Wiploc

That's just not true. I believe they all don't exist, even the ones I have never contemplated.

You can say that's foolish and maybe have a case; but if you say I don't believe that, you're just wrong.

A similar argument would have you being a weak atheist toward the Easter Bunny, on the grounds that you haven't contemplated all possible Easter Bunnies.

crc

fast

Unlikely. Why would I declare that I disbelieve in Fleeminhager's when I don't even know what the term refers to (if in fact it happened to refer to anything at all)? Is that your point? If it is, you are confusing the term with the object of the term. It is a common philosophical mistake to confuse the referring term of a referent with referent of the referring term.

Before I explain, let me give an example to illustrate the difference, for understanding the difference is important. A cat is not a three letter word. In fact, a cat is not a word at all. A cat is a type of feline. There is the word, “cat”, and in this case, the word is a referring term, and we would use the term, “cat” if we wanted to refer to a cat. Certainly, you would agree that there is a distinction to be had between a real, live, meowing cat, and the term that refers to it, right?

A cat is a lovable, breathing animal that has no letters at all. The term, “cat” is not lovable, nor is it a breathing animal, but it does have letters—three of them in fact. So, it’s crucial that we not confuse the referring term with referent that the referring term points.

In this case, the applicable term in question is, “Fleeminhager.” I do not know what the term refers to. In fact, you even declared that you made it up, so indeed, it’s highly unlikely that it is a referring term at all. I say unlikely, for woe is me if it happens nevertheless to refer to something, and I didn’t bother to look it up, especially since you said you made it up.

But, had it been a referring term, then there would be a referent; otherwise, if the term were not a referring term, then the term would merely be a term that fails to refer. Let’s say that the term, “Fleeminhager” (in this case, we’ll suppose it’s a referring term), refers to something. What do you think it would refer to? It refers to the referent, which in this case would be Fleeminhagers (and be careful not to confuse Fleeminhagers with the term “Fleeminhagers.”)—that’s very important…and the point of this exercise.

Let’s say (if nothing but for our amusement) that a Fleeminhager is a God of the cockroaches.

Recap:
1. the referring term, “Fleeminhager”, a 12 letter term
2. the referent, Fleeminhager, a God of the cockroaches

If I am a strong atheist that believes there are no Gods, and if I have never heard of the term, “Fleeminhager”, then that is no reason to suppose that I do not disbelieve in Fleeminhagers.

If I disbelieve in all purported Gods, and if a Fleeminhager is purportedly a God, then I disbelieve in the purported existence of Fleeminhagers—even if I’ve never heard the name before.

Steven Mading

It's not that it's foolish. It's that what you describe is not within the bounds of what "belief" actually means. It's impossible to believe without contemplation. It's not that you're committing a logic error, but that you're committing a linguistic error - what you're talking about is not what the word "believe" actually means.

[/quote]
A similar argument would have you being a weak atheist toward the Easter Bunny, on the grounds that you haven't contemplated all possible Easter Bunnies.
[/QUOTE]
If the word "Easter bunny" was as fuzzy in definition as the word "God", then that would have been analogous.

Steven Mading

Bingo.

If the word "cat" were as fuzzy in definition as the word "god", the same problem would exist. The reason it doesn't create a problem for "cat" is explicitly because it's got a more narrow defintion.

Examine your use of the word "purported" - think about it. "I disbelieve in all purported Gods" is practically the same thing as what I've been saying should be the definition of strong atheism - "I disbelieve in all gods that I've heard of".

It's just not that big of a deal to throw that qualifier on there. You can't hold a belief in something without contemplating it.

fast

That sounds like a happy note. I think I'll end on that.

Wiploc

[Humor]The fact is that bunnies are inherently fuzzy, but gods can be totally bald.[/humor]

Either you haven't really considered how fuzzy the concept of the Easter bunny could be in other people's minds, or you make unwarranted assumptions about the fuzziness of what I mean by god. Certainly some things that people call gods do exist, but they aren't what I mean by "god." Helium, for instance. I have a friend who wonders whether helium is god. I know it exists. I'm not tempted to call it god.

crc

Steven Mading

No matter how fuzzy your defintiion of god is, it's still impossible to have belief in something you've never heard of. That's not what "belief" means. Belief requires, at minimum, conscious thought. So long as there exists some gods that fit under the term "all gods" that don't fit under the term "all gods that I have heard of and thought about", the problem I've been talking about with the definition still exists.

Wiploc

How is that a problem with gods but not with Easter Bunnies?

crc

Dlugar

My apologies for the delayed reply; I can't keep up with the pace of iidb sometimes.

I just wanted to say thanks, fast, for clarifying your position here. I now think I understand where you're coming from. And I like your definition of "strong atheism"; I feel it has a consistent ring to it.

One more question for you: do you believe that the majority of self-describing strong atheists accept as true the proposition, "All gods do not exist"? (I'm not certain one way or the other, but I would be hesitant, since I've seen quite a few people self-describe as strong atheist and yet seem to take a stance incongruent with the above proposition.)

Steven Mading

The probability that someone out there has a concept of a god that I've never heard of is much much larger than the probabiility that someone out there has a concept of the easter bunny that I've never heard of.