Thoughts on Strong & Weak Atheism

[graymouser]

One of the things I've found when discussing the question of the existence of god(s) with people who aren't conventional theists but haven't abandoned the idea completely is that there is a certain level at which they posit a sort of deism of the type - "I believe that there is some higher power behind it" - but have no particular hypothesis about the nature of said power. And while I see no good reason to believe in such a deity, I find it hard to outright deny the plausibility of such a vague proposition; this has prompted me to describe myself as what is identified here as a "weak atheist."

But it strikes me as odd, because I'm not "weak" on my position that there are no giant purple dragons in the outer reaches of the solar system. I can confidently say that there are no purple dragons in the outer reaches of the solar system. Why? Because I just made that claim up. The claim of purple dragons in the outer reaches of the solar system is not particularly less prima facie absurd than the idea of a being (presumably, though not necessarily, anthropomorphic) that created the universe ex nihilo. And if I demanded that NASA make an expedition to find and photograph the purple dragons, I would rightly be laughed at. It's a ridiculous claim and does not come from reality, but simply from my imagination.

The question is: why is the question of god even remotely credible? We know it was made up by humans. Anthropologists may quibble about the details, but the fundamental fact is that the idea of god is no less an invention of humans than my idea of purple dragons. It is an ad hoc supposition, and one with a terrible track record to boot. A multitude of events that were thought to be supernatural have turned out to be quite natural in their causes. So - why give it credit? Sure, it's a position held by quite a lot of people, but I think that the best case for strong atheism is the fact that the idea of god is pure human invention. Why stick to a weak atheism, when it means no more than a weak a-dragon-ism?

[thedistillers]

Just because something is a pure human invention doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Let's say a child is completely isolated from society and comes up with the idea of "cats". From his point of view, it is a pure human invention. I don't see how it is a strong case against "cats" for the rest of us.

[Janus]

Well, I don't think purple dragons are that unlikely. If life has evolved on, say, a billion planets, it's not inconceivable that a species that resembles our concept of a dragon would evolve on one of them.

Anyway, the fact that we know we made up purple dragons and gods has absolutely nothing to do with the likelihood that they actually exist out there. If some guy had, through incredibly luck, posited the existence of electrons, protons and neutrons 500 years before Christ, he wouldn't have magically decreased the likelihood that these three particles exist, would he? All knowing the origin of a concept does is falsify a bunch of potential evidence for this concept (such as the so-called historical evidence for the truth of the Bible).

Well, no, that's not entirely true. If the concept in question is defined in such a way that it is specified that its origin is such-and-such, and that we discover that it is not such-and-such, that it's been made up for some reason, we've effectively falsified the entire concept. If, for example, the divine origin of Genesis is an essential tenet of Christianity, Christianity can be said to be falsified. But of course, this has nothing to do with the generic creator god you're talking about.

So while I think the god hypothesis is rather improbable and has no explanatory power whatsoever, I don't think strong atheism is warranted with respect to a generic "higher power". Yahweh and the other gods of human religions are another matter entirely, of course. If the deistic god is equivalent to a species of purple dragons, Yahweh is equivalent to a species of magical, green-skinned, one-eyed elf-like aliens living on the dark side of the Moon.

[Chuck Rightmire]

To me, the whole question of gods or not is not necessary. I don't see that anything in our history as a species has much to do with god, except for those wars fought over what to believe and the waste of resources in building huge edifices to house an idea. And even that can be explained with reference to humans' inclination to look for someone else to blame.

[VitalOne]

The question is: why is the question of god even remotely credible? We know it was made up by humans. Anthropologists may quibble about the details, but the fundamental fact is that the idea of god is no less an invention of humans than my idea of purple dragons. It is an ad hoc supposition, and one with a terrible track record to boot. A multitude of events that were thought to be supernatural have turned out to be quite natural in their causes. So - why give it credit? Sure, it's a position held by quite a lot of people, but I think that the best case for strong atheism is the fact that the idea of god is pure human invention. Why stick to a weak atheism, when it means no more than a weak a-dragon-ism?
We also know that astronomy, physics, mathematics, science, chemistry, biology, language, etc...are human inventions....I guess its all false too right? No, the fact that something is a human invention or thought up by humans does not say whether it is true or false....

[Janus]

We also know that astronomy, physics, mathematics, science, chemistry, biology, language, etc...are human inventions....I guess its all false too right? No, the fact that something is a human invention or thought up by humans does not say whether it is true or false....

Evidence

Science

[VitalOne]

Evidence

Science
Uhm...ok what you just provided does nothing to address what I stated....they're still human inventions...things that come from the human mind....and whether something is a human invention or not does not say whether it is true or false...

[RareBird]

Since no god shows up to claim the title, weak atheism is merely a passive endoresement of consensus notions or handed down presumptions. Either one believes some or all of nature is "directed" by some force outside of that nature or one merely accepts the constants of nature that are tangible and does not go around assiging explanations to things he or she hasn't better answers for. Such things as "first cause" are the stuff of irrelevant intellectual hamster wheels which keep people busy thinking they will get to the bottom of a bottomless pit. The only thing that really matters is whether or not a supernatural force can be influenced by rite or plea to suspend the constants of nature to customize an individual reality (before or after death). I know of 6 million so-thought "chosen people" and countless others who register as testament to the total invalidity of divine intervention and there's still no good reason to believe that human life is so central to the existence of the cosmos as to warrant eternal reward or damnation after death.

[RAFH]

We also know that astronomy, physics, mathematics, science, chemistry, biology, language, etc...are human inventions....I guess its all false too right? No, the fact that something is a human invention or thought up by humans does not say whether it is true or false....

You're right, in and of itself, human invention does not mean something is real or not. However, given god(s) are premised as being of non-human invention, indeed, its asserted humans are the inventions of god(s), the fact they are human inventions belies that basic premise.

Does that in and of itself destroy the assertion of god(s), no, but its one less brick in the wall. Very little is established or disestablished by a single fact. That's not the way science and knowledge works, though much of our popular literature, popular tradition, popular attitude is based on the singular fact, the one true way, the only thing. Science and knowledge work on consensus, on the preponderance of information.

That humans invented gods rather than the other way around is, as noted, one more chink in the armor of a empty idea, another crack in the wall of ignorance.

[graymouser]

Just because something is a pure human invention doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Let's say a child is completely isolated from society and comes up with the idea of "cats". From his point of view, it is a pure human invention. I don't see how it is a strong case against "cats" for the rest of us.
The example is somewhat interesting, in a couple of ways; so are a couple of the other examples posted in this thread. If you've seen a cat - an actual, physically existing animal - a strong case against cats is obviously not warranted. However, the child who imagines the cat would, in the total absence of any evidence for actual cats, be justified in taking the view "cats aren't real, they're just something I made up." Likewise, if a deistic god showed up one day and made clear its existence and past actions, I would shrug and be a deist.

This isn't intended as a case against a classical theistic god; I think the reasons for being a strong atheist regarding that god and all revealed gods is quite sound by itself. It's meant as part of a case against a deistic creator god, and I think I should state this case more clearly.

1. Deistic creator gods do not explain anything. (They only move the cosmological and teleological questions from the universe/humanity and onto the deistic creator god itself.)

2. It is a known fact that gods are a human invention.

3. There is no evidence for the existence of a deistic creator god.

4. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that no deistic creator god exists.

You can argue that there is an infinitesimal chance that a deistic creator god exists - even a 0.00...01% chance. But this is no more likely than the total existence failure of the sun and the subsequent failure of the sun to rise tomorrow morning. We make a lot of assumptions on no better ground and with no less chance of being wrong than the assumption that no gods exist. Why not just do away with this hangover of superstition?

[thedistillers]

However, the child who imagines the cat would, in the total absence of any evidence for actual cats, be justified in taking the view "cats aren't real, they're just something I made up."

Maybe he would be "justified", but he would still be wrong about it. So one can easily argue it would have been better if he had allowed the possibility that cats might indeed be real.

Likewise, if a deistic god showed up one day and made clear its existence and past actions, I would shrug and be a deist.

If you would be a strong atheist, you wouldn't have said that. If you think the probability of god is 0, then the idea that a "deistic god" might show up one day doesn't make any sense, logically and mathematically.

[graymouser]

Maybe he would be "justified", but he would still be wrong about it. So one can easily argue it would have been better if he had allowed the possibility that cats might indeed be real.
Well, the cat analogy breaks down at a certain point. Despite the fact that cats for the boy are nothing but pure invention in your example, they are more likely than not invented by analogy to other animals. There is bound to be a realistic kernel to this invention. However, gods are invented out of whole cloth; there is no god or godlike being ever seen. Strong atheism is justified and reasonable because the only self-consistent counterexample, a vague deism, is blatantly and baselessly a human invention. Add to this the fact that it has no explanatory value, and not even a shred of evidence in its favor, and I do not think that it is sufficient as a hypothetical counterexample to the strong atheist hypothesis that "no gods exist."

[thedistillers]

The cat analogy has limitations, but the main point is that just because something is a human invention doesn't mean it has a 0% chance of being real.

Back to your original question, you said: why sticking to weak atheism? I think the answer is simple: because you can't disprove god, a lot of people prefer the weak atheism stance.

[3DJay]

Well, I don't think purple dragons are that unlikely. If life has evolved on, say, a billion planets, it's not inconceivable that a species that resembles our concept of a dragon would evolve on one of them.

Anyway, the fact that we know we made up purple dragons and gods has absolutely nothing to do with the likelihood that they actually exist out there. If some guy had, through incredibly luck, posited the existence of electrons, protons and neutrons 500 years before Christ, he wouldn't have magically decreased the likelihood that these three particles exist, would he? All knowing the origin of a concept does is falsify a bunch of potential evidence for this concept (such as the so-called historical evidence for the truth of the Bible).

Well, no, that's not entirely true. If the concept in question is defined in such a way that it is specified that its origin is such-and-such, and that we discover that it is not such-and-such, that it's been made up for some reason, we've effectively falsified the entire concept. If, for example, the divine origin of Genesis is an essential tenet of Christianity, Christianity can be said to be falsified. But of course, this has nothing to do with the generic creator god you're talking about.

So while I think the god hypothesis is rather improbable and has no explanatory power whatsoever, I don't think strong atheism is warranted with respect to a generic "higher power". Yahweh and the other gods of human religions are another matter entirely, of course. If the deistic god is equivalent to a species of purple dragons, Yahweh is equivalent to a species of magical, green-skinned, one-eyed elf-like aliens living on the dark side of the Moon.
The earliest version of Deism...

Epicureanism: The Gods live far out in space, somewhere, are not creator beings, are not interested in the affairs of men, and, are made of atoms.

Gods = Aliens :D


Peace