User:Silence/Strong atheism

Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism or hard atheism, is the philosophical position that deities do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible.

While strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general, the majority of strong atheists have naturalistic tendencies and would likely also reject such beliefs. However, spiritual or supernatural beliefs would not preclude someone from being a strong atheist.

Some strong atheists qualify their position by stating what specific conceptions of god they think does not exist. They may believe that specific deities, such as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, do not exist, based on the description of these deities provided by their followers. They may believe certain gods to be logically impossible based on these descriptions, or they may be swayed by one or many of the arguments against the existence of certain conceptions of god (for example, the problem of evil). It is not unusual for a person to be a strong atheist with respect to particular gods, but to be a weak atheist with respect to other gods. Indeed, one may be (and in fact the majority of people are) a theist with respect to one, or several, gods, and a strong or weak atheist with respect to all other gods. For example, Christians typically believe that the God of the Bible exists, but believe that Zeus, Thor, Krishna, and so forth, do not. A typical atheist joke is that there is only a small difference between a strong atheist and a Christian: they agree on a very long list of gods that don't exist, and disagree about only one of them.

Usage
Although the concept of strong atheism has been in use for some time, more commonly under the name positive atheism originally, the strong name did not come into common usage until the early 1990s, its popularization assisted by its common usage in the alt.atheism Usenet group at the time. It is now the most commonly-used term for the concept in question, though by a relatively small margin&mdash;positive atheism and hard atheism are also common.

Strong atheism is sometimes used as a synonym for explicit atheism, of vice-versa. However, the original meaning of the terms was quite distinct, with strong atheism relating to positivity of beliefs&mdash;whether atheism is a distinct claim in itself, or only the rejection of a claim&mdash;and explicit atheism referring to consciousness of beliefs&mdash;whether the lack of theism is due to conscious rejection of theism or just lack of theism. Using these definitions of the terms, strong atheism is always explicit, since it would be difficult to positively claim that no deities exist without having consciously rejected the claim that deities exist. However, explicit atheism is not necessarily always strong.

Theism is impossible
Strong atheists who believe that the existence of a certain god or gods is impossible commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is purported to have (for example, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, etc.) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and, therefore, the existence of the Christian God is a priori impossible.

However, this argument is only a rebuttal of certain specific forms of theism at most, not of theism in general. As such, it may be possible to be a strong atheist concerning some types of theism (ones that are deemed "impossible" or "nonsensical"), and a weak atheist concerning other, less unlikely theistic beliefs.

Of course, even a theist will be a weak or strong atheist regarding some forms of theism&mdash;though some claim to believe in all forms of god at least theoretically, even if this is impossible in practice due to the many directly contradictory forms of theism. As such, the term strong atheism is usually reserved for those who have a positive belief in the nonexistence of all deities, not merely some.

Some people use a narrower definition of strong atheism which includes only this specific form of strong atheism: atheism that considers theism not just very unlikely, but actually impossible. By this definition, then, weak atheism is the belief that deities very likely, rather than definitely, don't exist. This alternate interpretation of strong and weak atheism may explain why some weak atheists consider strong atheism to be just as untenable as theism, but almost all self-professed strong atheists do not view theism in all its forms as impossible.

The alternate definition may partially result from the vagueness of words like "weak" and "strong", which mean entirely different things in different contexts. It may also result from the difficulty some have of distinguishing between the statements "I don't believe deities exist" and "I believe deities don't exist", as opposed to the relatively obvious difference between "I believe that deities definitely don't exist" and "I believe that deities probably don't exist". To avoid confusion, other names may be used for these definitions of strong and weak atheism, like definite atheism and probable atheism, just as positive atheism and negative atheism are still sometimes used to avoid confusion.

Theism is nonsensical

 * Main article: Ignosticism

The position that theism is inherently incomprehensible or meaningless, and thus logically invalid, is known as ignosticism. Some people who classify themselves as strong atheists base their views on this belief, which may in turn be based on a variety of things, such as the lack of a consistent, meaningful definition for what a "god" is.

Some contend that ignosticism is actually a form of explicit weak atheism, on the basis that simply deeming a certain belief nonsensical is not a claim on its own, merely the rejection of one, just as arguing that the statement "Platypus simmer choo-choo a pop" is nonsensical would not be a positive statement. As ever, this depends on the exact way different individuals interpret "positive" and "negative" statemetns, and there is no conclusive answer.

Theism is highly improbable
Some strong atheists may conclude, on the basis of lack of evidence or other rational grounds, that deities do not exist, but concede that it is theoretically possible, although extremely unlikely, that they could.

This position is close to many explicit weak atheist positions, in that many weak atheists strongly doubt the existence of gods and consider it improbable that they exist, but do think that it is absolutely, definitely certain that no deities exist. 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, rather than on any sort of disagreement regarding the likelihood of a deity's existence.

Statements of nonexistence merit positive claims
Some weak atheists and agnostics view strong atheism as just as untenable a position as theism. They may hold explicit doubts about the existence of particular gods or gods in general, but be unwilling to rule out the possibility that certain gods exists. They may either feel that "you can't prove a negative" and belief in the nonexistence of something would never merit a positive statement, or that strong atheism might be a theoretically plausible stance in some circumstances, but that the non-existence of gods is currently not yet certain enough at this point to merit positive claims.

As such, these nontheists they may hold that to positively assert the nonexistence of deities requires the same type of "faith" as theism itself. They may argue that in denying the existence of gods, one assumes a burden of proof similar to the one the theist assumes in asserting it, and that neither the strong atheist nor the theist has satisfied his burden of proof. If the nontheist is a strong agnostic, or explicit agnostic, he or she may argue that the existence or nonexistence of gods can never be known.

A common strong atheist response is that we live in a world where existence is determined rationally through science and observation, and that the default position of any statement of existence is falsehood, and thus that the burden of proof always lies with someone asserting the existence of an entity. This is accompanied by the view that things which cannot be observed and tested and proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt do not exist; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The idea that nonexistence is the default position on any claim is based on Occam's Razor. By this argument, absolute certainty about the nonexistence of the god or gods is not required to be justified in denying their existence. This sentiment was expressed by biologist Richard Dawkins, as follows:


 * Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.

Another argument for strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism is that refusing to believe in the nonexistence of gods while believing in the nonexistence of ghosts, Santa Claus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is inconsistent. Strong atheists maintain that the existence of gods is no more likely than the existence of these other characters, or any number of other random entities and objects with no evidence supporting their existence, and that it is no less justifiable to positively deny the existence of gods than it is to positively deny the existence of these other entities. They would contend that to be a weak atheist one must either refrain from positively asserting the nonexistence of ghosts, Santa Claus, and so forth, or explain what is special about gods that requires one to stop short of positively denying their existence. The strong atheist typically finds no difference between superstitions and deities, pointing to sociological explanations for the origins of theism.

However, it is perfectly possible for an explicit weak atheist to hold all of the above beliefs as well, and simply to hold the position that one need not make the positive claim of the nonexistence of deities for the same reason that it is unnecessary to positively claim the nonexistence of Santa Claus or Invisible Pink Unicorns; the default state is lack of theism until convincing evidence is supplied to the contrary, and as such only the rejection of theism, explicit weak atheism, is merited, not actual counterclaims, as strong atheism advocates. This largely semantic difference between the beliefs of some strong and weak atheists is one of the primary sources of confusion in the use of these terms, along with the fluidity of the word uses and the ambiguity of the definitions in some contexts.

Theism is irredeemably harmful or flawed

 * Main article: Antitheism

Some strong atheists, sometimes called antitheists or militant atheists, reject theism because of a perceived dangerousness in the belief, or otherwise consider the view offensive enough to merit direct attack. Some may be strong atheists because of their negative view on the effects of theism, while others may be the opposite&mdash;atheists who adopted antitheism because they had already rejected theism and were now focusing their philosophical attacks upon the belief system.

Common motivations for antitheism include the view that theism is a direct source for much harm, such as the assertion that many wars have been caused by theism, and the view that theism is simply false, and that false beliefs should be opposed&mdash;though not necessarily oppressed; being directly against a belief does not necessarily denote complete intolerance of anyone holding that belief.