Gosh, give me a little credit here and assume I have something in mind that goes a little bit beyond the above....I'll try to keep this short...

The "burden of proof" question, and the "proving a negative" question, are both relative to the discipline...and there are several to choose from...

For example, within science the common practice is to place the burden of proof on the one making an assertion, and more importantly, science doesn't generally make claims about nonexistence. i.e. a scientist will say something like "well I doubt unicorns exist because we've looked around the globe and we've yet to find one. I can't prove they don't exist, but I have no reason to think they do, and I seriously doubt they exist".

In mathematics the practice is quite different. The burden of proof remains with the one making the claim, but proofs of non-existence are common practice and quite valuable. Something, say, like "prove that a smallest rational number greater than 0 does not exist".

So in response to your statement that "As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt " I'd make the following observations.

First, such a statement would have to be bounded by the method which generated it. For example, you might say "from a scientific view I can state God doesn't exist" or "from a purely logical view, and based on the following assumptions, I can state God doesn't exist". You don't do this, and so what seems like a simple and direct statement at first turns out to be ambiguous.

Second, if this statement is indeed meant to be scientific, then it overreaches because this kind of scientific claim of non-existence, like claims about the unicorn, have to allow for at least a tiny fringe of doubt. But you don't allow for any doubt at all...so you are going beyond science.

Third, in the realm of logic (mathematics is, by the way, a species of logic) a proposition's value remains unknown unless it is proven true or false. When it comes to the the proposition "God exists" theism corresponds with "true", atheism corresponds with "false", and agnosticism corresponds with "unknown".

So if your statement is meant to be logical (formally rational) then you are making an assertion that needs to be proven...in this case the proposition is "God exists" and you are asserting a value of "false" rather than the default of "unknown".

Where I am steering this is as follows. If you are saying "As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt in 30 years", and you will really allow for no doubt (i.e. it's not established by science), and you really see no need for logical proof (i.e. it's not established by formal logic)...then guess what? You're simply relating a breathtaking leap of faith on your part.

I'd invite you to reconsider your position and jump ship to the agnostic camp.


(Arrrg...my apologies....I accidently edited this post rather than starting a new one....I've restored it here again though ...

galanter wrote:
Gosh, give me a little credit here and assume I have something in mind that goes a little bit beyond the above....I'll try to keep this short...

The "burden of proof" question, and the "proving a negative" question, are both relative to the discipline...and there are several to choose from...

Wait-a-go. I love the way you turn someones point around by restating the question in a way the will suit your conclusion...

galanter wrote:For example, within science the common practice is to place the burden of proof on the one making an assertion, and more importantly, science doesn't generally make claims about nonexistence. i.e. a scientist will say something like "well I doubt unicorns exist because we've looked around the globe and we've yet to find one. I can't prove they don't exist, but I have no reason to think they do, and I seriously doubt they exist".

Yes, and where did the idea of a unicorn come from in the first place? It is a mythical animal. The basis of the idea of a unicorn is the same as a god, man made. You're going to have to be do better than offer up another example of "people just making shit up" and then expecting everyone to have a agnostic view on it.

As I said, all this epistemology 101 is very basic and silly. "How can anything really be known", well it can't , but that doesn't mean that every little thing that someone thinks up deserves serious inquiry.

galanter wrote:So in response to your statement that "As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt " I'd make the following observations.

First, such a statement would have to be bounded by the method which generated it. For example, you might say "from a scientific view I can state God doesn't exist" or "from a purely logical view, and based on the following assumptions, I can state God doesn't exist". You don't do this, and so what seems like a simple and direct statement at first turns out to be ambiguous.

But I didn't say any of those things. you did. You're building strawmen and hacking away at them. I didn't say, "from a scientific view I can state God doesn't exist" or "from a purely logical view, and based on the following assumptions, I can state God doesn't exist" I said I was an atheist. By atheist I mean lack I have a lack of belief, this isn't a positive statement a lack of belief isn't the reverse of belief, it is the absence of belief. I have an absence of beer in my fridge, are you going to tell me that there could be beer in there?

galanter wrote:Second, if this statement i...

Good thing I didn't make that statement...

galanter wrote:Third, in the realm of logic (mathematics is, by the way, a species of logic) a proposition's value remains unknown unless it is proven true or false. When it comes to the the proposition "God exists" theism corresponds with "true", atheism corresponds with "false", and agnosticism corresponds with "unknown".

So if your statement is meant to be logical (formally rational) then you are making an assertion that needs to be proven...in this case the proposition is "God exists" and you are asserting a value of "false" rather than the default of "unknown".

Where I am steering this is as follows. If you are saying "As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt in 30 years", and you will really allow for no doubt (i.e. it's not established by science), and you really see no need for logical proof (i.e. it's not established by formal logic)...then guess what? You're simply relating a breathtaking leap of faith on your part.

I'd invite you to reconsider your position and jump ship to the agnostic camp.

Finally you have some interesting points. However you are retreating into "but how can we really know anything land" again. Fair call, however not really useful. As Linus pointed out, by that logic you are saying -and I'm not putting words in you mouth-, that we should leave our options open. Fine good point, you can have faith in that idea, I have an absence of faith in that idea.

The term agnostic come from Thomas Huxley and means the negative of knowledge. My atheism is not a denial of a god, it is the absence of a belief in a god.

Question: are you an agnostic towards the Norse god of thunder Thor or just the judeo-christian god?

Let's first start off by adopting the view of descriptive linguistics, in terms of semantics, and state that there is no necessarily -right- definition of "atheism;" there is only what is understood, which might lead two otherwise like-thinking folks to disagree due to term collision.

Underlying the Gramsci/galanter disagree looks to be a simple issue of semantics. Namely, there appear to be two widely held views of where the line is drawn between atheism and agnosticism:

The "Hard" View
-------------------
atheism - The belief that divinity does not exist (i.e., an odd sort of faith)
agnosticism - A lack of belief in divinity (i.e., it may or may not exist, who knows?)

The "Soft" View
-------------------
atheism - A lack of belief in divinity (i.e., it may or may not exist, who knows?)
agnosticism - A belief in something divine, somehow marked by uncertainty or ambivalence (i.e., I know -something- is up there, but I just don't know what)

I tend to assume the soft view of things, since, in the hard view, atheism is a very silly sort of adolescent concept where one simultaneously proclaims that "God, therefore faith, is silly," and "I have faith in His nonexistence."

leftwing wrote:Let's first start off by adopting the view of descriptive linguistics, in terms of semantics, and state that there is no necessarily -right- definition of "atheism;" there is only what is understood, which might lead two otherwise like-thinking folks to disagree due to term collision.

Underlying the Gramsci/galanter disagree looks to be a simple issue of semantics. Namely, there appear to be two widely held views of where the line is drawn between atheism and agnosticism:

The "Hard" View
-------------------
atheism - The belief that divinity does not exist (i.e., an odd sort of faith)
agnosticism - A lack of belief in divinity (i.e., it may or may not exist, who knows?)

The "Soft" View
-------------------
atheism - A lack of belief in divinity (i.e., it may or may not exist, who knows?)
agnosticism - A belief in something divine, somehow marked by uncertainty or ambivalence (i.e., I know -something- is up there, but I just don't know what)

I tend to assume the soft view of things, since, in the hard view, atheism is a very silly sort of adolescent concept where one simultaneously proclaims that "God, therefore faith, is silly," and "I have faith in His nonexistence."

This is only useful if it clarifies rather than obscures mutual understanding.

I am not sure your "soft" use definitions are at all common.

Here is what dictionary.com says...much closer to your "hard" version.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=theism

It also seems to me that the use of the term "atheist" in this discussion is being used by all in the hard sense. But I could be wrong...I'd need to see 2 specific uses pointed out here that are in a hard/soft conflict.

Gramsci,

This kind of discussion doesn't lend itself well to the multiple quote/response format because partializing an argument can lose the forest for the trees. For example, the long post above I intend as a single point...it just takes a while to build up to.

Anyway, the complaint that this is all "how can you know anything anyway" stuff and "Philosophy 101" stuff is a sign you aren't taking on the whole of what I am saying.

We are well into Philosophy 201...but I'll try to cut this short...

To recap:

The truth of a proposition is relative to the discipline or method which will bind, limit, and verify what can be said.

In the case of God's existence, for example, (or indeed ID vrs Evolution) there are differing standards depending on whether one is making the claim from the perspective of science, math and formal logic, philosophy and theology, and so on.

To focus:

There are different ways one could take your statement that you are an atheist without any doubts about it.

What I suggested was that a scientific case would be impossible to make* , and that you seemed to say there isn't a case to be made in terms of formal logic (or, presumably, philosophical argument).

So I wasn't putting words in your mouth so much as noting the different things that might be meant by the ambiguous thing you said...And then addressing each.

Eventually I came to suggest that your lack of belief is merely itself a belief, and not a result of science or philosophy or any other more formal consideration.

I am not saying (at least not here) that there is anything wrong with having beliefs that start and stop with a sort of "gut call".
That wouldn't bother me if it doesn't bother you.

But we should call an article of faith an article of faith wherever we find it.

And, I would argue, if one wants to insist on taking a position that can actually be defended, whether from the point of view of science, logic, philosophy, or whatever, that the only defensible position I've found is agnosticism.

But, again, if you've gone with atheism as an article of faith, I have no problem with that. Do you?

cheers, Phil

-------------
* there are actually other stronger arguments for this, but I wanted to keep it short and more personal

So there could be beer in my fridge, I'll just go and look...


Nope, but according to you, if I wait a while there's no reason it wont appear late.

My copy of "The Universe According to Thor the God of Thunder" is in the post...

What is it about a personal claim of agnosticism that you would find uncomfortable?

What is it about labeling your personal claim of doubt-free atheism as an act of faith that you would find uncomfortable?

I have an absence of beer in my fridge, are you going to tell me that there could be beer in there?

Yes. This very thing has happened to me twice. Check on one of the little shelves, between the condiment bottles. You may just find a miracle!

Superking wrote:

I have an absence of beer in my fridge, are you going to tell me that there could be beer in there?

Yes. This very thing has happened to me twice. Check on one of the little shelves, between the condiment bottles. You may just find a miracle!

Or at least some Miracle Whip.

galanter wrote:I am not sure your "soft" use definitions are at all common.

What is common to one may not be common to another, of course. It's true in my experience, and thus my claim of being common usage.

galanter wrote:It also seems to me that the use of the term "atheist" in this discussion is being used by all in the hard sense.

There is evidence of the "soft" view in this discussion, as far as I can tell:

Gramsci wrote:My atheism is not a denial of a god, it is the absence of a belief in a god.

Also see M_a_x's post directly beneath this for more evidence of "soft" atheism.

galanter wrote:Here is what dictionary.com says...much closer to your "hard" version.

And here is what the Oxford English Dictionary says, which seems to encompass both the hard and soft views of atheism:

OED wrote:Atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God