Mailbag: Atheism vs. Agnosticism
Subject: Misconceptions on Atheism
Being an agnostic and randomly searching on information about it, I had found your About page. In it you refute an argument that atheism is just another God. A powerful argument, this, but the quesiton is badly formulated. Indeed, atheism is not a belief in another God, but it is still a BELIEF. This is crucial. 'I believe there is nothing.' Of course, prove such a statement you cannot (nor will it, I contend, ever by possible). It is thursting oneself every bit as much as saying: "I believe that there is an anthropomorphic God." You do not KNOW, rationally and empirically, but you still choose to make such a statement.
Grnguz here makes a mistake very much like that made by so many other people. It isn't "crucial" that atheism is a "belief" - on the contrary, it's quite mistaken. Atheism doesn't involve the assertion of any particular belief-position. Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion, an ideology, a metaphysical position, or anything similar. People try to portray it as such in the apparent attempt to find some means for attacking it, but in doing so they only end up "attacking" a Straw Man.
Atheism also isn't saying "I believe there is nothing." That's not only a Straw Man, it's an absurd Straw Man - anyone who spends just a small amount of time with atheists would know this. A person like Grnguz could only formulate such an impression by reading other's attacks on atheism, never by actually talking to atheists. It's a perfect example of how a person can allow personal ideological prejudices to overwhelm good sense.
Atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in the existence of any gods (outside of people's minds, naturally). It's a simple concept - perhaps too simple for some to really understand. The fact that atheism is not theism does not mean that atheists make the opposite claim from what some theists assert. Such an assumption may make a certain amount of sense, but that's the problem with trying to figure out what atheism is without actually talking to atheists themselves.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
You could argue, also, that to “contend” that it will “never be possible” to “prove such a statement” [that a god doesn’t exist] is as much a belief system as anything else.
He does not “KNOW, rationally and empirically, but [he] still choose[s] to make such a statement.”
In your article you define atheism as a lack of belief in gods. Though you are entitled to define this word in this way (there does not seem to be any authoritative “standard” on this), I disagree that this is a good definition. Atheism surely implies this lack of belief in gods to be a meaningful position, but in that regard it wouldn’t be different from agnosticism. There is a clear, even formal (modal logic), definition of belief, and it makes sense to me to define atheism in this framework through the statement “I believe that gods do not exist.”. This, however, is not the same as saying “I do not believe that gods exist.”. The latter would be the agnostic position in this framework.
I think it would be better to discriminate between justified and unjustified beliefs. The former require evidence for support. With respect to atheism this evidence must be strong enough to say “I do not believe in gods” with a reasonable amount of confidence. I, myself, do “believe” that the evidence suggests to a sufficient (IMHO) degree that gods do not exist:
There is evidence that the people through whose word of mouth, a highly unreliable means of communication, we learnt about gods were extremely uneducated, credulous, tended to wishful thinking, had dubius self-interests, were sometimes just plain crazy, and that they demonstrably (forgeries, etc.) made many false, incoherent, and unprovable assertions up, generally with suspiciously high and, given the quality and/or lack of evidence, unfounded confidence.
Thus, atheism is a belief, a justified belief, as justified as believing that Santa Claus is only a fantasy, because parents made him up to entertain their children.
This is the definition used by most atheists and that you’ll find in most standard reference works, like unabridged dictionaries.
No, that’s completely different from agnosticism.
That’s a sub-set of atheism, known as strong atheism, but it’s not how atheism is generally defined by most all authoritative sources.
No, that’s just the basic definition of atheism. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
Strong atheism is a belief. Atheism, by itself, is not.
I’m afraid I have to dissagree with Austin on this one
Atheism cannot be defined as ’strong’ or ‘weak’
Atheism is, purely and simply, LACK of belief in god or supernatural.
Agnosticism is quite different. An agnostic has decided they are not convinced of the existance or non existance of a deity.
So Markus we have estabilished an atheist simply does not believe in a deity or supernatural explanation - period. How is faith required for that?
You are saying that you have to HAVE faith to NOT have faith in things? How would that work?
I think what many asume is a requirement for a greater ‘faith’ to be atheistic, is actually a requirement for a greater level of self honesty and strengh of will.
The difference between the moral/ethical decisions of a theist and an atheist.
Theist :- I chose not to go and rape that woman because a) god will know and punish me b) I might get caught c) despite me wanting gratification.
Athiest :- I chose not to rape that woman because a) I might get caught b) despite me wanting gratification.
Who makes the more ethical decision?
He does not “KNOW, rationally and empirically, but [he] still choose[s] to make such a statement.”
That would be the position an agnostic would take to an atheist standpoint
I would suggest that if you think about the problem a little more broadly - you will understand that DIS-proving the existance of a supernatural, invisable, omnipotent (etc etc) being is logically impossible. Thus the only possible solution is to accept that if evidence and proof can be established for such a being’s existance then he/she exists, otherwise it’s a fantasy.
Just like the invisable pink unicorn looking over your shoulder. I can say it’s there and you cannot prove it is not, does that mean that it exists?
Why is it logically impossible?
Then how do so many atheists manage to do so anyway?
No, it’s just the lack of belief in gods, period. “Strong” atheism is whether a person goes on to deny gods as well.
No, agnosticism is whether a person claims to know for sure if any gods exist. To be “convinced” is simply to believe.