'Weak' And 'Strong'
As Philosophical Terms
James Spairana

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "James S"
Subject: Re: Positive Atheism Letters Section
Date: Saturday, March 10, 2001 8:37 PM

You're very close to how I see things, but let me discuss some of the things you brought up and then go on a few tangents show why these issues even matter to me at all. This will help me to state this problem with greater precision, in the hope of being able to develop a concise yet comprehensive statement of the problem.
 

"Strong" and "weak" are philosophical terms. Basically, a strong statement will follow through to a conclusion and make an assertion, whereas a weak statement will fall short of asserting a conclusion and will stick to describing what is not the case. This is crude but is the gist of the discussion at hand. Perhaps one of the readers can help me with a more comprehensive discussion of "strong" and "weak" as philosophical terms.

Therefore, "strong" atheism is the belief that the statements "A deity exists" and "Deities exist" are false statements, while "weak" atheism is the simple absence of a god belief for whatever reason (including having never heard a god claim). The "strong" atheist has examined at least one god claim and has concluded that the god idea is nonsensical, the god idea is impossible, or the god claims are delusions or outright lies. The "weak" atheist may or may not take it that far, and may or may not have even heard a god claim, but lacks a belief in gods nonetheless. "Strong" atheism is a subset of "weak" atheism because a "strong" atheist lacks a god belief: all "strong" atheists are also "weak" atheists, but not all "weak" atheists take their atheism as far as the "strong" atheists do.

By the way, contrary to the popular slander, no "strong" atheist claims to know all things and therefore to be able to eliminate the possibility that we might be wrong -- that is, nobody claims to be able to disprove an existential statement. To someone who accuses you of being this way, ask that person if she or he is still an Easter Bunny agnostic. You don't have to know all things in order to know that there's no literal Father Christmas. All strong atheists have considered god claims and have said, "I don't buy it" and many have gone further.

So, an infant is a "weak" atheist, in that it does not have a god belief, but is not a strong atheist. I am both a "weak" atheist, in that I lack a god belief, and a "strong" atheist, in that I have considered (I think) all the major god claims that have been floating around for the past 3,000 years or so, and find them all to show strong signs of being falsehoods perpetrated to keep the masses in line, or delusions, or conveniences, or poetry. I am a strong atheist in that I think none of the god claims I have encountered are literally true, but are, at best, poetic allegory or hallucination or misconception and, at worst, outright frauds.
 

"Weak" atheism says that there are two types of people: those who have a god belief and those who do not. If you have a god belief (however vague), you are a theist; if you do not have a god belief (even if that's because you are still an infant), you are an atheist. A-theism, in this sense, means the without theism -- not "no-god-ism."

The only reason this is a problem is when people try to define atheism as a whole. What an individual believes or does not believe is nobody's business.

However, atheists, as a class, have been on the business end of some pretty harsh treatment. So it behooves us to at least think about what constitutes an atheist from the observer's perspective. I developed this point while discussing pantheism with John Love-Jensen.

It doesn't matter whether Eljay (his nickname) is an atheist or a theist (it doesn't even matter to him). However, he presented a challenge by asserting that his brand of pantheism is a third alternative between theism and atheism. So I took this as a philosophical challenge, did a lot of thinking, and made a minute amount of progress in my own personal philosophical quest.

In this discussion, I tried to see how an independent observer, let's say an anthropologist, would categorize his belief system as pertains to the theism versus atheism question. I further presupposed that this imaginary anthropologist defined atheism as a whole according to the dichotomy implied in the "weak" definition: one either has a god belief or one does not. Remember, this whole thing was nothing more than a philosophical exercise on my part, as I was trying to test the dichotomy implied in the "weak" definition, and was accepting his claim of pantheism being a "middle ground" as a philosophical challenge.

The problem was that Eljay could go either way, depending on how you defined or assess his statement of belief. He lacked a god belief in that to him, the word "god" (his quotation marks; his italics; his lowercase) is synonymous with the Universe and is not a personal, conscious, aware, entity as most theists think of gods. Eljay merely felt such awe and reverence for Nature that he couldn't adequately describe how he felt about Her without resorting to the language of theism. (I can, but we were examining Eljay's beliefs.) So his theism is entirely in his use of theistic language, and apart from that his outlook is indistinguishable from atheism.

However, he used the words "god" and "sacred" and many other terms that one would expect of a theist. I argued that a certain tribe calls the local volcano a god. It doesn't matter that we all know that the volcano is just a volcano, they call it a god, and I think everyone would agree that this makes them theists. If this were not the case, I argued, we'd have to show that Jesus is actually a god before we could rightly call a Christian a theist.

So, even though his outlook was completely materialistic, indistinguishable from my outlook in this respect, I argued that his use of theistic language qualified him as a theist -- not because he believed in any mainstream concept of deity, but because he said he believed in a deity (which happens to be the Universe, and not a volcano or Jesus or whatever). I said this thinking that an observer is not qualified to go beyond the subject's language and statements when assessing that subject's beliefs.

Later, atheist philosopher George H. Smith, in his most recent book, Why Atheism? (2000), seemingly in response to my argument (and calling it "superficial"), made the following statement in a footnote to a discussion on whether Spinoza is rightly seen as an atheist:

Transparent Spacer
Quote Graphic Rule

 

"Scholars continue to debate the question of whether Spinoza was really an atheist; and if this debate seems incapable of resolution, this is partially because the key term 'atheist' is rarely used in a clear and consistent manner. The question 'Was Spinoza really an atheist?' can be interpreted in (at least) three different ways. If we apply the label 'atheist' only to writers who never employ theistic terminology, then Spinoza was not an atheist in this superficial sense. If, by 'atheist,' we mean a thinker who explicitly disbelieves in any personal, transcendent, or supernatural God, then Spinoza was indeed an atheist. If however, we mean 'Did Spinoza view himself as an atheist?' then the issue becomes far more problematic."
     -- George H. Smith, Why Atheism? pp. 198-9

 

Quote Graphic Rule
Transparent Spacer

This served to force me to back off a bit on my assessment of Love-Jensen's views, and to force me to state my criteria with greater precision -- although I think I employed sufficient precision in the somewhat disjointed dialogue with Love-Jensen. However, I have elsewhere argued that Satanists of the Anton Szandor Lavey variety are atheists, in that their use of the name Satan is strictly allegory, and that they don't believe in the actual existence of a personal entity named Satan. They use Satan as an allegory for the self-indulgent Self, and also as a ruse to frighten the living bejesus out of fundamentalist Christians.
 

All of this shows that the term atheism has no precise or consistent usage, and that we need to state clearly what we mean when we use the word. It also warns atheism's antagonists not to make sweeping statements about "atheists" or "atheism" but rather to describe what one is discussing and to assess that description, not any meaning assumed by the word. We do well to treat the word God with the same respect: when a theist starts talking about "God," I immediately demand a description of what that person means when she or he utters that sound or types that letter sequence onto a page or into an e-mail.

George H. Smith, again:

Transparent Spacer
Quote Graphic Rule

 

As one theist puts it, "With no description or definition to work from, we will literally fail to know what we are talking about." For example, consider the following dialogue:

    Mr. Jones: "An unie exists."

    Mr. White: "Prove it."

    Mr. Jones: "It has rained for three consecutive days -- that is my proof."

If this exchange is less than satisfactory, much of the blame rests with Mr. White: his demand for proof is premature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an "unie" is; until and unless he does so, "unie" is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some description of an "Unie," the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.

 

Quote Graphic Rule
Transparent Spacer

The same goes for the word God and the same, I am finding, goes for the words atheism and atheist.

Humans tend to form into groups: Pinker says that these groups -- to this day -- tend to number about 150 people. This means that you probably know about 150 people, including vicarious relationships with television personalities and other public figures. Until very recently, a physical clan or tribe probably had to polarize against neighboring tribes just to survive. Later, the issue became our self-identity as people groups (the classic example being the Jews).

Today, we don't really need to polarize, but we have this tendency in us and don't really think about why. So, we have this vestigial habit of painting neighboring tribes with a broad brush in hopes of bolstering the validity of our self-identity as a group. Thus, theists tend to say things about "the atheists" (as if atheists have anything in common -- including their definition for the word atheism), and atheist often talk about "the theists" or "the religionists" or terms less endearing than that.

What I hope to do is develop some statements to promote the "Live and Let Live" mentality between theists and atheists. If we atheists are to demand dignity from theists (and I think we must), we need to first see to it that we are granting the same dignity to theists. Thus, as a first move, I have offered the following compromise, of sorts: We presuppose that all theists have (or think they have) valid reasons for believing the way they do; Theists and atheist agree to use the "weak" definition for atheism in public discussion regarding atheism.

For too long, the word atheism has been a synonym for wickedness (see Merriam-Webster's). For too long, atheism has been defined in the "strong" sense for the purpose of making it easier to refute (one cannot disprove, empirically, an existential claim -- the claim that a thing exists). For too long, this "strong" definition has been twisted to mean that an atheist is "one who believes he has absolute knowledge that there is no one who has absolute knowledge" (attributed to Frederick Copelson).

And for too long, we have responded by suggesting that people who believe do so out of weakness or for cultural reasons or for comfort. No. Most theists cite the Argument from Design as the reason they believe. While I think this is premature, I still understand completely why someone would be tempted to come to this conclusion. Another big reason is because the prospect of annihilation upon death, and the prospect that the universe is, overall, a pointless fluke, are prospects that are quite difficult to face.

Meanwhile, the truly weighty questions we humans face include: Can we bring our kids safely into adulthood, and give them the best prospects for surviving and thriving once they're on their own? What can we do to increase the prospects for peaceful living situations in our homes, our communities, and nowadays, in the whole world. Can we conquer those enemies -- both human and nonhuman -- that threaten our safety? I could list many other weighty questions, but I wish only to point out that the question of whether or not gods exist is one of the stupidest reasons to get into a fight.

So I think by popularizing the "weak" definition for atheism when used in a general context, and granting theists the dignity of at least having pondered their theism, we do well (from our side) to encourage a "Live and Let Live" mentality from both sides.

My plan will never fly on a culture-wide level, but it is, I think, a promising goal toward which we, as individuals, can move.
 

I'm sure there's more to all this, but since philosophy is almost always a personal journey, wherein each student personally tests all the classic arguments of historical philosophy and determines a personal philosophical outlook, I have not thought through these things as much as I'd like to have at this stage in my life.

I have no formal education, but have studied intensely my entire life and am currently reading the new Columbia History of Western Philosophy as "gotta-lie-down-for-a-while" reading for when I just can't sit in this chair. I bought this book because it is the first comprehensive history of Western thought in a single volume, written for both the layperson and the philosophy professor.

What I am doing this year is trying to understand some of the history of thought that led to modern atheism and skepticism and humanism. By understanding both the meanings (usages) and histories of the atheistic, the skeptical, rationalistic and humanistic influences in Western thought, and by bring these understandings to play in the public forum, perhaps we can make a difference toward reducing or eliminating the stigma and bigotry that we atheists endure from every corner, and have endured for as far back as when the Psalmist wrote:

Transparent Spacer
Quote Graphic Rule

 

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
     -- Psalm 14:1

 

Quote Graphic Rule
Transparent Spacer

This attitude has been thoroughly institutionalized for at least 2500 years, now -- since the Psalmist wrote this and since Socrates was put to death on a charge of "atheism" -- and probably much longer. We have a formidable task ahead of us, and we might not accomplish anything through our efforts. But, I venture to state that unless we do make an effort to change, things are likely to remain the same or get worse.

There is no book on how to make these changes, no instruction manual, so we're on our own. Hey! Isn't that what atheism has been saying all along? we're on our own? if any changes are to be made, it is we who must make them?

Good luck in your personal quest for understanding. I will respect anybody who has thought about their outlook regardless of what that person's conclusions may be. I do not hold much respect for someone who has not thought about their position -- even if their position agrees with mine!

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "James S"
Subject: Re: My apologies.
Date: Saturday, March 10, 2001 8:51 PM

No waste of time at all. As you will see, I address each e-mail as it comes, and in addressing yours, I came up with one of the more comprehensive statements of where I'm coming from. It is letters like yours which make wading through a sea of bigoted rants from fundamentalists all worthwhile.

My goal here on this Forum is to offer my thoughts and suggestions up to the scrutiny of others and to practice and fine-tune my expression of those thoughts. Perhaps I will eventually be able to put these into a highly accessible form -- if not as answers, at least as clear statements of the problems.

Remember, philosophy is not a cumulative science wherein we can rest on the findings of our predecessors and move on: philosophy is always a personal journey wherein (hopefully) students each enjoy an opportunity to personally test each of the classic ponderings and decide for themselves what they think about the questions that entice and plague a species who has been blessed (or cursed) with the ability to reflect on these questions.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule
Added: May 15, 2001

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "James S"
Subject: Re: Positive Atheism Letters Section
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2001 7:03 PM

The main point of this Forum, particularly the De-Conversion Stories, is so we can learn by watching ourselves undergo changes. We can log on and see something we've written two years ago, and perhaps see how we've changed, or perhaps someone has added a response. We can watch people who are now where we were ten years ago. And, hopefully, we can see someone who is where we would eventually like to be.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.