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?

[Confused]

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?

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.

[theleftone]

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

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.

[Undertow]

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?

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.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

I suggest that there is another position – Indifference

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.

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

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.

[Quixotic]

I agree with undertow,

A good way to demonstrate this is, well the flying spaghetti monster:

Proposition, The flying spaghetti monster exists and is great in all his noodleness

Evidence for this: none. further to this many claims of his powers and effects on this world have been tested using scientific, unbiased methods, all of which show no effect.

Conclusion: the proposition is incorrect

[Furrowed Brow]

(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."

I hold something like 5. And you’ve quoted the Jabberwocky which I usually do to make my point. The Jabberwocky sentence is clearly meaningless because 1/ it fails to signify 2/ the words have no context – they are made up. However, the Jabberwocky metaphor only goes so far. For religious sentences there is a context for word use. In this sense religious language clothes itself with cultural meanings. If a group behaves as if a word has meaning then the word has meaning for that group. However their words can still fail to signify. In which case on this account they would be objectively meaningless. 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.

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. The truth/false criteria admits that there is a wider reality that sets the limit of meaning. By making clear under what circumstances the user group will accept that their words are false, allows other language users to share these words without having to join the user group. The only means we have for testing truth and falsity will come via one of our five senses or formal invalidity.

Another class of statements are axioms and theorems. Statements that are self obviously true, or are true on no assumptions. Theorems can be formally shown to be valid and are in this sense true. Other than the ability to think we do not need the five sense to verify these propositions. Axioms set the limits of what can be thought, they can not be proved and are just assumed, because we cannot think of any alternative to them. Again we do not use the five sense to verify axioms. Along with theorems they are true a priori.

The sentence “a proposition must be verifiable by the five senses to be meaningful” is the foundation of very clumsy verificationism. We can do better if we start with the statement:

“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”.

Here the word meaningful entails objective meaning beyond the agreed cultural conventions of word use. This statement is an axiom and true a priori.

The additional qualification of “five senses” is an a posteri clause. If we only had four senses then the number would be four and if we had six senses the number would be six. To rid ourselves of contingency we can write

“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”

We can go beyond our five senses and then say if something can be seen/heard/smelt/tasted/felt/tested of with technology. Written this way allows us to Cleary see the presumptions of what is basically a positivistic stance. For instance it eschews intuition or holy spirit as sound methodology for arriving at truth on the ground that if a methodology whose results cannot itself be a tested for then it is meaningless. Any methodology that also puts off a truth/false test and permanently puts it in a realm that itself cannot be tested for, i.e. after death, then that methodology is also meaningless.

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.

[twobitsmedia]

I agree with undertow,

A good way to demonstrate this is, well the flying spaghetti monster:

Proposition, The flying spaghetti monster exists and is great in all his noodleness

Evidence for this: none. further to this many claims of his powers and effects on this world have been tested using scientific, unbiased methods, all of which show no effect.

What kind of "scientific testing and unbiased methods" did they use to test for the FSM?

Conclusion: the proposition is incorrect

or 1)they knew when they went in that the propositon was wrong, or 2) they did not apply the right tests.

FSM is one of the most flawed propositions circuclating, probably first and foremost beacause the author, in his apparent desire to make some money off his idea, (in December 2005, Bobby Henderson received a reported USD $80,000 advance from Villard to pen The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) admitted it was a spoof.


I cannot think of one sincere Christian person who claims that God is real and then at the same time says "Oh, BTW, my belief is a spoof."

[McCulloch]

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

I suggest that there is another position – Indifference

Would not the indifferent be part of the group agnostics (or virtual agnostics)? They may claim, when asked, that there is or is not a god or that they don't know, but live their lives in such a way as to say, either, "God is not important [an absurd claim given most definitions of god]" or "God is unknowable". For rationally, if knowing God's will were both important [how could it not be?] and knowable then seeking to determine it would be the inescapable only option. If they were to claim that if God exists, God does not actually care about what we do, the cannot do so from the position of indifference, because there are many claims to the contrary made by theists. To explicitly reject those claims is to remove oneself from being indifferent. To ignore those claims, positions one into the "God is unknowable" agnostic camp.

[The Duke of Vandals]

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.

No. The theists are wrong. They absolutely have the burden of proof to evidence that god exists. To be sure, complex supernatural beings don't be dafault exist. They require evidence.

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

(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."

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in hours. It tells me that you (if you have taken this stance) have a gross misunderstanding of the word "verified". To be sure, there are plenty of ways to provide evidence for things that cannot be detected by our five senses alone. Radio waves come to mind.

The default position here is (3): weak agnostism because it's the only one w/o a burden of proof.

Of course it's not. The default position individuals take is atheism. Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god. They're born completely ignorant of religion, but are later indoctrinated to believe by their parents. They come to know about these lingering superstitions from the society around them. It may seem like non-theists have the burden, but that argument is fallacious: to relies on the appeal to popular opinion fallacy.