The Strong Atheist Position

Atheist Revolution wrote a pretty good definition of what atheism is really about, what the term atheist really means, but missed out on explaining one of the most frequently misunderstood concepts of atheism: the strong atheist.

An atheist is simply an individual who do not hold the theistic belief claim (i.e., that god or gods exist)

This is all well and true, but many people seem to think that it’s the atheist making the claims and assertions that they know for a fact that God or gods don’t exist. This is especially frequent among believers, since naturally their current natural state is one of belief. That’s why when a strong atheist comes along, it might very seem like he’s actively asserting the non-existence of God or gods, which is not true. Wikipedia defines strong atheists like this:

An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism).

Hmm, that doesn’t sound right… It seems strong atheists do actually affirm that gods do not exist. But how can we possibly do that, without being believers ourselves? Let’s take another look at the Atheist Revolution article.

In Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith argues that such a definition reminds us that the burden of proof lies with the theist because this is the person making the belief claim. When the theist says, “God exists,” we are correct to expect evidence in support of this claim. Without such evidence, the claim cannot be accepted on rational grounds. The atheist is saying, “I don’t accept this claim,” and this rejection requires no evidence precisely because it is the default position where no positive assertion is being made.

This is crucial to the understanding of the atheist position. A weak atheist may look at the claim for God or gods, and say ‘this is not good enough’, but a strong atheist might add ‘and the evidence for a natural explanation far outweigh the evidence provided for the existence of God or gods, thus tipping the favor against their existence’. This is the strong atheist position. It is not one of belief, but of more certain disbelief. A strong atheist not only rejects the theist position due to lack of evidence, but favors the atheist position due to the existence of evidence for a natural explanation.

This is not about faith, nor belief, but only about the evidence. A person who claims that atheists have as much ‘blind faith’ as believers have not understood the atheist position at all.

The Dualism of ‘Faith’

The word ‘faith’ can mean different things to different people, and too often discussions between atheists and theists get stuck on the semantics of this word. Atheists are often accused of having ‘blind faith’ in science, or even in the opinion that gods do not exist. This is not true, and especially untrue given the meaning of the word ‘faith’ as it is most commonly used. Here is the Compact Oxford Dictionary definition of the word ‘faith’:

faith
• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.
— ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides.

Granted, in a general sense it is possible to have a “complete trust of confidence” in the belief that there are no gods. However, this isn’t what is usually being claimed. The word ‘faith’ is used by theists to describe atheists’ use of science, and the scientific method of evidence and reason. In this context, the word ‘faith’ is probably the worst choice imaginable. One of the corner stones of the scientific method, and science itself, is that knowledge is never absolute or final. It’s constantly at a relative value towards the evidence provided. A scientist will not have ‘faith’ in anything that lacks evidence, and should also have no problem disregarding previous beliefs should evidence to the contrary arrise.

While a theist might have faith in the existence of his god, or gods, even when evidence is presented to the contrary, an atheist will most likely change his beliefs according to the evidence at hand. Note, for example, how even though atheism only means disbelief in gods, you will rarely meet an atheist who believes in other supernatural phenomena without any evidence to support them. Atheism is a result of the inability to have ‘blind faith’ in things that are not supported by logic, reason, evidence or otherwise.

Maybe, though, it isn’t so strange that those that do not believe according to logic and reason, will claim things about others that are contrary to both.

Quote of the Day

“Tell me,” the great twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend, “why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?” His friend replied, “Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going around the Earth.” Wittgenstein responded, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

- Ludwig Wittgenstein, as quoted by Richard Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’

How to argue with science

Reddit directed me to this positively magnificent 10-minute explanation of what science is really about.

[youtube]-h9XntsSEro[/youtube]

Consider what this video tells you, and ask yourself which kind of argument you’re making. Would you change your mind based on “You’re wrong, because I say so”? No? Then don’t expect anyone else to, either.

Just let Einstein speak for himself

Christian creationists are often very eager to claim the great thinkers of our time for themselves. They think that, if someone is both intelligent and Christian, it not only lends credence to religion, but it also implies that Christianity has something to do with intelligence. XKCD made a wonderful comic about the notion that “correllation implies causation“, which is the same mistake which can be seen made by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in this video:

[youtube]V4DgsB7wciw[/youtube]

At first glance, it might seen that not only was Einstein not an atheist, but he was also a devout Christian who believed in a personal God. However, you’ll know more about Einstein from the quotes they didn’t read, including his famous one where he directly and explicitly denies a belief in a personal god:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

So, in Einstein’s own words, he expressly denies belief in the same god as Comfort and Cameron, which they so insidously implied he did believe in. Make no mistake, the quotes chosen for this video were carefully picked for maximum implication that Einstein was a religious theist. Here are some more of Einstein’s own words, refuting much of what Ray and Kirk want you to think:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.

Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2

…I can keep quoting him, if you want. However, five seconds worth of Googling will give you multiple results, all of which show us the same thing:
Einstein had so much more to say about God and religion than Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron want you to know about.

Albert Einstein may not have been an atheist, but he definitely wasn’t what this video portrays him as either.

Clarification of the word ‘theory’

You might not be overly surprised that I read Ray Comfort’s blog daily – purely for laughs. His overall incompetence in grasping even the very basics of evolutionary science is comedical in the extreme. So what could possibly top that? His commenters, of course!

Consider the following statement by user ‘Its ALL about JESUS !!!‘:

Atheists,
We have gone over this so many times and you still fail to see the basic understanding of a “THEORY”.

[...]

Here is Webster’s definition:
“a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture “

A conjecture would be something like this:
I see the sun rise and the sun sets, I also see the moon rise and the moon setting. Therefore the earth is the center of the universe! WRONG !!!

Just as wrong as evolution.

Remember that we’re discussing whether the theory of evolution is to be considered scientific or not. You would expect, then, that it would be judged against what is unarguably science. Let’s see what the scientific definition of the word ‘theory’ tells us:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

  1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
  2. abstract thought : speculation
  3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
  4. a) a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
    b) an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
  5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
  6. a) a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
    b) an unproved assumption : conjecture
    c) a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

What we gather from this host of explanations is that ‘Its ALL about JESUS !!!’ has ignored points 1-5 and jumped directly to 6.a and 6.b (mysteriously omitting the immediately following 6.c). In fact, points 1, 3, 5 and 6.c directly support evolution as being a scientific theory.

Regardless of what ‘Its ALL about JESUS !!!’ thinks about the actual scientific evidence behind the classification of evolution as a scientific theory (after all, if he can’t even read a dictionary right, would you trust him as a scientist?), those who actually are scientists almost unanimously agree that evolution does indeed fit the definition of a scientific theory.

The added beauty of the scientific method, and theories, is that they are not required to be absolute truth. They’re both allowed doubt, in that they can be immediately discarded as untrue should another theory arise that does a better job at explaining something. Science is not about truths, but only about the search for understanding. In this sense, the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation in existence, to date, of how life on earth evolved from beginning to present day.

Quote of the Day

“Gods don’t kill people. People with Gods kill people.”

David Viaene