Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[SkepticX]

SkepticX, we could have a long, and perhaps even fruitful, discussion on the important distiction between the logically possible and the existentially possible, but this thread is about logical fallacies, not epistemology.

But the premise of the point I presented was that sound epistemology is required in order for a fallacy to be established. Under that premise a thread about fallacies is also therefore about epistemology. Whether that's the case or not is certainly a valid question, but you can't just act as if we've already agreed on that and move on. Well ... you can, but you can't expect me to when as far as I'm concerned epistemology may be an inseparable key aspect of fallacies.

That said, I think you're right and I'm mistaken on that one, so now, with that tentative agreement in place, we can set the issue of epistemology aside and move on.

So ... let's.

Is strong atheism a fallacy? I don't think so. I think the problem here boils down to the slippery and generally incoherent definition of "god." Until we nail down a specific "god" (or a specific category of "gods") the question requires the assumption there's sufficient agreement on what "god" means that we're talking about a single concept. It's like asking if souls or spirits exist. It's just not a functional or meaningful question yet, more of a protoquestion really, and a notoriously slippery one. It hasn't yet gotten out of the gate (and as I think further proper examination reveals, it never does).

I'm pretty sure we're talking about existence as in independently of the imagination, or the mind, so unless we get into some rather questionable apologetics I don't expect that to be an issue. There's just no argument that gods exist as concepts. That would amount to be a one-line argument reminiscent of "She turned me into a newt!"

So I think it's not that strong atheism is fallacious, it's that the question is bandied about carelessly, accompanied by far too many presumptions (like the terms "soul" and "spiritual"). Gods defined as supernatural or otherwise incoherently can be dismissed, gods that are merely replacing an existing term with "god" are misnomers, and what remain are ad hoc "gods" of one believer, or gods of pure apologetic convenience, existing only as a diversionary defense for a different god. That's why it's no more a fallacy to conclude that gods don't exist than it is to conclude the same re: stoopalcystomers (which are, by the way: 1. supernatural, retrograde subatomic particles; 2. unsolved microscopic mechanical discrepancies in future theories).

Byron

 

[logician]

I agree, except that strong atheism is rationally valid whereas strong theism is not. You don't have to make something up to not believe in, whereas such a fabrication, whether completely contrived or merely contrived with some linguistic and cognitive acrobatics, is required for theism.

It's just like stoopalcystomers. They're just aren't as popular as gods.

Byron

I agree, and think that religion in general is irrational( believing in impossible things according to scientific laws). Moe esoteric religions make no more of an assumption than that a "universal consiousuness" exists, which is beyondthe abiliity of science to measure at this point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree, and think that religion in general is irrational( believing in impossible things according to scientific laws).

Religion is not "believing in impossible things according to scientific laws"

 

[UnTheist]

Yeah, I never heard that definition before...

 

[SkepticX]

Religion is not "believing in impossible things according to scientific laws"

Not technically, but believing in the supernatural is by definition believing in the impossible (unless we use an unorthodox definition of nature or supernatural), and we can just add "according to scientific laws" as a tag on. I don't think the original comment was meant to be definitional. I think it was descriptive.

Byron

 

[Runt]

Strong atheists often make the claim "I know there is no God". The problem is that this doesn't fit the criterion for even the most basic epistemological model:

A knows B if and only if:
1. B is true
2. A believes B to be true
3. A is justified in believing B to be true.

Thus, an atheist knows there is no God if and only if:
1. It is true that there is no God
2. The atheist believes it is true that there is no God
3. The atheist is justified in believing there is no God

The atheist has a problem:
A. Although conditions two and three are satisfied, condition one is not; we can't prove whether or not it is true there is no God and thus condition 1 remains unsatisfied.

Thus strong atheism is a fallacy because the conditions for establishing the claim's epistemic status have not been satisfied. Weak atheism, however, is philosophically sound because it doesn't make a knowledge claim.

 

[camanintx]

Strong atheists often make the claim "I know there is no God". The problem is that this doesn't fit the criterion for even the most basic epistemological model:

A knows B if and only if:
1. B is true
2. A believes B to be true
3. A is justified in believing B to be true.

Thus, an atheist knows there is no God if and only if:
1. It is true that there is no God
2. The atheist believes it is true that there is no God
3. The atheist is justified in believing there is no God

The atheist has a problem:
A. Although conditions two and three are satisfied, condition one is not; we can't prove whether or not it is true there is no God and thus condition 1 remains unsatisfied.

Thus strong atheism is a fallacy because the conditions for establishing the claim's epistemic status have not been satisfied. Weak atheism, however, is philosophically sound because it doesn't make a knowledge claim.

As Tiberius pointed out in the beginning of this thread, condition one can be satisfied if it can be shown that there are inherent contradictions in the concept of God, just as you can say for certain that there are no square circles. Therefore, strong atheists do not have any problem.

 

[UnTheist]

As Tiberius pointed out in the beginning of this thread, condition one can be satisfied if it can be shown that there are inherent contradictions in the concept of God, just as you can say for certain that there are no square circles. Therefore, strong atheists do not have any problem.

Unless they are talking about all Gods including unknown supernatural beings...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think the original comment was meant to be definitional. I think it was descriptive.

Byron

Perhaps you're right. Thanks ...

 

[Tiberius]

Unless they are talking about all Gods including unknown supernatural beings...

An unknown supernatuiral being?

In other words, "Maybe there is some supernatural being which created the world but then buggered off and has done bog all"?

But if such a being remains unknown, cahnces are it doesn't want, need or expect to be worshipped - and it probably wants to be left alone! So even if it is true that there is an unknwon supernatural being, non-belief is still more acceptable.

 

[rojse]

Not technically, but believing in the supernatural is by definition believing in the impossible (unless we use an unorthodox definition of nature or supernatural), and we can just add "according to scientific laws" as a tag on. I don't think the original comment was meant to be definitional. I think it was descriptive.

Byron

There are many things that were once supernatural that have more mundane explanations now. Ball lightning, for instance, was considered a supernatural phenomena until it was given a more scientific explanation. In fact, in less enlightened times many phenomena were given supernatural explanations, until we were able to comprehend the world in a more scientific manner.

Believing in the supernatural does not mean believing in the impossible, rather, it means believing in phenomena that cannot be explained under current scientific thinking.

 

[SkepticX]

There are many things that were once supernatural that have more mundane explanations now. Ball lightning, for instance, was considered a supernatural phenomena until it was given a more scientific explanation. In fact, in less enlightened times many phenomena were given supernatural explanations, until we were able to comprehend the world in a more scientific manner.

Believing in the supernatural does not mean believing in the impossible, rather, it means believing in phenomena that cannot be explained under current scientific thinking.

It's not an issue of the unknown, actually, it's that the notion of "supernatural" is nonsensical. It's trying to define an impossibly defined realm into existence (the plane of square circles). It exists as a concept but it has no translation in reality. It's safe from any potential for genuine investigation.

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." -- Carl Sagan

Try to come up with a tangible sense of what it could possibly mean for something to exist that's "outside of or other than nature" and exists independently of the mind (i.e. not purely conceptual) and maybe you'll see what I mean.

Byron

 

[Runt]

An unknown supernatuiral being?

In other words, "Maybe there is some supernatural being which created the world but then buggered off and has done bog all"?

But if such a being remains unknown, cahnces are it doesn't want, need or expect to be worshipped - and it probably wants to be left alone! So even if it is true that there is an unknwon supernatural being, non-belief is still more acceptable.

But the debate here isn't whether or not it makes sense to worship God. That God is cruel, uncaring, capricious, unconscious, or any other weird attribute that has been applied to it, does not negate it’s existence, just the purpose of us caring about its existence. The question of the existence of God is what is fundamental to the question of whether or not strong atheism is a fallacy.

The idea of God has, unfortunately, been developed in such a way as to prevent it from ever ultimately being reality-tested. If something about the belief in God contradicts our scientific or philosophical understanding of reality, theists tell us God is unknowable, that philosophy and science have yet to "catch up" to the reality that is God, that that which we thought was a contradiction is just a metaphor, etc. Thus, we can say that the idea of God is pretty freakin' stupid, but we can't ever prove that it's false, because there are so many unknowns and ambiguities deliberately written into the very idea of God.

 

[Storm]

there are so many unknowns and ambiguities deliberately written into the very idea of God.

Not deliberately. You're giving us too much credit in the organization department.

 

[Runt]

As Tiberius pointed out in the beginning of this thread, condition one can be satisfied if it can be shown that there are inherent contradictions in the concept of God, just as you can say for certain that there are no square circles. Therefore, strong atheists do not have any problem.

Theists of virtually every religion in existence have been extraordinarily adept at constructing explanations to deal with the problem of suffering in such a way that eliminates contradictions. Maimonides and other Aristotelian philosophers dealt with the problem of free will and an omnicient God in the 13th century.

This is what apologetics is often all about; creatively manipulating theology in such a way as to eliminate contradictions. Any contradiction we discover, you can rest assured some theologian or apologist will jump on it and "fit" it.

Now, I don't LIKE the explanations apologetics come up with either. They don't satisfy me, because I don't believe in God. But the contradictions are "fixed" (albeit in a patchwork fashion), leaving God STILL outside our ability to reality test. It's annoying.

I would looove to be able to know that God doesn't exist. But I can never no that. None of us can (not even theists can satisfy condition 1).

 

[Runt]

Not deliberately. You're giving us too much credit in the organization department.

Well, perhaps not ALWAYS deliberately. But sometimes, certainly. Maimonides is a great example. He believed Aristotelianism was true and the teachings of Judaism were true. He also recognized that there were inherent contraditions between them. So what did he do? He wrote "Guide To The Perplexed" to forcibly reconcile the two. Sometimes it meant bending Jewish belief. Sometimes it meant departing from Aristotle and other Aristotelians. It DEFINITELY meant telling his readers that he was placing contraditions deliberately into the text so that only the philosophically astute could understand the texts' "true meaning" (yeah, isn't THAT convenient?) The biggest thing he did was invent the most extreme form of negative theology, basically making it so that NOTHING can be said of God (because God, according to him, has no attributes whatsoever).

 

[camanintx]

Theists of virtually every religion in existence have been extraordinarily adept at constructing explanations to deal with the problem of suffering in such a way that eliminates contradictions. Maimonides and other Aristotelian philosophers dealt with the problem of free will and an omnicient God in the 13th century.

But I haven't seen any theist offer a rational explanation for how any God could create space and time. If God isn't responsible for creating the universe then it's just another life form, albeit an extremely advanced one, and not worthy of the title.

 

[UnTheist]

An unknown supernatuiral being?

In other words, "Maybe there is some supernatural being which created the world but then buggered off and has done bog all"?

But if such a being remains unknown, cahnces are it doesn't want, need or expect to be worshipped - and it probably wants to be left alone! So even if it is true that there is an unknwon supernatural being, non-belief is still more acceptable.

I did not say anything about worshiping it.

 

[SkepticX]

But the debate here isn't whether or not it makes sense to worship God. That God is cruel, uncaring, capricious, unconscious, or any other weird attribute that has been applied to it, does not negate it’s existence, just the purpose of us caring about its existence. The question of the existence of God is what is fundamental to the question of whether or not strong atheism is a fallacy.

Except that the specific concept of God in question must be coherent in order to even be eligible for consideration as to whether it exists or not. The god that is a square circle, for example, doesn't warrant such consideration. That god that is "nature" with the name "god" attached is just nature and we already have a perfectly good term for that which isn't loaded with all sorts of obfuscatory, obscuring baggage.

The idea of God has, unfortunately, been developed in such a way as to prevent it from ever ultimately being reality-tested.

I think that's integral to the point. If you don't make your god safe from genuine investigation then it's far too vulnerable to be useful as a god.

If something about the belief in God contradicts our scientific or philosophical understanding of reality, theists tell us God is unknowable, that philosophy and science have yet to "catch up" to the reality that is God, that that which we thought was a contradiction is just a metaphor, etc. Thus, we can say that the idea of God is pretty freakin' stupid, but we can't ever prove that it's false, because there are so many unknowns and ambiguities deliberately written into the very idea of God.

Not stupid, incoherent and impossible. So yes, we can demonstrate it's false (it never gets to the point at which there's sufficient substance to be tested, much less proven or disproved--again, that's part of the point).

This "race horse" isn't qualified to run because it has no legs. Because it's not qualified and can't compete doesn't mean we don't know whether or not it might win if we were to drag it out onto the track.

Byron

 

[Runt]

But I haven't seen any theist offer a rational explanation for how any God could create space and time. If God isn't responsible for creating the universe then it's just another life form, albeit an extremely advanced one, and not worthy of the title.

I'm staring at seven books on medieval Jewish philosophy which strongly suggest that theists have been offering rational explanations for how God could create space and time---as well as other similar concerns---since the the 8th century. Atomism dominated Jewish and Muslim intellectual thought from the 8th to the 10th centuries. The western Muslim world adopted Aristoteliannism just before the 9th century. By the 12th century we've got the Jewish philosopher ibn-Daud harmonizing Aristotelianism and Jewish philosophy and by the 13th century we've got Maimonides in Egypt doing the same thing (only better). From the 13th to the 15th century we see Jews in Roman Catholic Europe influencing Christian scholasticism (unfortunately) until the 15th century and it continues to dominate Andalusia and North Africa until the 15th century as well. Aristotelianism isn't really replaced until the Renaissance, when Atomism takes over again. Oh, and we've got Neo-Platonism mixed in here and there in the Holy Roman Empire as well as in the Muslim world (Al-Kindi I think is one of them).

I know that Maimonides argued that God is the Aristotelian "primary mover" or "uncaused cause", the incorporal, united, unchanging cause of the entire chain of cause and effect. Prior to God's first act of creation (or we might want to say emanation, since Maimonides seems to incorporate some neoPlatonian thought in there) there was no time or space or anything else.... there was just God.

Anyway... again, I don't believe it (we've moved beyond Aristotelian thought... a lot) but theists HAVE been offering these explanations for centuries. They often believed that "science" and "religion" were equally true and it was the duty of philosophers to demonstrate HOW they were in harmony. I find it to be a whole lot of rhetoric and twisting of scripture, but that doesn't negate the fact that theists HAVE been thinking about these things and using science (in the medieval sense of the word) to defend their beliefs.