jimbob_barnes
15-06-2010, 09:54 AM
I posted this on my society's board, I though I could get some input here too.
Hello lovely people, here I am going to try to develop a case for the so called "Strong Atheism". It would be great if you could critique so that I can see if this position is at all robust.
Firstly, I am going to make the assumption that the positive arguments for the existence of God are unconvincing. Secondly I will assume that there is insufficient (or possibly no) empirical evidence for the existence of a God. A rational person, reflecting on these observations would be justified in not believing there is a God, this is what I will call Weak Atheism.
Then to contrast, the strong atheist is one who goes further, and actively believes there is no God. If you don't see the distinction go back and read it again.
Now as atheists have a propensity towards trying to be rational in their belief it is important for a strong atheist to articulate why they make the extra step, here are my reasons:
1) The arguments against the existence of a God - Now there are many strong arguments against the existence of certain Gods, the argument from evil, the argument from inconsistent revelation, the argument from hidden-ness and so on. These allow us to reject certain Gods (the Abrahamic one in particular) and believe they don't exist.
2) Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence fallacy - The phrase is a logical fallacy in and of itself, however when we would expect to see evidence of something if it did exist, and we don't, we are correct in inferring that it doesn't exist. (leaving aside problems is incomplete evidence) Using this, I think we can not believe in any God who actively meddles in our universe, in our time.
3) Anti-scepticism - This is I think the best argument. Weak atheists would claim that in believing that there is no god, the strong atheist steps beyond the realm of what they are rational in asserting. That is to say even given all the previous considerations it is still possible that a God exists, they would claim, given this fact that to be sceptical of both claims is the best choice. This however, is stupid. If we are to apply this argument consistently, we would have to be equally sceptical of the non-existence of unicorns, leprechaun, fairies, the FSM and myriad other creatures which we have no evidence of the existence of. It is indeed possible that unicorns exist is it not? Especially if we allow them to be outside the realms of the natural. Then in requiring certainty that god does not exist before we assent to believe it, the weak atheist is left in an extreme form of scepticism, which is basically unacceptable. Thus to avoid this solipsist void, or be inconsistent in the application of their scepticism, the only choice is to actively believe there is no god.
It is a belief position, It is not a faith position. I do not claim certainty, but I do not claim certainty about a great may of my beliefs just like everybody else.
Discuss
Hello lovely people, here I am going to try to develop a case for the so called "Strong Atheism". It would be great if you could critique so that I can see if this position is at all robust.
Firstly, I am going to make the assumption that the positive arguments for the existence of God are unconvincing. Secondly I will assume that there is insufficient (or possibly no) empirical evidence for the existence of a God. A rational person, reflecting on these observations would be justified in not believing there is a God, this is what I will call Weak Atheism.
Then to contrast, the strong atheist is one who goes further, and actively believes there is no God. If you don't see the distinction go back and read it again.
Now as atheists have a propensity towards trying to be rational in their belief it is important for a strong atheist to articulate why they make the extra step, here are my reasons:
1) The arguments against the existence of a God - Now there are many strong arguments against the existence of certain Gods, the argument from evil, the argument from inconsistent revelation, the argument from hidden-ness and so on. These allow us to reject certain Gods (the Abrahamic one in particular) and believe they don't exist.
2) Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence fallacy - The phrase is a logical fallacy in and of itself, however when we would expect to see evidence of something if it did exist, and we don't, we are correct in inferring that it doesn't exist. (leaving aside problems is incomplete evidence) Using this, I think we can not believe in any God who actively meddles in our universe, in our time.
3) Anti-scepticism - This is I think the best argument. Weak atheists would claim that in believing that there is no god, the strong atheist steps beyond the realm of what they are rational in asserting. That is to say even given all the previous considerations it is still possible that a God exists, they would claim, given this fact that to be sceptical of both claims is the best choice. This however, is stupid. If we are to apply this argument consistently, we would have to be equally sceptical of the non-existence of unicorns, leprechaun, fairies, the FSM and myriad other creatures which we have no evidence of the existence of. It is indeed possible that unicorns exist is it not? Especially if we allow them to be outside the realms of the natural. Then in requiring certainty that god does not exist before we assent to believe it, the weak atheist is left in an extreme form of scepticism, which is basically unacceptable. Thus to avoid this solipsist void, or be inconsistent in the application of their scepticism, the only choice is to actively believe there is no god.
It is a belief position, It is not a faith position. I do not claim certainty, but I do not claim certainty about a great may of my beliefs just like everybody else.
Discuss