A defense of Strong Atheism

[juliod]

I promised Harv a defense and apology of Strong Atheism. Here it is. Keep in mind that this is only supposed to be an outline. Each point could be the subject of several full threads. And I'll be happy to go into each one in irritating detail, but I don't want anyone jumping in with "you haven't proved anything!"

Also, the standard I am arguing for is the "reasonable observer". I do not aspire to the fiction of absolute proof. I only mean that a reasonable person would conclude that this point of view is the correct one, and that it is unreasonable to believe otherwise.

A strong atheist is a person who makes a positive claim that there is no god. In other words, that to believe in god is an unreasonable action.

In order to be a strong atheist it is necessary to conclude that there is firm evidence against the existence of all concepts of god. This is not as hard as it may appear. In reality we need only rule out a few general categories, and the specific gods of the mainstream views of the major religions.

So here are the arguments, in no particular order.

1) Major religions.

This is the easiest one, since there are well-known refutations of all the major religions. For example, the free-will/omniscience paradox which rules out any god that is claimed to have those properties. Combine these arguments with the fact that neither YHWH, nor Allah, nor any Hindu deity has ever been spotted and we have a pretty convincing case. Followers of the major religions make all sorts of claims that would be obvious if they were true. God is said to be all-powerful, but can't do anything. Prayer is said to work wonders but can't be seen to work by any means. Most importantly, god is said to have specific wills and specific purposes, but these can never be seen to operate in the real world.

Instead, the world religions change and mutate as the societies that invented them change. That's the point. Societies invent religions for specific psychological, political, or social purposes. The religions can be seen to operate in that way, and can be seen to change as the social needs change. This distinguishes the religions as they actually exist from the religions as they are described by their own doctrine. The existence of the deity is unnecessary for these functions, and in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to believe that any of them exist.

2) Minor religions.

Minor religions that are held by only a tiny, usually marginalized, group are a special problem. It's impossible to examine all of their claims. But it's not necessary. We can take it that any being, even if it were to exist, that interests itself in only a tiny group rather than the plurality of mankind, is not qualified as a god. It's impossible for a god, in the meaning we in the west use, to be limited to such an extent.

OTOH, I am not rigid in this. If someone wants to debate the existence of any of these special beings, I am willing to look at it, providing they can tell me enough about it to allow me in principle to decide if the being exists, and if that being is a god.

Keep in mind, in this context, that most "gods" through history have been little statues worshipped by only a few hundred people at most.

3) New Age, modern mysticism, etc.

New religions can usually be ruled out simply because they are new. It's not reasonable to think that the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-wise creator of the universe, etc, with a plan, etc, has only just be discovered, and then only in Southern California. Or rather, if that is so there had better be a very very good explanation for it. But these modern faddy, trendy religions never come with good explanations, and usually disappear as soon as their leaders discover a new scam.

Again, if anyone wants to debate one of these in detail it is necessary to provide sufficient information about the actual claims in order to decide if the claims are true and if there is a god involved.

4) Newly discovered beings.

This is a general argument against any claims about a specific god-being that is not in identity with any of the traditional gods. Imagine an alien being coming to earth. Imagine also that this being has abilities usually attributed to the supernatural on earth. For example, lets say the alien can actually do telepathy. Now, if that being is actually present, and we can actually see a demonstration of the power, that being won't be a god, but just an alien (with powers). It is assured that many people would immediately begin worshipping that being as if it were a god, but a reasonable person should see that as fallacious.

In order to qualify a new being as a god there will need to be a very good explanation. And that assumes that the being is actually here to be observed in the first place. Which none are.

5) Undefined things.

People sometimes demand that we strong atheists prove that something undefined doesn't exist. The claim is "X exists". Where X is not defined. It has no properties. It's not animal, vegetable, mineral, energy, or any other thing real or imagined. It's not large nor small. It has no color and is neither visible nor invisible.

In this case, the claim "X exists" is a nonsense. It's not false. It's logically or rhetorically invalid. No response is necessary.

6) Hypothetical what-ifs.

There is no need to consider gods that are invented as philosophical exercises. At the very least, any being with a claim to be a god must have a sincere core group of followers. If a god-concept is not the focus of an actual religion I won't waste time considering it.

OTOH, if you have a pet god that you insist I discuss, you will need, as in the other cases, to provide sufficient information about it for us to decide if it exists or not, and if it is a god or not.

Conclusion

That pretty much sums it up. Tons and tons of writing could be done on each of these. I don't expect that this outline will convince any theist to become a strong atheist. But the question is, do you have good reason to believe any of these gods exist. If you don't it is a sign that you are not a Reasonable Observer.

DanZ

[juliod]

Obviously, in a real sense the alien is not God, even if some of us might believe it so. The idea of "God" may or may not have a referent, despite what we may think, regardless of the nature of the explanation. Confusing the alien for God is a very real and scary possibility, but shouldn't really be a part of this discussion.

But this issue is key to strong atheism. If a powerful alien is encountered we can say for sure that that alien is not god. "God", as described by followers, universally has a deep and personal interest in our world and the individual inhabitants. No newly-encountered aliens need apply.

But consider what we know about aliens... I'm waiting... what do we know about them? What form do they have? In what environments can they survive? Which parts of our sensory infrastructure array could perceive signs of them? There is absolutely nothing we know about aliens.

At least one thing: they aren't god. That's the relevant question for strong atheism.

We can't even state for certain that they don't walk among us. The whole idea is ridiculous, but it is not possible to philosophically dismiss it.

Philosophically? I heap scorn on you.

If you thought that there were a reasonable possability that aliens were present on earth today, there would be very little more important to invetigate. You'd be out searching for them. They might be infiltrating our governments and military, preparing an invasion.

So why don't you go searching for aliens? Because you know it's an unreasonable possability. You must dismiss the idea, or else be a kook or crank.

But, kind sir, prayers are answered. Given the number of prayers made by people all over the world, it only stands to reason that a certain percentage of them will be "answered".

No no no! We are smart enough to know that by "answered" we mean to a degree greater than expected by chance.

Radar, for example, if it could not detect airplanes greater than chance, would be a fake and a fraud. It would be false. It is entirely wrongheaded to say it "sometimes works".

We can say, conclusively, that prayer does not work. That is, does not yield results better than chance. And down with it goes the god-concept of most ordinary church-goers.

So lack of evidence is enough for absolute denial?

I didn't say that, did I? Tut tut.

The point is that "evidence" against this God is not scientifically possible given the nature of the referent, whatever that nature might be.

No! This is the case of the undefined thing in my original post. Anything undefined is automatically false. Or rather, it is a nonsensical proposition.

But you have to keep tabs on him, don't you? And you don't know in which direction he's going at all times.

No. If he's inventing a religion-of-one, then we don't need to consider it. It's back to the meaning of "god". This powerful, all-wise creator of the universe, personal guardian of the world and individuals, has chosen to reveal himself only in 2005, and only to on person? Not reasonable.

So you are agnostic about Quixsnax? So am I. It is unreasonable to entertain the existence of it. That is, it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether or not it exists.

No! It's unreasonable to entertain the existance of Quixsnax. The question of his existance is answerable. It's particularly easy in this case because we both know I just made him up. I'm alarmed by the idea that you are "agnostic" towards him.

The point was that people make claims about having "God" experiences throughout history, the vast majority of which have been successfully falsified. And still the religion survives.

Because, as I said earlier, there are very few reasonable observers...

The very fact that there are some claims you will never be able to check out makes your position untenable.

Only if theists were to confine their gods to the past. As it is, all past claims are tied to present claims. So if a christian claims some even was caused by YHWH, we can know that at least the explanation of the event was false.

What part of the "God" model suggests that the existence of evidence be copious?

Well, for one thing, the existing religions all claim that the evidence is copious. And, if god did exist, he would be the most important fact in the universe. And, if he has a will, and takes action (as all religions claim) then we should be able to observe the effects. And, all religions have a host of associated phenomena and entities that would be detectable seperate from the central deity. (e.g. Christians tend to believe in demons that can be summoned. I've tried. It didn't work. They're wrong.)

There is a term for people who are willing to reserve judgment until new evidence is found, and it ain't strong atheism.

But that's unreasonable. If a theory is falsified you should accept that it is false.

DanZ

[ST88]

Obviously, in a real sense the alien is not God, even if some of us might believe it so. The idea of "God" may or may not have a referent, despite what we may think, regardless of the nature of the explanation. Confusing the alien for God is a very real and scary possibility, but shouldn't really be a part of this discussion.

But this issue is key to strong atheism. If a powerful alien is encountered we can say for sure that that alien is not god. "God", as described by followers, universally has a deep and personal interest in our world and the individual inhabitants. No newly-encountered aliens need apply.

No disagreement here. If we can identify the alien as "alien" then obviously alien-as-God is out of the question. God, for example, would not need a flying saucer in order to get here.

But consider what we know about aliens... I'm waiting... what do we know about them? What form do they have? In what environments can they survive? Which parts of our sensory infrastructure array could perceive signs of them? There is absolutely nothing we know about aliens.

At least one thing: they aren't god. That's the relevant question for strong atheism.

That doesn't really address the issue. We know as much about aliens as we know about the physical nature of God. We have this book that lets us in on what we're supposed to do about this God, but precious little about how we might go about Godspotting.

We can't even state for certain that they don't walk among us. The whole idea is ridiculous, but it is not possible to philosophically dismiss it.

Philosophically? I heap scorn on you.

If you thought that there were a reasonable possability that aliens were present on earth today, there would be very little more important to invetigate. You'd be out searching for them. They might be infiltrating our governments and military, preparing an invasion.

So why don't you go searching for aliens? Because you know it's an unreasonable possability. You must dismiss the idea, or else be a kook or crank.

Help! I'm under a pile of scorn, and I can't get up! Come on now, you can't deny a proposition that by its very nature defies evidence. That's what we're talking about here. Obviously, very few of us seriously believe that aliens walk among us. But to say that they don't requires that every human (or animal, or plant, or mineral) on the face of the earth be checked -- and how, pray tell, do we check for aliens?

Seriously, you talk about reasonable propositions. But you're using the measure of reasonableness at the wrong end of the proposition. According to societal norms, it is not reasonable to believe that aliens (or God) walk among us. But to say that the statement "aliens may walk among us" is an unreasonable statment is entirely another matter. Certainty must have evidence behind it. And I'm not talking about the 5-10% reasonable doubt that defense lawyers like to bring up -- you're talking about an absolute, a definitive statement that says you are absolutely, metaphysically ( ) certain that strong atheism is correct. It's not enough to say that it is unreasonable to think such a thing is true, therefore it's incorrect. There are plenty of examples in history where unreasonable beliefs turned out to be true.

But, kind sir, prayers are answered. Given the number of prayers made by people all over the world, it only stands to reason that a certain percentage of them will be "answered".

No no no! We are smart enough to know that by "answered" we mean to a degree greater than expected by chance.

You mean we are smart enough to apply statistical methods to strongly suggest that most prayers are not answered. Aren't you looking in the wrong places? Why would you expect to find evidence of God in a scientific study?

Radar, for example, if it could not detect airplanes greater than chance, would be a fake and a fraud. It would be false. It is entirely wrongheaded to say it "sometimes works".

Wrong, and, by the way, a bad analogy. Even if radar works just .01% of the time, you can't say it's false, it's only statistically ineffective. To say it's false would deny that .01%. Here is the problem. If God successfully speaks to just one person on the earth, God is proven to exist. And, I have to admit, this does not prove the exact JC God as depicted, but the possibility is still there absent evidence to the contrary.

We can say, conclusively, that prayer does not work. That is, does not yield results better than chance. And down with it goes the god-concept of most ordinary church-goers.

Damn lies & statistics, I say! Prayer about a medical condition, sure. That has been proven to be ineffective. But you've got a long way to go to equate that to "absolutely no God".

So lack of evidence is enough for absolute denial?

I didn't say that, did I? Tut tut.

Hmmm, what did juliod say?

And as far as evidence is concerned it is the exceeding paucity of evidence that allows strong atheism to live. There's really no evidence to look at.

What's the difference between what you said and what I paraphrased?

The point is that "evidence" against this God is not scientifically possible given the nature of the referent, whatever that nature might be.

No! This is the case of the undefined thing in my original post. Anything undefined is automatically false. Or rather, it is a nonsensical proposition.

You call it nonsensical, and yet you give it the courtesy of responding. In order to deny a nonsensical proposition, you have to say, "Of course that's not true, and here's why..."

It's the here's why that gets strong atheists into trouble. If the proposition is truly nonsensical, then you won't be able to give a reason as to why it's false. To do so would be circular: "It's false because the idea is preposterous."

But you have to keep tabs on him, don't you? And you don't know in which direction he's going at all times.

No. If he's inventing a religion-of-one, then we don't need to consider it. It's back to the meaning of "god". This powerful, all-wise creator of the universe, personal guardian of the world and individuals, has chosen to reveal himself only in 2005, and only to on person? Not reasonable.

Where in the definition of God's green God would this be unreasonable? You're assuming a nature of the God described to you and giving it your own interpretation of how it would act. What in the world for? You're assuming how such a being would act... based on...?

So you are agnostic about Quixsnax? So am I. It is unreasonable to entertain the existence of it. That is, it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether or not it exists.

No! It's unreasonable to entertain the existance of Quixsnax. The question of his existance is answerable. It's particularly easy in this case because we both know I just made him up. I'm alarmed by the idea that you are "agnostic" towards him.

You don't even know if it exists or not. You may be channeling Quixsnax right now, and it's trying to break through. How did that idea get into your head? OOOOH! Spooky!

The basic Cartesian fact is that the only being I know anything at all about is myself. Everything else could be my solipsistic illusion. You are asking me to disbelieve in something for which there is no evidence pro or con, only your testimony. Testimony always gets us into trouble.

The point was that people make claims about having "God" experiences throughout history, the vast majority of which have been successfully falsified. And still the religion survives.

Because, as I said earlier, there are very few reasonable observers...

It only takes one.

The very fact that there are some claims you will never be able to check out makes your position untenable.

Only if theists were to confine their gods to the past. As it is, all past claims are tied to present claims. So if a christian claims some even was caused by YHWH, we can know that at least the explanation of the event was false.

Wrong. Present claims are not "tied" to past claims, they are only influenced by them. We need only look at the phenomenon of copycat crimes to verify this.

What part of the "God" model suggests that the existence of evidence be copious?

Well, for one thing, the existing religions all claim that the evidence is copious.And, if god did exist, he would be the most important fact in the universe. And, if he has a will, and takes action (as all religions claim) then we should be able to observe the effects.

You don't see it? You must not be a Christian.

And, all religions have a host of associated phenomena and entities that would be detectable seperate from the central deity. (e.g. Christians tend to believe in demons that can be summoned. I've tried. It didn't work. They're wrong.)

So because you couldn't do it, you automatically assume no one can? I can't repair a Powerglide transmission, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe my Camaro will ever run again.

There is a term for people who are willing to reserve judgment until new evidence is found, and it ain't strong atheism.

But that's unreasonable. If a theory is falsified you should accept that it is false.

If a theory has been falsified, then you should be able to show evidence of falsification. Unfortunately, in order to show falsification, you would have falsify every single claim made, which neither you nor I can do; and you would also have to be dealing with a theory that is falsifiable.

[QED]

Would it be sufficient to equate strong atheism with the assertion that no human being has ever had physical contact with God (i.e. all biblical accounts of such things are a human invention -- a reasonable assessment for me given human nature). The reason I ask is because theists claim that knowledge of God comes through first-hand accounts of his works (through divine revelation) and general observation. For this there ought to be three possible positions.

[Cathar1950]

God might not need a flying saucer but Jesus might need one.
He does come with the clouds of heaven.
Zecharia Sitchin wrote a few books on the gods. I do not take it seriously.
Look at the Rulers of ancient people who had titles much like God.
Pharaohs were considered the Judge of all the earth.
All-powerful and all seeing.
It does seem that the Anthropomorphic God in the OT is very different then the Philosophical God that we deal with today.
This distinction is often over looked by Christians that take a literal view of the Bible.
It may also be a problem for the Atheist.
Sometimes I wonder Which God is being argued against?

[Bugmaster]

The existence of the deity is unnecessary for these functions, and in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to believe that any of them exist.

Er, I think you have a confusion in terms. The position you advocate is Weak Atheism, not Strong Atheism.

Under Weak Atheism, you admit the possibility that a god could exist, but, due to the lack of evidence, you don't take this possibility seriously -- just as you don't take the possibility of carnivorous blue smurtfs seriously.

Under Strong Atheism, you deny even the possibility that a god could exist, a priori. In practice, this means that you need to show that the very concept of a god is self-contradictory (akin to a square circle), and therefore cannot exist.

Note that both versions of atheism are not limited to the Christian god. They apply equally to YHVH, Jesus, Kali, Zeus, Krishna, and whatnot.

Strong Atheism is a lot harder to defend than Weak Atheism. I think that pretty much the only way you can do it is by rejecting substance dualism (the idea that there are spiritual things, and material things, and they are totally independent), but that's a topic for another thread...

[Cathar1950]

Bugmaster wrote:

Strong Atheism is a lot harder to defend than Weak Atheism. I think that pretty much the only way you can do it is by rejecting substance dualism (the idea that there are spiritual things, and material things, and they are totally independent), but that's a topic for another thread...

Splendid point, substance dualism is the problem that both Hartshorn
and Whitehead avoid.
The distinction between spiritual things, and material things seems to be breaking down when it comes to Physics.
It would be an interesting thread.

[Bugmaster]

The distinction between spiritual things, and material things seems to be breaking down when it comes to Physics.
It would be an interesting thread.

Indeed it would :-)

[juliod]

Er, I think you have a confusion in terms. The position you advocate is Weak Atheism, not Strong Atheism.

Er, I don't think so.

As the strong atheist position I have stated that no gods exist. That means it is unreasonable to believe that a god exists, and that it is unreasonable to believe that god might exist.

A weak atheist might say that it is reasonable to beleive that god exists, or might exist. In fact, if you are a strict weak atheist I think that is the statement one would make. A weak atheist merely states that they, personally, have no belief in god.

Under Strong Atheism, you deny even the possibility that a god could exist, a priori.

Yes, but not a priori.

DanZ

[Bugmaster]

A weak atheist might say that it is reasonable to beleive that god exists, or might exist.

No, that's a theist. If it's reasonable to believe that some god exists, then you'd be a fool not to believe in him, right ?

Under Strong Atheism, you deny even the possibility that a god could exist, a priori.

Yes, but not a priori.

Well, according to Wikipedia, atheism is more of a continuum:

The strong atheist may also conclude on the basis of lack of evidence or other rational grounds that god or Gods do not exist, but concede that it is possible that they do, although extremely unlikely. This position is close to some weak atheist positions, in that many weak atheists strongly doubt the existence of gods and consider it improbable that they exist, but think it is not currently known whether gods exist or not. The difference between such weak atheists and strong atheists may come down to an epistemological disagreement as to what constitutes sufficient grounds to justify an assertion of non-existence in the case of gods.

So, it looks like you're closer to the weak atheist side of the spectrum than the strong atheist side, but you don't fall squarely in either camp.

[juliod]

We know as much about aliens as we know about the physical nature of God. We have this book that lets us in on what we're supposed to do about this God, but precious little about how we might go about Godspotting.

In fact we know much less about aliens than about any of the god-concepts that are advocated by the theists.

But godspotting should not be a problem. The theists all claim to have direct, personal, unambiguous, and continual contact with "god". But we can see that these claims are bogus. Their god-concepts aren't even plausible, much less supported by evidence. And since they aren't plausible, we need not even show evidence that they are false.

Come on now, you can't deny a proposition that by its very nature defies evidence.

Oh yes, I can. Any proposition that cannot, even in theory, be verified or falsified is a nonsense. Some questions cannot be answered at the current time (Are there aliens on Pluto?) but they can in principle be answered.

If you have a proposition that you know can never be answered, by any means, then... well, don't bother me with it. I don't want to hear that sort of nonsense.

And I'm not talking about the 5-10% reasonable doubt that defense lawyers like to bring up -- you're talking about an absolute, a definitive statement that says you are absolutely, metaphysically ( ) certain that strong atheism is correct.

But that standard of proof doesn't exist for anything. It's entirely mythical. So demanding it of strong atheism is unreasonable.

And no one does live like that. By that standard you cannot know that the meaning of red/green light hasn't switched. But that would be so important that you could not defer investigation. Do you study traffic lights everyday? No. Why not? Because t's an unreasonable proposition that you need not consider.

In this light I see agnoticism as a philosophical game of "Is not, is not!"

There are plenty of examples in history where unreasonable beliefs turned out to be true.

I'm not sure I see this. Except by using the word "unreasonable" in a casual context. I can't think of any examples.

You mean we are smart enough to apply statistical methods to strongly suggest that most prayers are not answered.

Noooooo... We are smart enough to use statistical methods to show that the prayer claims of theists are false.

Aren't you looking in the wrong places? Why would you expect to find evidence of God in a scientific study?

Because theists make claims that if true would be easy to verify.

Even if radar works just .01% of the time, you can't say it's false, it's only statistically ineffective. To say it's false would deny that .01%.

Bzzzt! Wrong. You are suggesting random results 99.99% of the time, and a "real" result 0.01%. If we made 10,000 trials, we would expect 5000 yes's and 5000 no's regardless of the presense or absense of an airplane, and only 1 "real" result which we wouldn't know whether was on a yes or no trial. If the results are not better than chance, then the device is doing nothing at all.

In general, any claim must at the very least be demonstrably better than chance. If the results can be attributed to chance, then the claim being made is false. Prayer claims have a particularly high standard because the theists claim prayer is the most effective action in any situation. In other words, it's utterly bogus and an act of agnostic unreasonableness not to immediately agree with me.

Prayer about a medical condition, sure. That has been proven to be ineffective. But you've got a long way to go to equate that to "absolutely no God".

It forms part of my argument. The failure of prayer wipes out whole swathes of theism. Any theist you see praying is practicing a religion known to be false. Agnosticism doesn't apply.

What's the difference between what you said and what I paraphrased?

I merely said that there is no evidence to look at. It would be a problem for strong atheism if there were evidence, since it would then (perhaps) be reasonable to believe in god. But I make not claims relating to this lack of evidence. That's what weak atheists are for...

In order to deny a nonsensical proposition, you have to say, "Of course that's not true, and here's why..."

No! That's precisely what you can't do for a nonsensical position. By nonsensical I do not mean "badly wrong". I mean unformed, gramtically flawed, gibberish. Possibly all three.

How do you respond to this claim: "Make since god to green have nonsensical for strong there fibble fibble."

You can't respond since it means nothing.

It's the here's why that gets strong atheists into trouble. If the proposition is truly nonsensical, then you won't be able to give a reason as to why it's false. To do so would be circular: "It's false because the idea is preposterous."

That's why I didn't give a response in my original outline. Undefined things are automatically false. A proposition only acheives the status of "possibly true" once someone has stated it clearly.

Where in the definition of God's green God would this be unreasonable? You're assuming a nature of the God described to you and giving it your own interpretation of how it would act. What in the world for? You're assuming how such a being would act... based on...?

My basis is the claims of theists (you know, the subject we are supposed to be debating). Any being that is not personally interested in the earth and it's inhabitants is not god, regardless of whether it exists or not. Religions just made up by someone do not acheive the status of "possibly true" in my view.

You don't even know if it exists or not. You may be channeling Quixsnax right now, and it's trying to break through. How did that idea get into your head? OOOOH! Spooky!

Thanks for the demonstration of the unreasonable observer....

The basic Cartesian fact is that the only being I know anything at all about is myself. Everything else could be my solipsistic illusion.

Fiine. But...

a) That's an unreasonable position to take.

2) Even if this is all illusion, the religions, the theists and mysellf are all part of it. So you have to deal with the facts as they appear to you, and agnosticism is still unreasonable in your own fantasy.

Wrong. Present claims are not "tied" to past claims, they are only influenced by them.

What I mean is that theists make claims about both past and present for their god. They use their god to explain past events that may or may not have happened. If we falsify their good in the present, then he is also false in the past, and the explanations fail. If someone wants to say that their good was alive then, but dead now, that's fine by me...

in order to show falsification, you would have falsify every single claim made,

No. We would only have to falsify one important claim. They might alter their doctrine in response, but then we are back to people just making up religions.

I notice, BTW, that none of the theists here are jumping all over this thread to defend their beliefs. Scared, do you think?

DanZ