The Presumption of Atheism

[williamryan]

I often hear atheists say that the theist has the burden of proof. And often the theist will punt back that burden and the two will play burden-of-proof volleyball for a while. But they're both wrong.

There are about 5 positions on the proposition: "God exists."

1. Theism: the positive claim to know that God exists.
2. Atheism: the positive claim to know that God doesn't exist
3. Weak Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know
4. Strong Agnosticism: the positive claim that you cannot know whether God exists
5. Verificationism: the positive claim that the phrase "God exists" is neither true nor false. It's simply meaningless b/c it's non-falsifiable

(5) is the view that unless something can be verified by the five senses, it's not true or false, it's simply meaningless. It's like saying: "The slithy tog did gire and gimble in the wabe." Virtually no one holds to (5) anymore because it's self-refuting: is the following proposition verifiable by the five senses: "a proposition must be verifiable by the five senses to be meaningful."

The default position here is (3): weak agnostism because it's the only one w/o a burden of proof. Every other position is making a positive claim to knowledge, which means they have a proof-burden. When atheists collapse 2, 3, 4, and 5 together under the broad umbrealla of a theism, what they're really doing is bringing them together under non-theism. So they're defining "atheism" in a very nonstandard way.

Thus, the default position is weak agnosticism; not atheism or theism. Thoughts?

[Goat]

Oh darn! Definitions, definitions, definitions...

You definitions are not accurate:

1. Theism: the belief that God exists.
2. Atheism: the lack of belief that God exists
3. Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know

That is all that is possible.

If Atheism is simply the lack of belief that God exists then Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism, since agnostics do not have a belief in God's existence either.

One Dictionary has:
a·the·ism
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Now, I'm content to work within that definition. By it, atheist believe that there is no God, not just that they lack a positive belief in God.

Another dictionary has:
a·the·ism
n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh&#275;s- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Not much different. Atheism is more than simply not believing that there is a God.

Yet another:
atheism

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

The second definition from Princeton's WordNet agrees with your particular usage, so it too is a valid use.

You can be an agnostic that is also a theist.. you can acknowledge there is now way to know for sure that God exists, but believe in god anyway.

This defintition does not take into account those atheists that make the positive claim that God does not exist.

[Beto]

Thus, the default position is weak agnosticism; not atheism or theism. Thoughts?

Recognizing one can't know for sure if anything exists or not, does not mean one recognizes it's even remotely likely. Any conception of "God" I know is as completely deprived of evidence to support its existence as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is known to be a fabrication of the human mind. To me, the default position of an educated person (and free of indoctrination) is a reasonable one, and it is to assume all "God" conceptions are also fabrications of the human mind. One may choose to label that position, or rely on the ambiguity of the names to cloud the issue, but it remains ultimately irrelevant.

[bernee51]

Oh darn! Definitions, definitions, definitions...

You definitions are not accurate:

1. Theism: the belief that God exists.
2. Atheism: the lack of belief that God exists
3. Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know

That is all that is possible.

If Atheism is simply the lack of belief that God exists then Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism, since agnostics do not have a belief in God's existence either..

And if theism is simply a belief in god then agnosticism is a subset of theism since agnostics prefess not to KNOW if god exists or not.

and where did you dig this from: "...since agnostics do not have a belief in God's existence either."?

[McCulloch]

and where did you dig this from: "...since agnostics do not have a belief in God's existence either."?

Doesn't it stand to reason? Agnostics, by definition, do not know whether there is or is not a god. Therefore, they have no positive belief in a god's existence. They neither assert nor deny. Some agnostics may believe that this knowledge is unattainable, others may believe that a god's existence is likely or unlikely. But ultimately, they all leave the issue as an open one, subject to change.

[Beto]

and where did you dig this from: "...since agnostics do not have a belief in God's existence either."?

Doesn't it stand to reason? Agnostics, by definition, do not know whether there is or is not a god.

Depends. An extreme form of agnosticism professes "God" is inherently unknowable. This, however, does not mean lack of "belief". Actually, it may be the only instance where "belief" is even remotely warranted.

[williamryan]

Confused wrote/

Since I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic, I would say you are incorrect. Rather, I have yet to find enough support for any of the assertions you give above. The burden of proof however will always lie with the person making the claim. That is simple logic 101.

So that makes you a weak agnostic. You're saying, "I'm unconvinced." Because weak agnosticism doesn't make a claim to knowledge, it doesn't bear a burden.


tselm wrote:

I would suggest there is no default position. There may be a default state of ignorance and unawareness, but such a state would differ from a position

I think I agree and our apparent disagree is simply a definitional issue. I agree that weak agnosticism isn't a "position" in the sense that someone must defend it. When I say "position" I mean, a view that one holds. Thus, on that definition, I suspect we'd agree that if arguments for theism, atheism, skepticism (strong agnosticism) all fail, then we're left not knowing what to think, which is weak agnosticism.


Undertow wrote:

Atheism and non-theism have been comfortably interchangable in my experience. Again, from my experience, atheism is most often implicitly taken to mean weak atheism, which has the meaning of "lacking belief in gods."

From this, my opinion would be that weak atheism would be the "default" if you define the "default" as having no burden of proof.

Your definition is inadequate because it encompasses all views that are not specifically theistic, which seems far too broad.


Zzyzx wrote

I suggest that there is another position – Indifference

This is an example of weak agnosticism: "I don't care," I don't know;" or "No of the evidence convinces me." These are all views that are not making a claim about reality or a claim to knowledge. Thus, they don't bear a burden.

In reasoned discussion a person making a claim is expected to substantiate the claim (“the burden of proof”).

True.

I take the position that the existence of gods has not been shown to be knowable and therefore that a claim to know the existence of gods is untenable. This position could be easily refuted IF “gods” could be shown to be detectable or knowable.

Thus, my position is “falsifiable” (whereas a religionist position “gods exist but their existence cannot be demonstrated” is not “falsifiable”). However, I challenge any religionist to show that my position is in error or that my statement is false.

This last challenge is irrelevant to the OP.

[williamryan]

Furrowed Brow wrote:

. However if a user group were to take the poem Jabberwocky and build a belief system upon it, and begin to accrue cultural meanings for what might be meant by gire, gimble, wabe etc then the poem will accrue meaning. And this thought is the accusation being thrown at religion, or rather the metaphysical language that goes along with religion.

The trouble here is defining "user group" in a meaningful way. If you mean that anyone who understands the terms (given their assigned religious meaning) is a user group, then that encompases atheists too. They surely understand what we mean when we say, "God is good," of "God exists." They must, or else we couldn't have this website or this conversation.

Our only test for whether a statement is not purely a cultural meaning is whether it can be true or false. That is to say there is some objective criteria upon which the statement claimed to be true can be said to be false.

I'm sure what you mean by "true or false." I'm not sure what you mean by "objective criteria." Of course I'm being facetious to make a point that the meaning of words is culturally bound. That's why "Danke" doesn't mean "Thank you" when I'm in the states. Thus, the phrase "Our only test for whether a statement is not purely a cultural meaning is whether it can be true or false" is self-refuting. How do I know that sentence is not purely cultural meaning in which case that very proposition refutes itself.

The truth/false criteria admits that there is a wider reality that sets the limit of meaning.

And it confuses ontology, epistemology, and meaning. Language has meaning because we ascribe the sound "handle" to certain objects. When you say "truth/false criteria" I think you mean "whether we can know a statement is true or false." Thus, you're making an empistemological claim disguised as an ontological issue about meaning.

“a proposition, if it is not an axiom a theorem or logical deduction, must be of the form that it can be true of false to be objectively meaningful”.

1. What is the difference between meaning and truth on this view? I'm not sure I'm tracking with your here. Are you saying "meaning" is synonymous with truth?
2. Why should we think that axioms and theorems are the only a prior beliefs that aren't subjected to this screen?

a proposition must be true or false to be objectively meaningful and truth or falsity may be verified by any means possible that is itself a truth/false methodology”

On this view, how can the statement "I'm not a brain in a vat" have any meaning?

The point I think most miss or pass over is that if there a proposition cannot be objectively tested then meaning cannot be shown to be anything else than cultural.

Doesn't this suffer the same fate as what you've called the "clumsy" verificationist view? How can the statement "f there a proposition cannot be objectively tested then meaning cannot be shown to be anything else than cultural" be objectively tested and some to be true or false?

[Beto]

So that makes you a weak agnostic. You're saying, "I'm unconvinced." Because weak agnosticism doesn't make a claim to knowledge, it doesn't bear a burden.
(...)
I agree that weak agnosticism isn't a "position" in the sense that someone must defend it. When I say "position" I mean, a view that one holds. Thus, on that definition, I suspect we'd agree that if arguments for theism, atheism, skepticism (strong agnosticism) all fail, then we're left not knowing what to think, which is weak agnosticism.

If someone says to me "I'm unconvinced", I expect them to support their unwillingness to agree with my point of view. For example, some folks nail "irreducible complexity" to their noggets, and then think they can just keep saying "I'm unconvinced" to every explanation they hear, thinking they bear no burden. At some point it's just not reasonable to remain "unconvinced". In my opinion, agnosticism, does in fact, bear a burden.

[McCulloch]

If someone says to me "I'm unconvinced", I expect them to support their unwillingness to agree with my point of view. For example, some folks nail "irreducible complexity" to their noggets, and then think they can just keep saying "I'm unconvinced" to every explanation they hear, thinking they bear no burden. At some point it's just not reasonable to remain "unconvinced". In my opinion, agnosticism, does in fact, bear a burden.

I think that there is a difference between "I'm unconvinced, but I have not really looked at it thoroughly" and "I'm unconvinced, I've looked at the arguments from various points of view, none of them are conclusive. " The first is simply ignorant or unknowing. Ignorance has no burden of proof. The second, I agree, does have a burden of proof.

[Beto]

If someone says to me "I'm unconvinced", I expect them to support their unwillingness to agree with my point of view. For example, some folks nail "irreducible complexity" to their noggets, and then think they can just keep saying "I'm unconvinced" to every explanation they hear, thinking they bear no burden. At some point it's just not reasonable to remain "unconvinced". In my opinion, agnosticism, does in fact, bear a burden.

I think that there is a difference between "I'm unconvinced, but I have not really looked at it thoroughly" and "I'm unconvinced, I've looked at the arguments from various points of view, none of them are conclusive. " The first is simply ignorant or unknowing. Ignorance has no burden of proof. The second, I agree, does have a burden of proof.

Sure, but the first seems dishonest from the get-go. How legitimate is the position of holding convictions, or "inclinations", despite acknowledged ignorance? This position is by no means "default". It's a result of indoctrination, and its very purpose.