629 The Case for Strong Atheism
A mildly technical article
Feb. 4, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
12:35
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio. | |
| Hope you're doing well. You can visit us at www.freedomainradio.com where we have a plethora of podcasts, a very active message board, and you can also visit us on YouTube Thank you so much for taking the time to have a listen to this. | |
| I'm actually going to read an article that I've written today based on some questions that a board member had, which I hope will clarify one of the very exciting debates that we've had at Free Domain Radio. | |
| is the difference between agnosticism, what's often called weak atheism, and what is often called strong atheism, and I'll just briefly go over those terms in case you're not a philosophy geek like me and have not run across them before, or maybe we have different definitions which is important to So agnosticism is saying basically we can't know anything about the existence of God, so positive or negative statements are not particularly rational. | |
| Weak atheism is to say that there's no existing evidence for the existence of God, therefore it's very unlikely that God will exist or gods do exist. | |
| But you can't say for sure, whereas strong atheism is the positive declaration that gods do not exist. | |
| And so this article is around that aspect of philosophy, in my defense of it. | |
| So it's called Strong Atheism, the Case for Evacuating the Middle Ground. | |
| In the world of philosophy, those who make the active claim that God does not exist are often viewed as extremists. | |
| Taking a positive stand about the non-existence of God is considered akin to making the claim that all forms of matter, energy, and consciousness have already been discovered, and that there is nothing new to be learned from the universe. | |
| The simple fact that scientific truths are constantly being overturned is considered reasonable justification for a form of scientific agnosticism, which is generally expanded to include the vague possibility of the existence of supernatural beings such as gods. | |
| Since we do not know everything about the universe, agnostics claim, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that gods might exist. | |
| Thus, strong atheism, the positive declaration of the non-existence of gods, is generally viewed as an irrational position, ironically on par with the religious person's assertion that gods do exist. | |
| Thus, like most positions in the post-Hegelian world, the truth is considered to lie roughly in the midpoint between two extremes. | |
| Wildly asserting that gods exist is as irrational as blindly asserting that they do not. | |
| The most sensible position is to withhold judgment. | |
| Now, those with any decent knowledge of philosophy know that the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who assert that gods exist, and that no action is required from atheists to disprove the existence of gods. | |
| However, the inevitable failures of all attempts to prove the existence of gods never seems to move the theist position into the not true category, merely into the not proven but possible category. | |
| In this essay, I will endeavor to give it just a little push. | |
| Like most problems in philosophy, the conflict stems from imprecisions in definition. | |
| God is a notoriously slippery concept. | |
| Able to slosh fashionably into almost any mental container. | |
| God can be defined as a higher power, or love, or energy, or an old man on a cloud, or the energy that binds the universe together, or the first cause, or hope, etc. | |
| Naturally, no philosophical discussions can retain any coherence in the face of such wildly oscillating and often contradictory definitions. | |
| Similarly, the concept of existence is often confused. | |
| Does existence mean any form of matter, energy, or consciousness that could conceivably exist in this or any other universe? | |
| Or does it mean a Christian deity whose son came back from the dead? | |
| Does it mean that which is composed of matter or energy, or that which I believe with all my heart to exist? | |
| Of course, if gods and existence is defined in a tautological manner, no advance in knowledge is achieved. | |
| If gods are defined as spiritual beings discoverable through faith, and existence is defined as that which is discoverable through faith, then we've gotten precisely nowhere. | |
| Existence must be an objective state, and knowledge must be an objective methodology. | |
| Now, for science, existence is a relatively simple concept. | |
| It is defined as that which consists of either or is composed of either matter or energy. | |
| This is quite different from accuracy, which is the correlation between concepts and the behavior of matter or energy in the real world. | |
| A concept has accuracy or validity if it precisely predicts or describes the behavior of matter and energy in the real world. | |
| This, of course, is the basis of the scientific method, which is that all human concepts must bow to the empiricism of physical evidence, or, to put it another way, in any conflict between consciousness and matter, consciousness must give way, since consciousness can contain errors, but matter cannot. | |
| With this admittedly brief introduction in place, we are a good deal closer to understanding the conflict between strong and weak atheists and, to some degree, agnostics. | |
| The central question about the existence of gods, no matter how defined, is this. | |
| Are gods subject to physical laws? | |
| If gods are subject to physical laws, then the first law that gods are subject to is this. | |
| Existence is defined as that which is composed of either matter or energy. | |
| Thus, if gods exist, they must be composed of either matter or energy. | |
| The opposite corollary must also be true. | |
| If gods are composed of neither mass nor energy, then gods by definition do not exist. | |
| Since existence is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, non-existence must be that which possesses neither matter nor energy. | |
| Thus to argue that gods exist despite a total absence of matter or energy is to argue that existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction it cannot stand. | |
| If I define an orange as a round citrus fruit that is orange in color, I cannot include in that definition an invisible orange that is the opposite of round, the opposite of citrus, the opposite of fruit, and the opposite of orange. | |
| I mean, I suppose I could, but who would believe that I was serious or even sane? | |
| If gods are subject to physical laws, Then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that gods exist. | |
| Of course, this doesn't require direct physical evidence. | |
| We cannot perceive black holes directly either. | |
| But we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as that matter crosses the event horizon. | |
| But since existence is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the scientific proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy. | |
| Evidence is basically defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. | |
| Since our physical senses are organs designed to transmit the effects of either matter or energy, it is essentially through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or non-existence of things. | |
| If I argue that something exists but that there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. | |
| If I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep, loud sound coming from a speaker, if he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. | |
| If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. | |
| If this instrument does not detect any sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? | |
| At some point, if my definition of loud sound basically boils down to that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring, then clearly my approach to truth needs just a little work. | |
| Now this approach helps clarify the proposition that gods do not exist. | |
| If gods are subject to physical laws, then sensual evidence is required to determine the existence of God. | |
| If gods are not subject to physical laws, then gods do not exist by definition, since that which is not subject to physical laws, i.e. | |
| not composed of matter or energy, does not exist. | |
| If gods are subject to physical laws, then important ramifications follow. | |
| There is nothing supernatural about either matter or energy. | |
| Because gods are bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, since miracles are by definition violations of physical laws. | |
| Similarly, gods cannot be omniscient and all-powerful, since both would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. | |
| Omniscience would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter and energy, past, present, and future, which is clearly impossible, while to be all-powerful would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of non-existence. | |
| If gods are subject to physical laws, then religion makes no sense whatsoever. | |
| And praying to gods makes about as much sense as worshipping a black hole, begging the sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your sun to appease gravity. | |
| If gods are not subject to physical laws, then the concept of gods is synonymous with the concept of non-existence, which makes religion even more deranged, of course. | |
| Then, rather than praying to the moon, you would in fact be praying to the empty space between the earth and the moon. | |
| So why is there such opposition to the proposition that gods do not exist? | |
| Many people I've talked to with regards to strong atheism feel extremely uncomfortable asserting that gods do not exist. | |
| Or, to be more precise, they feel extremely uncomfortable telling Christians that the Christian God does not exist. | |
| Rather than confront faithful believers with the hollow falsehood of their worship, they redefine within their own minds the concept of God as a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet or that which could exist in an alternate universe or something to that effect. | |
| This allows them to continue breaking bread or at least avoiding open conflict with those addicted to superstitious nonsense. | |
| However, it could be argued that this is a fairly cowardly position. | |
| Either a criterion for determining truth exists or it does not. | |
| If such a criterion exists then it must be subjective. | |
| Sorry, it must be objective and based on the evidence of the senses and reason which precludes the existence of any form of religious deities. | |
| If no such criterion for truth exists, then both everything and nothing is true and agnosticism and atheism, theism, superstition, religion, and the steadfast belief that shoes can fly and sing songs are all equally valid. | |
| If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot be logically applied according to whim, the expediency of the moment, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. | |
| If you wish to take a stand for rationality and truth, then I for one completely applaud you for what that's worth, and sympathize with the attendant social difficulties that often arise or result from that. |
Export Selection