe in god" - weak atheism
2. "God (as defined) does not exist" - strong atheism
3. "I don't know if god exists or not" - agnosticism, also weak atheism

Ok, how about this to try and clarify the situation. There are two different facts here:

1. The existence or otherwise of god. Let us denote the non-existence of god by A, and the existence of god as the converse ~A. By the law of the excluded middle, one of these two propositions must be true.
2. The belief of a person regarding each of the propositions A and ~A. As I see it, a person either believes a proposition, or they don't.

This leaves us with the following four different types of people, which forms an exhaustive list (ie, there are no other possiblities):

1. A person believes both A and ~A.
2. A person believes A but does not believe ~A.
3. A person believes ~A but does not believe A.
4. A person believes neither ~A nor A.

Let's look at each of these in turn:
Person 1 would correspond to someone who is insane, er, I mean, a relativist , and trying to have a logical discussion with such a person would be like doing this:
Person 2 would correspond to your definition of a strong atheist.
Person 3 would correspond to a theist.
Person 4 would correspond to an agnostic.

Now, by your definition of "weak atheist" (ie a person who does not believe in the existence of god), that would correspond to someone who does not believe ~A. From the above table, there are only two possibilities for people who do not believe in ~A - those that believe in A (the strong atheists) and those that do not believe in A (the agnostics). In other words, the set of all people who are weak atheists is simply the union of the set of agnostics and the set of strong atheists.

I can accept that definition of weak atheism, however it seems to me that you are somehow trying to differentiate weak atheism from strong atheism. In which case, we have to exclude all strong atheists from the class of weak atheists. But if we do that, then the definition of weak atheism simply degenerates to being equivalent to the definition of agnosticism.

So which is it? Is the set of weak atheists:

1. The union of set all agnostics and the set of all strong atheists, or
2. Equal to the set of all agnostics.
3. Somehow different from both agnostics and strong atheists (and if so, explain how this is logically possible - in light of the exhaustive list of possibilities above).

Regardless of the position you take on the above, it would seem that you don't consider yourself a strong atheist, in which case if you are a weak atheist then you must be an agnostic (at least, as long as the god postulated does not define a logical impossibility, in which case you'd be a strong atheist). Is that a fair description?

[Vorkosigan]

1. A person believes both A and ~A.

Let's look at each of these in turn:
Person 1 would correspond to someone who is insane, er, I mean, a relativist , and trying to have a logical discussion with such a person would be like doing this:

Yes, like discussing the Trinity with a Christian, for example. "Hey, 3=1, you know!"

I think your choices left out

4. weak atheism is the union of the set of weak atheists with the set of agnostics who are atheists.

Agnostics can be of any religious stance; at least the way I've been seeing it, agnostic is more of methodological stance rather than a belief stance. Although I am sure an agnostic will step in and correct me.

Vorkosigan

[Solly]

Funny, but I was going to post a thread on this very subject, with a poll for our nonChristian friends.

Basically, it was:

• I am an athiest - there is no God or supernatural beings, period.
• I am an athiest - I don't know if there is a God/Supernatural being or not, but I don't believe in one at the moment.
• I am an athiest - I wish I could find God.

For myself, I went from the second to the first, then to Christianity.

Feel free to add you own particular pov if it is not covered.

[The Laughing Man]

I got my answer in the other thread. A "strong" atheist is one who has read Ingersoll and Dawkins. A "weak" atheist is one who has not.

[Jezz]

Vorkosigan:
Yes, like discussing the Trinity with a Christian, for example. "Hey, 3=1, you know!"

Well, this is getting a little off-topic, but I'll add my 2 cents here. FWIW, I don't think that the Trinity is an illogical proposition. The concept of multiple personalities in one entity is not logically contradictory - in fact, the very existence of the medical disorder of multiple personality disorder shows that it is logically consistent. Though I'm sure this is not a parallel that most Trinitarians would find appealling... Anyway, as I said this is straying from the main topic of the thread so if you are interested in further discussion on the logical consistency (or otherwise) of the Trinity, perhaps you should start another thread (though unfortunately I can't guarantee I'll have the time to participate, but I'm sure others would).

I think your choices left out

4. weak atheism is the union of the set of weak atheists with the set of agnostics who are atheists.

Well, I think your definition is a little incomplete because it seems to be circular. In fact, by the definition I am accustomed to for agnosticism and atheism, the set of agnostics who are atheists would be empty (more on this below).

Agnostics can be of any religious stance; at least the way I've been seeing it, agnostic is more of methodological stance rather than a belief stance. Although I am sure an agnostic will step in and correct me.

Well, I agree that agnosticism is a stance that can be taken regarding the truth of any proposition. But this current thread is one that is discussing these definitions as applied to the existence of a particular god G, so when I say "agnostic" I mean "agnostic with regard to the existence or otherwise of G". Is this what you mean when you coin the phrase "agnostic atheist"? By such a definition, would it be equally valid to call such a person an "agnostic theist"?

Anyway, that's a little bit of a sidetrack. Jinx started this thread asking for objective definitions of the meanings of weak and strong atheism. I didn't find AtheistArchon's definitions watertight (no offence intended, Archon), so I attempted to start from a more rigorous base. I'll try and do it again more clearly this time:

-For any given proposition A, either A is true or ~A is true (the law of the excluded middle).
-For any given proposition, a person either believes it or they do not believe it. This is simply the law of the excluded middle applied to the truth of the proposition "person believes A").

So for any proposition A we have its converse ~A, and for each of these, a person can take one of two positions: belief or unbelief. Thus there are 2x2=4 different types of people:

1. A person who believes both A and ~A (inconsistent/irrational).
2. A person who believes A but does not believe ~A (an A-believer).
3. A person who believes ~A but does not believe A (a ~A-believer).
4. A person who believes neither ~A nor A (agnostic with regard to the truth or otherwise of A).

These are the only possibilities - every person must fall into one of these categories. This is the objective reality when it comes to belief or otherwise of an arbitrary proposition A.

My aim is now to see how people's various definitions for the belief in the existence/non-existence of a particular god G fit within these 4 categories. Suppose that A is the proposition "the god 'G' does not exist". With regard to the truth of this proposition, people can fall into one of the above 4 categories. As I see it, the three rational categories are 2. G-atheist, 3. G-theist, 4. G-agnostic. It would seem fairly obvious that AtheistArchon was defining a "strong atheist" as a person in category 2. But what I can't figure out is which of these categories Archon sees a "weak G-atheist" fitting into. If I was to simply apply his definition ("does not believe in god"), this would imply that weak atheists are all those people in categories 2 and 4. However, from the way he was writing Archon seemed to imply that a strong atheist was not a weak atheist, which rules out category 2. And this leaves only category 4. In other words, when examined objectively, his definition of weak atheism seems to be equivalent to the definition of an agnostic. And if this is the case, I can't understand the need for coining a new phrase for it.

If I am wrong, then could either you or AtheistArchon explain to me which of the 4 types of people are "weak atheists"? And while you are at it (Vorkosigan), can you explain to me which of the 4 cases would be considered "agnostic-atheist" in your opinion - am I right in suspecting that you mean category 4?

Heh, with all the different definitions people are throwing around in order to try and dodge the "burden of proof" question, perhaps we need to dispense with the customary definitions and simply state "I am a 2" or "I am a 3" or "I am a 4" or (dare I say it) "I am a 1"?

[AtheistArchon]

1. The existence or otherwise of god. Let us denote the non-existence of god by A, and the existence of god as the converse ~A. By the law of the excluded middle, one of these two propositions must be true.
2. The belief of a person regarding each of the propositions A and ~A. As I see it, a person either believes a proposition, or they don't.

- Yes.

1. A person believes both A and ~A.
2. A person believes A but does not believe ~A.
3. A person believes ~A but does not believe A.
4. A person believes neither ~A nor A.

- Person 1 would be in a state of cognitive dissonance, yes. Logically, it's impossible.

- Person 2 is a theist.

- Person 3 is an atheist.

- Person 4 is an impossibility, just like person 1.

- If we're talking about the existence of something, then there are only two choices, not four. As far as the state of belief goes, if you are not aware of the existence of the item, then you fall into the category of nonbelief. Likewise, if you have heard of it but "don't know" if it exists or not, you still can't be a believer.

- This is why I called agnosticism a little silly. =) It's basically a "nice" way to say "I'm an atheist". The term was invented by Huxley for just this purpose, in fact.

I can accept that definition of weak atheism, however it seems to me that you are somehow trying to differentiate weak atheism from strong atheism. In which case, we have to exclude all strong atheists from the class of weak atheists. But if we do that, then the definition of weak atheism simply degenerates to being equivalent to the definition of agnosticism.

- Weak atheists are not necessarily agnostics, but agnostics are necessarily weak atheists. The only thing that differentiates them is that the agnostic disbelieves for a specific reason: he doesn't claim to know whether a god exists or not. (Of course, we can also make the argument that neither do theists, and therefore everyone in the world is technically an agnostic, but that's another thread.)

- You should know that I don't lend any real philosophical credence to the term "agnostic". Either you believe or you do not.

Regardless of the position you take on the above, it would seem that you don't consider yourself a strong atheist, in which case if you are a weak atheist then you must be an agnostic (at least, as long as the god postulated does not define a logical impossibility, in which case you'd be a strong atheist). Is that a fair description?

- In most cases, I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe in any gods or goddesses. However, there are SOME definitions of gods or goddesses which cannot possibly allow their existence, and in such cases I am a strong atheist (because I can show their logical impossibility). These cases are rare, however, because it is difficult to gain a firm list of traits attributed to said deity.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 05:37 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:

[...] defined with logically contradictory traits (omnibenevolent, but also just)

How is omnibenevolence (all-loving) contradictory with being just (honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions)? Isn't being just, by its very definition, an exhibition of being loving?

American Heritage Dictionary cites synonyms of just as being:

1. (adj.) Not partial or biased:
• impartial
• nondiscriminatory
• fair
• evenhanded
• unbigoted
• unbiased
• unprejudiced
• unprejudicial

How do you think that it is illogical to say that this goes hand-in-hand with the all-loving trait?

[Jezz]

AtheistArchon:
- Person 1 would be in a state of cognitive dissonance, yes. Logically, it's impossible.

As in, logically it is impossible that both A and ~A are true, although (sadly) it is not logically impossible for someone to believe both A and ~A (they would just be inconsistent)

- Person 2 is a theist.

- Person 3 is an atheist.

Well, if the proposition A was "God exists", then yes. I actually defined the proposition A as "God does not exist", so my definitions were actually the other way around. Minor point, but just thought I would note it in case someone got confused.

Actually, I suspect that the fact that you switched these is indicative of an underlying assumption that you are making, which is at the root of all this "weak atheism" business. If my suspicion is true, then this point will probably come out in the next exchange or two, so I won't bother with the distraction now.

- Person 4 is an impossibility, just like person 1.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. It is quite conceivable that you may not have seen enough evidence to convince you of the existence of a god, but you also have not seen enough evidence to convince you that that god does not exist either. Or perhaps, the arguments for either are equally compelling. In such circumstances, to believe neither is not only justified, it's probably the only rational option.

Another example, to illustrate my point: an unresolved problem in mathematics is whether smooth solutions exist to the Navier-Stokes equations (which are a set of differential equations describing fluid flow). Nobody knows if such solutions exist, but by the same token we don't know if no such solutions exist. So if we define A as the proposition "smooth solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations exist", then it is quite valid to say that mathematicians fall into category 4 for this proposition.

Thus, "agnosticism" with regard to the truth or otherwise of an arbitrary proposition (category 4) is justified if the evidence for both is inconclusive (or perhaps carries equal weight). It is not cognitive dissonance.

- If we're talking about the existence of something, then there are only two choices, not four.

Well, if you're talking about the objective truth of the proposition "A exists", then yes - there are only two possibilities. But this is different to what people believe the truth is (for which I maintain there are 4 possibilities, of which 3 do not involve cognitive dissonance). I think you get the distinction, as your next bit shows.

As far as the state of belief goes, if you are not aware of the existence of the item, then you fall into the category of nonbelief. Likewise, if you have heard of it but "don't know" if it exists or not, you still can't be a believer.

Wouldn't such a person fall into category 4?

- This is why I called agnosticism a little silly. =) It's basically a "nice" way to say "I'm an atheist". The term was invented by Huxley for just this purpose, in fact.

Again, I gotta disagree, as per above.

- Weak atheists are not necessarily agnostics, but agnostics are necessarily weak atheists. The only thing that differentiates them is that the agnostic disbelieves for a specific reason: he doesn't claim to know whether a god exists or not. (Of course, we can also make the argument that neither do theists, and therefore everyone in the world is technically an agnostic, but that's another thread.)

So, if I understand you correctly, basically what you are saying is that a weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god for no reason?

- You should know that I don't lend any real philosophical credence to the term "agnostic". Either you believe or you do not.

Again, I've gotta disagree with you. Yes, either you believe or you don't. But I don't see that it logically follows that if you don't believe A, then you must believe ~A (or vice-versa). See above.

- In most cases, I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe in any gods or goddesses. However, there are SOME definitions of gods or goddesses which cannot possibly allow their existence, and in such cases I am a strong atheist (because I can show their logical impossibility). These cases are rare, however, because it is difficult to gain a firm list of traits attributed to said deity.

But, I am still at a loss as to which of the four categories of belief "weak atheism" falls into.

Perhaps, if we blur the distinction between categories to allow for a spectrum of belief strength. Say a scale from 0 to 1, where complete belief is 1, and complete disbelief is 0.

"Strong theism" would be 1. "Strong atheism" would be 0. "Agnosticism" or "non-belief" would be 0.5. Could we perhaps fit "weak atheism" on this scale at (eg) 0.25?

[AtheistArchon]

How is omnibenevolence (all-loving) contradictory with being just (honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions)? Isn't being just, by its very definition, an exhibition of being loving?

- An omnibenevolent being would never be able to punish anyone for their ill deeds; he would just forgive them unconditionally. God (the Christian god, anyway) does not seem to do this, even though it must certainly be in his power to do so. In addition, we have examples both affirming and negating both omnibenevolence and justice in the bible, which makes it a pretty good comination for an atheistic argument against that particular concept.

How do you think that it is illogical to say that this goes hand-in-hand with the all-loving trait?

- Because it would be just to punish a mass murderer. A perfectly kind being cannot do this, because he is too kind.

Well, if the proposition A was "God exists", then yes. I actually defined the proposition A as "God does not exist", so my definitions were actually the other way around. Minor point, but just thought I would note it in case someone got confused.

- Whoops. You get what I mean, tho.

Actually, I suspect that the fact that you switched these is indicative of an underlying assumption that you are making, which is at the root of all this "weak atheism" business. If my suspicion is true, then this point will probably come out in the next exchange or two, so I won't bother with the distraction now.

- Eh, I just read it wrong.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. It is quite conceivable that you may not have seen enough evidence to convince you of the existence of a god, but you also have not seen enough evidence to convince you that that god does not exist either. Or perhaps, the arguments for either are equally compelling. In such circumstances, to believe neither is not only justified, it's probably the only rational option.

- Impossible. You cannot choose a third option from only two options. If you do not believe (if you are not a theist), then you are an atheist, even if you have not yet seen enough evidence, and even if the arguments are equally compelling. There are only two states: theism (meaning you believe), and every other status of disbelief, including not knowing.

Another example, to illustrate my point: an unresolved problem in mathematics is whether smooth solutions exist to the Navier-Stokes equations (which are a set of differential equations describing fluid flow). Nobody knows if such solutions exist, but by the same token we don't know if no such solutions exist. So if we define A as the proposition "smooth solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations exist", then it is quite valid to say that mathematicians fall into category 4 for this proposition.

- They may exist, certainly. However, right now if we all agree that we don't know, then nobody is a believer, are they? The only category left is disbelief, albeit with the condition that we may be wrong. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

Thus, "agnosticism" with regard to the truth or otherwise of an arbitrary proposition (category 4) is justified if the evidence for both is inconclusive (or perhaps carries equal weight). It is not cognitive dissonance.

- I disagree. To say that one is agnostic is merely to profess ignorance; it does not convey belief, thus the default position is skepticism. We must not begin by belief in unsupported hypotheses, we must begin by doubting them and letting them prove themselves to us. To do otherwise would be to allow super-gullibility!

Well, if you're talking about the objective truth of the proposition "A exists", then yes - there are only two possibilities. But this is different to what people believe the truth is (for which I maintain there are 4 possibilities, of which 3 do not involve cognitive dissonance). I think you get the distinction, as your next bit shows.

- But whether or not god exists is an objective truth, regardless of our status of belief. As such, we can either believe... or not. There is no middle "yes no I do don't believe" ground to occupy.

Wouldn't such a person fall into category 4?

- No; category 4 is impossible. Logically, that is, just like cat 1.

So, if I understand you correctly, basically what you are saying is that a weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god for no reason?

- No, just that a weak atheist doesn't believe in gods, period. His reasoning may vary, and in fact is immaterial. The only way he becomes an "agnostic" is if he professes not to believe because he does not know whether there is a god or not. But like I said earlier, I have problems with this as well.

Again, I've gotta disagree with you. Yes, either you believe or you don't. But I don't see that it logically follows that if you don't believe A, then you must believe ~A (or vice-versa). See above.

- It's a necessity, if the existence of A is objectively true or false. In this case, it is (although anyone is free to define gods as they choose, which complicates things I think).

- By agreeing with me that either you believe or you don't, you're stating my exact position. There can be no middle ground. You can pretend to take the middle ground, which is what agnosticism has become, but I see no real value in it at all.

But, I am still at a loss as to which of the four categories of belief "weak atheism" falls into.

- The person that does not believe. He is the same as strong atheism, only he is unconvinced not because of any logical contradiction, but rather because he has taken up the default position of skepticism rather than begin by belief (on faith). We all behave this way, especially at the used car dealership. It's perfectly justified.

Perhaps, if we blur the distinction between categories to allow for a spectrum of belief strength. Say a scale from 0 to 1, where complete belief is 1, and complete disbelief is 0.

"Strong theism" would be 1. "Strong atheism" would be 0. "Agnosticism" or "non-belief" would be 0.5. Could we perhaps fit "weak atheism" on this scale at (eg) 0.25?

- Mmm, if I were an agnostic, I might be tempted. But I really place no value in it... in fact, I believe it's a fallacy when we speak about it in terms of belief in a god. After all, nobody seemed to need the term "agnostic" until after Darwin and everyone began cringing to the word "atheist" in that proper early European society.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 06:37 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:

- An omnibenevolent being would never be able to punish anyone for their ill deeds; he would just forgive them unconditionally. God (the Christian god, anyway) does not seem to do this, even though it must certainly be in his power to do so. In addition, we have examples both affirming and negating both omnibenevolence and justice in the bible, which makes it a pretty good comination for an atheistic argument against that particular concept.

Sorry to say this ... but you have a warped view of love if you really believe this to be true.

All-loving is just that ... to love someone enough to punish when it is needed ... and to do it justly. Are you a parent? Do you still love your child when you punish them? Or do you love them enough to ignore their bad behavior ... even if it is bad enough to eventually kill them? (yes, that is retorical/begging the question, but I think you get that it is an example) The point is that being just is being all-loving is being just. The two are equal and complimentary ... not contradictory.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:28 AM post located here
SherBear:

Sorry to say this ... but you have a warped view of love if you really believe this to be true.

All-loving is just that ... to love someone enough to punish when it is needed ... and to do it justly. Are you a parent? Do you still love your child when you punish them? Or do you love them enough to ignore their bad behavior ... even if it is bad enough to eventually kill them? (yes, that is retorical/begging the question, but I think you get that it is an example) The point is that being just is being all-loving is being just. The two are equal and complimentary ... not contradictory.

This is a false analogy, however.

I am not a parent (yet?), but it is true that if I have children I will punish them for behaving badly. But the reason I do this is because there is a greater good to be had in the punishment on them. If I never punish them, they may get into greater trouble later on (ie get arrested). So the punishment is a temporary 'bad' for the sake of a deferred 'good'.

In the case of the christian god, however, nothing exists outside of him. There *is* no greater danger to protect someone from, other than from himself (the god). If he were to choose not to be a "big ol' meanie" at some future time (which he could certainly do), there becomes no reason not to forgive any offense.