Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Primal · 10-03-2002, 02:04 PM

Philosoft:

Quote:

Throughout all these types of threads that attempt to draw distinctions between philosophical positions, it never fails that someone takes a position contrasting "weak" and "strong" atheism. Having never received a satisfactory answer, I will ask again: Who are these so-called "strong atheists" who promote some dogmatic, faith-based doctrine, and what are the major differences that make the weak-strong dichotomy allegedly meaningful?

Well I would consider myself a strong atheist as I think that the evidence speaks against the existence of God by arguing for a material universe, making the God concept superfluous and incoherent.

Philosoft · 10-03-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal:


Well I would consider myself a strong atheist as I think that the evidence speaks against the existence of God by arguing for a material universe, making the God concept superfluous and incoherent.

Noted. In addition, it seems to me that what the term "strong atheist" is commonly taken to entail is something like, "believes nothing that can conceivably be called 'God' is capable of existing." In other words, the "strong atheist" is said to have a priori rejected potential concepts he's never even encountered! I'm sorry, but I can say with great certainty that this person doesn't exist.

Suppose a random theist says, "God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-etc., non-physical and timeless." The English language doesn't even have a definition for the word "exist" that comes close to covering this.

If I reply, "Your concept doesn't even allow me to create a mental image, let alone describe a potentially existing thing. Your concept's attributes contradict existence itself, therefore God does not exist," where is the dogma, the faith contained in this statement? Is this not a legitimate descriptor of the "strong atheist" position?

Jayhawker Soule · 10-04-2002, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sandlewood:
Are you saying that because the supernatural exists, then there can never be 100% predictability of anything because a supernatural entity can always do anything at any time?

No. I am saying that

Consistent agnosticism must be similarly agnostic toward naturalism or render it a meaningless tautology.
Given that "supernatural" is a semantically meaningful category, naturalism is not a tautology.
Agnosticism as 'conclusion' is, therefore, incompatible with philosophical naturalism.
Agnosticism as 'method' is less than useful poetic license.

But I'm not sure.

Again, what distinguishes the 'method' of agnosticism from methodological naturalism, and through what protocol does this 'method' produce differing results when applied to God(s) versus the the Faerie Kingdom?

Jayhawker Soule · 10-04-2002, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal:
Why?

1) The confusion inherent in the term agnostic. On the one hand it is said to be a third conclusion on the other method.

2) The question is about what conclusion one has taken. Saying "I am agnostic" and meaning method says very little. This is because agnosticism is compatible with theism and atheism.

Imagine this; someone askes me: "Do you adhere to evolutionary theory or creationism?"

And I respond, "I am agnostic on the issue."

That will be either interpreted as meaning "undecided, or think both sides are on equal ground" or as meaning I adhere to the agnostic method, in which case I have said nothing about whether I believe in evolution or creation. In the answer then lies both a bit of vagueness and ambiguity.

Also imagine if I was asked "are you a racist of nonracist?" and I say "agnostic".

3) Therein lies another weakness in the answer, it can made in response to different questions. Meaning that it conveys no real information.

Well said.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-04-2002, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
Throughout all these types of threads that attempt to draw distinctions between philosophical positions, it never fails that someone takes a position contrasting "weak" and "strong" atheism. Having never received a satisfactory answer, I will ask again: ...

As is your right, but I would prefer that we not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start a new thread on the topic. In the meantime, do you think agnosticism and naturalism are compatible?

Philosoft · 10-04-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
As is your right, but I would prefer that we not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start a new thread on the topic.

Sorry RD, it's one of my can't-ignore issues. I'll keep quiet.

Quote:

In the meantime, do you think agnosticism and naturalism are compatible?

If you're referring to metaphysical naturalism, I'd say no. Further, the more I consider it, the less convinced I am that the common definition of "agnosticism" represents a possible philosophical position.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-04-2002, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
Sorry RD, it's one of my can't-ignore issues. I'll keep quiet.

No need to apologize. I always thought 'weak' atheism was just a little silly, and I would have no proplem seeing yet another thread on the topic. I just fear that it's been beaten to death.

What prompted this thread is the sense that naturalism is occasionally defended by diluting it of meaning.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.