"weak theism" and the burden of proof

[sweetiepie]

(just to start something moderately controversial)
Often when christians discuss faith, they use a definition that involves varying degrees. Most random church-goers for example will admit that they have less faith than their church leader. Many christians think that if you did have perfect faith, then you would be a perfect person, but since you don't, you are not. Faith, basically amounts to how much confidence you have in God. Both in God's general existence and in God's particular characteristics.
Many, although certainly not all, christians will say "I don't know for certain that God exists."
This is also true for "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism". The difference is basically a matter of which way you are leaning.
All 3 of these categories are immune to the burden of proof.

[FatherMithras]

Ummm.... I don't agree at all. They're not immune to the burden of proof. If they make a positive statement, they will still have the burden of proof. If you say "I dunno what god is, but i believe he's there." they still have the burden of proof if they're trying to argue it's existence.

[fast]

This is also true for "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism".

What is "weak agnosticism"?

[sweetiepie]

Sorry, perhaps this was poorly worded. This is targeted at the many "atheists" on this board who denounce their formal religion on a lack of evidence.
I'm suggesting that "weak" atheists/agnostics/theists neither making a positive statement nor arguing towards it's existence. They are, by definition, admitting to a lack of evidence.
The point is, a lot of "weak atheists" are more confident of God than theists, but feel that because they can't express their reasoning, they ought to throw off their religion.

[sweetiepie]

What is "weak agnosticism"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

[fast]

thanx

[FatherMithras]

Any kind of theist, even a weak one, is asserting the positive "A god exists" as their belief statement and thus has the burden of proof.

[sweetiepie]

Any kind of theist, even a weak one, is asserting the positive "A god exists" as their belief statement and thus has the burden of proof.
The theists I am referring think there is a chance that God exists. This is equivalent to weak atheism. Weak atheists are not being asked to provide a proof that God may exist, except by Strong Atheists, who already have to provide a proof that He does not.

[Barefoot Bree]

The point is, a lot of "weak atheists" are more confident of God than theists, but feel that because they can't express their reasoning, they ought to throw off their religion.
Excuse me? Are you saying that a lot of weak atheists are actually closet theists?

[sweetiepie]

Excuse me? Are you saying that a lot of weak atheists are actually closet theists?
Bingo!

Also, that many theists are infact closet weak atheists-- though you already knew that.

[fast]

Any kind of theist, even a weak one, is asserting the positive "A god exists" as their belief statement and thus has the burden of proof.

I keep hearing this, but I keep failing to see the valid inference. An "I believe" positive assertion does not equate to an "it is" positive assertion. As far as I can tell, the only positive assertion (which is quite explicit) pertains solely to the "I believe" proposition. The so-called implicit "it is" does not follow--or least not that I can see.

Lydia: God exists
Betty: I believe you
Atheist: Betty, substantiate your claim, for you have the burden of proof.

The only burden on Betty would at most be to demonstrate that she in facts believes—not that what she believes in exists. It’s not exactly like Betty is saying, “God exists and I believe it�, for it could be the case that she’s clueless but believes nevertheless.

[wiploc]

The theists I am referring think there is a chance that God exists.

I'm a strong atheist, and I think there's a chance that gods exist too.



This is equivalent to weak atheism.

Nonsense.



Weak atheists are not being asked to provide a proof that God may exist, except by Strong Atheists, who already have to provide a proof that He does not.

If I said god doesn't exist, then I would have the burden of proof. What makes me a strong atheist is that I believe god doesn't exist, and that doesn't give me any burdent of proof at all.

As it happens, when we talk about the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, I do say that he doesn't exist, so I do (with respect to that god only) have the burden of proof, and I'm happy to meet that burden. But I'm a strong atheist as regards to all gods, not just the one for which I have the burden of proof.

crc

[fast]

What makes me a strong atheist is that I believe god doesn't exist, and that doesn't give me any burden of proof at all.

Thanks for that reminder--I needed it. :thumbs:

I know to separate beliefs from claims, but it just seems that I keep putting them together for somehow--without even realizing it sometimes. I've been saying all along that atheists of any variety (strong or weak) lack belief in God, yet I have been distinguishing them by claim -- not belief. For example, a strong atheist (as I've been saying) is one who lacks belief in God who then decides to make some claims of his own, "God does not exist", whereas the weak atheist makes no claims in regards to God’s existence.

But, from what you say, I can derive what I say isn't the case. Weak atheists lack belief in God, and so do strong atheists: they both lack belief in God, but that's not to say the strong atheists have no belief--they do believe--they believe no God exists.

So, the strong atheist simultaneously lacks belief in God and have belief God doesn't exist--nothing at all to do with claims where proof is needed.

Man, I hope I'm right here.

I can imagine a possible objection being that one cannot lack belief and have belief in the same thing at the same time, but the 'in' and the 'not' above make all the difference.

[wiploc]

Thanks for that reminder--I needed it. :thumbs:


I think you were doing fine. In fact, my post originally opened with, "What Fast said." :)




I know to separate beliefs from claims, but it just seems that I keep putting them together for somehow--without even realizing it sometimes.

It's the language. In casual usage, "I don't believe in god," often means, "I believe god doesn't exist."



But, from what you say, I can derive what I say isn't the case. Weak atheists lack belief in God, and so do strong atheists: they both lack belief in God, but that's not to say the strong atheists have no belief--they do believe--they believe no God exists.


Many weak atheists have belief about god too. They believe he may exist. The people who say babies shouldn't count as atheists (I'm not one of them) probably think you should form some belief about god before you can count as an atheist.




I can imagine a possible objection being that one cannot lack belief and have belief in the same thing at the same time, ...

Then lets unpack the phrase "lack belief in god." It means "not believe that god exists." There is obviously no conflict between not believing that god exists and believing that god doesn't exist.

crc



[QUOTE]