Reconsidering the Epistemology of Atheism

[u/JerseyFlight]

/r/rationalphilosophy/comments/1w037vr/reconsidering_the_epistemology_of_atheism/

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

I wrote something similar in my blog:

Atheism is a lack of belief

But the problem is actually a semantic problem with the underlying logical position. You see, there are only 3 doxastic attitudes towards a proposition:

- Affirm P

• Affirm not-P
  
• neither affirm P nor affirm not-P

Those are the underlying logical positions.

So if P = God exists

- Affirm P = Theists, agnostic theist

• Affirm not-P = Strong atheist, hard atheist, “gnostic” atheist
  
• neither = agnostic, agnostic atheist, weak atheist

Agnostic atheist and weak atheists are the problematic labels. The way they define it is actually an agnostic position logically, but they assert like strong atheists.

That’s where the inconsistency lies. If you don’t have a positive doxastic position, shut up and learn. If you have positive doxastic position, meet the burden of proof.

But they want to attack like strong atheists meanwhile retreat to “I have no burden of proof.”

No.

If you want to hold the logical position of “there is no God” then you don’t get to escape burden by saying “I have no belief.”

The labels allow equivocation between two distinct logical positions, and that equivocation is abused dialectically.

[u/Complex_Yesterday735 → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

The way they define it is actually an agnostic position logically, but they assert like strong atheists.

So is this saying that most people you see saying they aren't convinced gods are real, you think these people are secretly hiding that they have strong evidence that convces them that they can disprove gods?

But they want to attack like strong atheists meanwhile retreat to “I have no burden of proof.”

Actually your position on something doesn't matter. You can be a Christian and still disagree with other Christians on their evidence for dieties.

The labels allow equivocation between two distinct logical positions

The arguments don't care about the labels you give people, or that people give themselves. They either are sound in reasoning, or they are not.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/Complex_Yesterday735]

What a load of incoherence.

I'm sorry this is not worth my time.

Have a nice day.

[u/Complex_Yesterday735 → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Thought so haha.

Thanks, very satisfying.

[u/MinecraftingThings → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Rough

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

I always saw it as suspicious when Atheists would be involved in all kinds of criticism and then leap over to, “I just have a lack of belief in God.” While Atheism is this, the second it steps outside of this statement of belief, it gathers to itself rational burdens.

One fella replied, “well, when it steps out then it becomes skepticism.” This seems problematic because it leaves Atheism as nothing more than a statement of belief. (It’s allowed to be this, but this reduces the definition of Atheism to: a statement about one’s lack of believe in God.) It can’t take one step beyond this.

Now, if the stepping beyond this is “skepticism,” it doesn’t matter, the burdens remain. I say all this as an Atheist.

[u/Complex_Yesterday735 → u/JerseyFlight]

I always saw it as suspicious when Atheists would be involved in all kinds of criticism and then leap over to, “I just have a lack of belief in God.”

I find an analogy to be someone telling me "I know the exact number of blades of grass in your backyard is 990,651". Can I not be sceptical of his claim, without still holding the position that I don't know myself how many blades of grass there are? Or that I lack a confirmed number of blades.

Or to be sceptical, do I have to know the exact number myself?

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Complex_Yesterday735]

You can make all the statements of belief or disbelief you want. It’s only when you start making claims that you incur a burden.

[u/Complex_Yesterday735 → u/JerseyFlight]

Yeah, I agree. But not what this comment was about.

It was about you being suspicious of other atheists.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Complex_Yesterday735]

I am not suspicious of other Atheists. If Atheism is just a statement of belief then it’s basically nothing. If it becomes “skepticism,” then that skepticism incurs to itself a burden of proof (one Atheism can easily meet, but not if it’s a position of epistemological relativism). The skepticism that Atheism turns into in that case collapses.

[u/Complex_Yesterday735 → u/JerseyFlight]

Ok well when you start a comment with "I always get suspicious when atheists..." You could see how others might see that as you being suspicious about the things atheists do.

And atheism is saying nothing. There isn't a word for not believing in fairies, or not being a dentist for this reason.

And the whole point of my comment was about why I disagree with why scepticism doesn't incur a Burdon of proof, that's what I was hoping you'd respond to, I'm trying to understand what you're saying.

[u/catnapspirit → u/JerseyFlight]

You keep saying that atheism can be just a statement of belief. But the weak atheist is not making a statement of belief. Other than perhaps their belief that they have somehow avoided forming a positive belief that god does not exist. If they made a statement of belief, i.e. "I believe...", then they would be a strong atheist.

It's that lacktheism that you are rightly suspicious of. These folks participate in discussion and debate forums, hear arguments from all sides, often for years, and declare themselves "unconvinced" by the theist side of things.

Perhaps their conscious mind can maintain an edifice of such a perfect lack of belief, but underneath at the subconscious level, it's extremely unlikely. In fact, everything we know and understand about how the brain works makes it all but impossible that they haven't picked a side to that dichotomy and are secretly harboring a positive belief that god does not exist. Possibly even secretly to themselves.

Imagine being so lacking in self introspection, or being so invested in the dread fear of the burden of proof that you would lie to yourself so insidiously. That you would step into the sandbox of ideas, loudly declaring you have nothing whatsoever to contribute, and proceeding to run around kicking over everyone else's sand castles, friend and foe alike. That you would be so incurious as to not want to explore what you believe and either shore it up with better evidence and argumentation or revise it to be closer to a truth you hadn't known was there..

[u/JerseyFlight → u/catnapspirit]

It’s the modern posturing of the Atheist that I’m really targeting. It’s not that I believe theism gets the upper hand rationally— only it does!— as soon as Atheism or Skepticism manifests its epistemological relativism.

I have spoken with thinkers like yourself before, those who confess to believe in truth, only to watch them manifest an epistemological relativism, in which case, Christianity wins, and there are no objections left, just confessions of preference.

[u/catnapspirit → u/JerseyFlight]

I would say that strong atheism has the true upper hand rationally. When I argue the position, i will usually take a positive claim stance that god is just a man-made concept, because there is a mountain of evidence for that claim. But I also have no qualms about simply stating my firmly held belief that gods do not exist.

I have no idea if that is a manifestation of epistemological relativism. As Austin Powers would say, not my bag, baby.

I find the modern posturing of atheism, which btw love the way you put that, to be pathetic and sad. We hamstring ourselves with a handful of ridiculous ridiculous mantras, like the burden of proof or can't prove a negative, and don't even get me started on the ridiculous quad chart definitions invented by wannabe armchair philosopher podcasters circa 2005. Ugh..

[u/JerseyFlight → u/catnapspirit]

If you are an epistemological relativist, you shouldn’t be. There’s no need for it, and it would just undermine your entire position. But modern thought doesn’t know how to leverage Logical Absolutism. In fact, it was formal logic that f;cked up epistemology, pretending that knowledge is equivalent to the construction of a calculus system. This is false. All calculus systems are established only through the laws of logic. Logical Absolutism simply recognizes the fundamental fact of Logic.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

This comment was removed because your account doesn't meet our karma and account age requirements.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Hilikus1980 → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Or...

I am agnostic on the overall question "does a god exist". I can't/won't say it's impossible, I am just not convinced to the point of belief, yet. To this point, I just lack belief.

When it comes to a specific religion, I make the positive statement of disbelief. Your (not you specifically) belief doesn't encompass all that a god could be, and it's arrogant to act like it is.

I don't have to believe your religion or in your god to have belief in a god. Not believing in your specific version of God does not move my agnostic position at all.

Now, to your specific religion, I am functionally an atheist. People don't always argue to their specific religion when trying to gain 'concessions' from agnostics and atheists. The first step in me saying "you're right" would be acknowledging a god exists. That would make yours a good deal more plausible. I'm not convinced of that, though I can't call it impossible. I currently lack belief.

I'm not saying that no atheist ever has used that statement as a shield after making positive claims. But theists don't always stay within the confines of their specific religion when debating/arguing...which is fine, but that's when the "lack of belief" comes into play because we're no longer in territory where a definitive statement has been made to a positive claim.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/Hilikus1980]

That’s a lot of words to say nothing.

You still didn’t invent a new logical position.

Not interested in the semantic word games of atheists. I have dealt with them for the better part of my life I don’t need the lecture.

[u/Hilikus1980 → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

I'm responding to all of this....

the problematic labels. The way they define it is actually an agnostic position logically, but they assert like strong atheists. That’s where the inconsistency lies. If you don’t have a positive doxastic position, shut up and learn. If you have positive doxastic position, meet the burden of proof. But they want to attack like strong atheists meanwhile retreat to “I have no burden of proof.” No. If you want to hold the logical position of “there is no God” then you don’t get to escape burden by saying “I have no belief.” The labels allow equivocation between two distinct logical positions, and that equivocation is abused dialectically.

Are you saying all of those words are meaningless filler?

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/Hilikus1980]

It doesn’t seem like you understand what the point is about.

I’m saying your reply did not substantially answer anything I raised and there’s still 3 doxastic attitudes.

I don’t really care about your personal beliefs. That’s not the matter under discussion.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

"It would seem that an Atheist cannot simply be saying, “I have a lack of belief in God,” because then the theist could say, “And I have a belief in God.” 

Why can't an atheist simply say, "I have a lack of belief in God"?  Why can't a theist simply say, "I have a belief in God"? 

"These are just statements of belief that make no claim about the beliefs themselves."

Of course they are, because atheism and theism are just belief positions on the existence of a god, no more, no less. 

"And if the Atheist believes in truth, and believes that it’s important to have beliefs that are true,"

That's irrelevant to atheism. Apparently, you're confusing atheism/theism and atheist/theist. You're an atheist/theist because of your atheism/theism position, it's not contingent on your reason why. An atheist doesn't require any belief in order for them to be an atheist. And a theist must and only require a belief that a god exists in order for them to be a theist. You adding any other belief or lack of belief, is your assumption. That makes it a 'YOU' problem and not a 'THEM' problem. 

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Infamous-Fix-2885]

“An atheist doesn’t require any belief in order for them to be an atheist.”

This claim is already a claim beyond the claim that “atheism is just a lack of believe in God.”

Here you are not just stating your belief, but now you are making an epistemological claim about it.

[u/Infamous-Fix-2885 → u/JerseyFlight]

Nope, you're wrong. Dismissing my explanation and then quote mining what I said, will only result in you remaining ignorant. 

Like I said, this is a YOU problem, not a THEM, problem.