-Senior Writer and Public Relations Administrator for Reasonable Faith
-PhD student in Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Posted on Thursday, October 4th, 2012 at 15:37 in Atheism | RSS feed
| Respond | Trackback URL
Max, couldn’t a hard atheist be one that claims that God is not probable?
YOu need to add pinterest sharing, esp. for cool images like this one
William Lane Craig once observed that atheism does not come in strong or weak forms. Atheism is the proposition that there is no God. Propositions are either true or false, not strong or weak. What does come in strong and weak forms is the rational justification for that view.
Even if we adopt the strong vs weak distinction to emphasize the range in one’s epistemic posture toward the truth value of the proposition, it doesn’t seem to me that soft atheism should be defined as “I don’t know if there is a God.” As your arrows seem to indicate, that is plain straight agnosticism. Soft atheism should be defined as something akin to “I lack belief that God exists.” This seems to be distinguished from hard and soft agnosticism in which one not only lacks belief that God exists, but possesses doubt/certainty that such belief is possible/attainable. What say ye?
I agree. I’m being sympathetic the those who claim the “I’m an agnostic/atheist.” This chart also classifies them as they classifies themselves. The new semantic of “I lack belief in God” could be the soft atheist position.
I agree with everything you’ve said, but I do not agree that soft atheist equate to “I lack belief”. Lack belief is not a position. It tells nothing about the existence of god. As you’ve said earlier atheism do not take form, it is makes the assertion “god does not exist” and required justification. Those who lack belief are mere agnostic.
I’m just stating what they claim. The whole ‘lack belief’ claim is a psychological issue and, as you said, isn’t a claim on whether or not God exists. I’m not interested in their psychological position. I’m interested in whether or not God exists.
This starts off being wrong. The hard atheist doesn’t have to prove god(s) is/are logically impossible. A believer has to prove it is possible. You can’t prove a negative assumption (I.e., prove there is not a china teapot in orbit around the sun).
The burden of proof rests on both sides. However, you can prove universal negative by either having omniscience, which isn’t an option, or you must demonstrate that which is being denied is logically incoherent since a contradiction is the only thing that cannot obtain. So, I’m afraid you’re mistaken.
Belief is an invisible, unseen, undetectable whose ‘handiwork’ looks exactly the same as that which would be created by slow natural forces, is logically incoherent.
You can’t just make the assertion that something is logically incoherent, you have to show it is and begging the question just ins’t going to get that done for you. So, do you have any arguments to present?
Not one blue pill joke? Okay, maybe one.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.