Is Strong Atheism Sophistry, or Evil?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Stirling
Posts: 91
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
Location: Pullman, WA

Post by Stirling »

I was, though admittedly not in too many words. I suppose I could have elaborated a little.
"Live slow, die eventually, leave an indifferently attractive corpse. That's my motto." - David Mitchell

"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

I wonder how to proceed? You have stated that:
Stirling wrote:I would like to point out the complete irrelevance and ideaistic nature of metaphysics. Nothing in it can be proven. It is subjective, abstract mumbling at its highest.
And now you wish to make a metaphysical argument that there is no god? Or is it just everyone else who is mumbling unprovable irrelevancies when they argue metaphysics?
User avatar
Stirling
Posts: 91
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
Location: Pullman, WA

Post by Stirling »

No, I'm saying that the claims of metaphysics cannot be proven, there are no facts, and therefore should not be taken as any relevant philosophy. It is not a metaphysical argument, or claim, to counter claims of metaphysics. I reject claims with metaphysical basises - of deities and other supernatural concepts; of purpose; of being; of existence. It's all speculative; abstract mumbling because there is no evidence, and therefore cannot be supported by any well-rounded logic or scientific support.

You seem rather tense, Meleagar.
"Live slow, die eventually, leave an indifferently attractive corpse. That's my motto." - David Mitchell

"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
User avatar
Keith Russell
Posts: 897
Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm

Post by Keith Russell »

Stirling wrote:No, I'm saying that the claims of metaphysics cannot be proven, there are no facts, and therefore should not be taken as any relevant philosophy.
What do you mean by "metaphysics"? I don't think you're using the word in its philosophical sense.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies existence itself; "metaphysics" is often called "ontology". "Metaphysics" is not synonymous with "mysticism", though that is a popular misconception...
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:Sure, strong atheism is as much what you call "sophistry" as theism is--assuming both are a belief held without evidence.
Meleagar wrote:Since you have agreed that your position is sophistry (as defined in this debate), I don't see that we have anything left to debate on the matter of strong atheism.
Yes, we have nothing left to debate of strong atheism or theism in this regard since we agree both are equally what you call "sophistry." Thus, the only position in regards to belief of god(s) that would not be what you call "sophistry" would be weak atheism which you are addressing in another thread.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Stirling
Posts: 91
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
Location: Pullman, WA

Post by Stirling »

Metaphysics in its literal intention: beyond the physical, of things that are not material. The traditional philosophical term taught in schools is, I think, a little too specific. It should include such abstract and empirically unproven ideas as god and purpose; being and other such transcendental ideas.
"Live slow, die eventually, leave an indifferently attractive corpse. That's my motto." - David Mitchell

"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Scott wrote: Yes, we have nothing left to debate of strong atheism or theism in this regard since we agree both are equally what you call "sophistry." Thus, the only position in regards to belief of god(s) that would not be what you call "sophistry" would be weak atheism which you are addressing in another thread.
This debate isn't about theism, and I never agreed that theism is necessarily sophistry or evil.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:Sure, strong atheism is as much what you call "sophistry" as theism is--assuming both are a belief held without evidence.
Meleagar wrote:Since you have agreed that your position is sophistry (as defined in this debate), I don't see that we have anything left to debate on the matter of strong atheism.
Scott wrote:Yes, we have nothing left to debate of strong atheism or theism in this regard since we agree both are equally what you call "sophistry." Thus, the only position in regards to belief of god(s) that would not be what you call "sophistry" would be weak atheism which you are addressing in another thread.
Meleagar wrote:This debate isn't about theism, and I never agreed that theism is necessarily sophistry or evil.
Meleagar, I only agreed that strong atheism is as much what you call "sophistry" as theism is. :?

In this post in another thread which is NOT specifically about religion or supernatural claims, I proved with basic logic that a rational person belief in regards to any proposition, X, must fall into one of the following three categories:
  • 1. I believe X. (which is theism, where X = 'at least one god exists')
    2. I believe -X. (which is strong atheism, where X = 'at least one god exists')
    3. I neither believe X nor believe -X. (which we agree is weak atheism, where X = 'at least one god exists')
For any proposition (not just a religious one), I don't see how 1 could possibly be what you call "sophistry" if 2 is not or vice versa. This seems like an inherent contradiction to me. Evidence for -X is evidence against X and vice versa. For two mutually exclusive propositions, lack of evidence for one can be, at least in certain situations, evidence for the other. They are inherently interlinked, and belief in one is as useful or not in practical situations as the other.

If your argument entails a contradiction, then it must be unsound.

Moreover, as I am sure you would agree, people usually don't believe things because they think the belief will be useful. They believe something because they think it is true presumably based on the available evidence. If there is enough evidence to support their belief, then that belief is justified. And, again, evidence for X is evidence against -X and vice versa. If there is no evidence either way, I agree that belief in X is as much what you call "sophistry" as belief in -X.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Scott:

The claim that "ducks exist somewhere in the universe" can be proven; the claim that "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe" cannot be proven. That is why the latter is necessarily sophistry, and the former is not.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Meleagar wrote:Scott:

The claim that "ducks exist somewhere in the universe" can be proven; the claim that "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe" cannot be proven. That is why the latter is necessarily sophistry, and the former is not.
I misunderstood you then. I thought you were using the term "sophistry" to refer to useless ideas, namely propositions of which there is no evidence either way and/or that have no practical application (e.g. whether or not we live in an unnoticeable Matrix won't change what I eat for dinner tonight). This is not the case with the proposition, "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe." That proposition is not necessarily useless. It indeed could strongly affect one's actions and there is significant more evidence one way or the other. Consider, for example, if someone came across an offer by someone to buy ducks at $1 million a piece. As we are both sure to agree, it wouldn't be irrelevant in practical terms to believe that no ducks exist or don't exist, as it would affect whether one looks for ducks to earn that million dollars per duck or not. There's evidence to determine which of the two mutually exclusive propositions is right, and whoever is right has significant practical implications. If there's no evidence or logic to support the proposition X (in this case that no ducks exist) but there is significant evidence to support proposition -X, then it would be outright delusional and unreasonable to positively believe -X. Am I to take it that this is what you mean by "sophistry"--outright delusion and unreasonableness? If not, then please re-explain it to me.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Scott wrote:This is not the case with the proposition, "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe." That proposition is not necessarily useless.
Yes, it is. It's not only useless, it's counter-productive.

One needn't believe that "no ducks exist" in order to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that looking for a duck wouldn't be a responsible use of their time, just as most people realize it isn't a responsible use of their time (and money) to invest their entire paycheck in lottery tickets.

However, try telling those who have won the lottery that it would have been better if they had believed "no lottery winners exist" - or, if Wilbur and Orville had believed "a means for human powered flight does not (and can not) exist".
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Meleagar, You didn't answer my question that I asked you in my last post. I apparently have misunderstood you, but you have not confirmed or denied this. I don't understand what you mean by sophistry. I thought I did, but as I told you in my last post, I now don't think I do.

Some choices are inherently practically useless/irrelevant. They do not impact our practical choices. This is generally coinciding with the fact that there is no empirical evidence one way or the other, as the presence of empirical evidence stems from the truth or falsehood of the proposition impacting us. For instance, the statement, 'we are all living in an unnoticeable computer simulation similar to the Matrix,' is practically useless/irrelevant and would have no significant impact on choices we make; for instance whether or not I believe we live in an unnoticeable matrix wouldn't change what I have for dinner tonight. When you say a belief is sophistry do you mean the belief is practically useless/irrelevant? If so, then my only point is that if any proposition, such as X or -Y, is practically useless/irrelevant then so is it's opposite, -X or Y. Because either it impacts our choices or not.

If we are talking about propositions that that are practically useful/relevant, then that means that in practical situations they would impact which choice or set of choices from two or more options we take. For instance, unlike the Matrix hypothetical, the statement, 'my house is on fire and I will die do not get out immediately,' is practically relevant considering that if I believe it I will likely run out of my house perhaps in indecent clothes, call 911 and lose needed sleep. Generally speaking, a practically useful/relevant belief is helpful/productive when it happens to be true and harmful/counterproductive when it happens to be false. For instance, if I believe my house is on fire when it's not I may get a bill from the fire department and face other repercussions. If I do not believe it is on fire when it is, I may die or get seriously injured. Believing something despite significantly more convincing evidence to the contrary or not believing something despite much more evidence to the contrary is generally an instance of being outright delusional and unreasonable which is utterly different and probably much more dangerous and problematic than having a practically useless/irrelevant belief.

So when you say believing a certain belief or arguing in support of that belief is sophistry, are you saying it is practically useless/irrelevant (like believing or positively disbelieving that we live in an unnoticeable Matrix) or that it is a practically significant but outright delusional and unreasonable (like running out of your house screaming fire despite it being clear from the available evidence your house is not on fire or staying in your house saying there is no fire when the evidence indicates clearly that there is)? Or do you mean something else, and, if you do, what?

A belief can't be both useless and counterproductive. It can't both have a harmful impact and have no impact. Either a belief can impact one's practical choices or not. If it does, then it can be a harmful or helpful belief depending most of all on whether it happens to be true.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Scott,

If you notice in my O.P., I refer to another thread where I define Sophistry (in post #3):
Meleagar wrote:Philosophical argument with no practical application is the essential definition of sophistry, as stated in Socrates & Sophistry, by Keith Crome:

"The sophistic movement flourished in and around Athens in the latter half of the fifth century BC. It almost immediately acquired a bad reputation, and this reputation has stuck: a sophist, we say, is a quibbler; someone who indulges in mere argument for argument’s sake; someone who, by playing on words, makes issues problematic that are not. - Richmond Journal of Philosophy 9 (Spring 2005)"
My bad for not providing the link and quote in the O.P. here.
Scott wrote:A belief can't be both useless and counterproductive.
Sure it can; it just can't be both in the same person at the same time. For a person who has no intention of ever looking for a mountain gorilla, the belief that they do not exist may be useless; however, for someone who might otherwise look for and find mountain gorillas, and thus acquire fame and fortune, the belief would be counterproductive as it would prevent them from attempting to find what is believed to not exist.

Such categorical negatives are useless in some people, and counterproductive in others. It is either sophistry, as defined above, or evil, as defined in my "strong atheism" thread.
Simon says...
Posts: 739
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am

Post by Simon says... »

I've never liked the term "strong atheist". Semantically, an atheist is an atheist there are no sliding scales, because atheist literally means "A" Theist, i.e. the absense of theism. As such you either have theist beliefs of some kind or another, or you do not. So why the sliding scales. What is termed "strong atheism", is, strictly speaking, not referring to atheism at all, but rather to "anti-theism", which is something totally different. Atheism, is not having a belief it is lacking one. It is "anti-theism", from which the belief that no deity(s) exist comes.

For myself I am a pantheist so you can argue whether or not I'm an atheist or anti-theist all day long. For myself, its not that I believe god doesn't exist, or even lack a belief that god exists, but the type of god that that god that I believe in, is very unconventional in any theist outlooks, hence I hesitate to use theist as a term to describe my beliefs also. I certainly lack a belief in any of the gods that any known religion bangs on about, and I also believe that those gods do not exist in any literal physical sense. I believe, simply, that as god is a term devoid of any official definition, the term is thus subjective, and thus my usage of it is to use "God" and "Reality" as synonyms. I can forsee getting into endless arguments with Meleagar about the nature of this of course. Whilst he thinks free will is some kind of metaphysical force that pushes reality into existence & continuity I'm more a cause & effect kinda guy. But we can argue about that all day so I will not bother. Suffice to say Meleagar, "cause" is merely the prior event that is of such a pattern that with the advent of time leads onto the current event (an event is no more or less than a four dimentional shape in space-time & as you know, some shape fit for example a key and a lock, and shapes do not, hence the many "patterns" in nature that we call cause & effect), and you'd be hard pressed to proove that that doesn't exist, (no this is not an argument for determinism).

Anyway, the anti-theism i.e. believing that say, the judeo-christian and/or islamic god(s) don't exist is not without justification. None of these gods are inherently contradictory, hence deductive reasoning will not help you. If they do exist, then they are invisible, hence empirical reasoning will not help you either. As such, you have really only one logical inference left, and that is inference to the best explanation. Believing in such gods, require a belief in some sort of intelligeant design, as intelligeance is one of the properties that these gods claim. However, when you look at the way the universe works, you start to realise that there are an increadible amount of unneccities, and absurdities about it, particularly in biology. People often use the human eye as an example of intelligeant design, but this is madness, the human eye is, frankly, rubbish. It could work SO much better, the blind spot for example, why on earth would any intelligeant designer put THAT on the scematics???

Based on what empirical evidence we have of the universe "in general", we can summise a very high probability that the "design" of the universe, really isn't very intelligeant at all! Now you can argue that, ok, not intelligeant in contrast to what? How would YOU run the universe. Well, actually we know of many ways how the universe would work better, thats the joy of something like physics in that you can do some number crunching, and there are many ways that reality could be much simpler, and yet do the same job, or even better, same works with biology. If human eyes where more like octopus eyes, but no, that's not what evolution gave us? Why not? BECAUSE it's not very intelligeant.

Here is a thought experiment for you. How do you know unicorns don't exist? Now think about this carefully, I am not asking you how you are certain unicorns don't exist, only how you know, and no they are not the same thing.

Logical Certainty is only applicable in facts of which the opposite is a contradiction in terms, for example I am logically certain that all bachelors are unmarried. It is this kind of deductive reasoning that mathematics is based on. Unicorns however are not contradictory OR self evident, hence one cannot be logically certain either way. But knowledge is merely a justifed true belief, so its justification that we are looking for for our knowledge "claim". My justification is that based on the absense of evidence FOR the unicorn's existence the simpler yet still satisfactory explanation (in other words an actual conclusive answer to a question as apposed to an answer which merely results in more questions) is that they don't exist, that is called inference of the best explanation and that is how we "know" (i.e. how we justify our knowledge "claim", albeit we freely admitt that it is not a logical certainty and that unicorns ARE a possibility). Knowledge and uncertainty are compatible semantically.

God is much harder to disproove than unicorns however, because whilst with a unicorn you know what you are looking for (and don't find it cos it doesn't exist) "God" is very much a term devoid of formal definition and so you really don't even know what your looking for. Under the above methadology of inference to the best explanation, one can only "disproove" gods that HAVE a definition, i.e. ones which have characteristics like intelligeance, benevolence or omnipotence, but "God" outright cannot by definition (or rather the lack of it) be disprooved or prooved either way because we have nothing to work with.

With the probability pointing away from intelligeant design though, the probability of that kind of god deminisihes. Now my god is not a god of intelligeant design fortunately, my god is merely required to exist for a fraction of a milisecond every time reality bends back on itself (as happens about 40 times a second in the human brain, the compindium of which over that brain's lifetime being what we identify as ourselves). For me, god, and reality are synonomous, hence, we are all god. Don't get big headed though, the fact that we are all god doesn't make us any more special than we already are.
Wowbagger
Posts: 649
Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce

Post by Wowbagger »

I think strong atheism is logically problematic, it kind of shoots itself in the foot because it undermines the scientific principle of objective open-mindedness.

Having said that, it certainly isn't evil, maybe sophistry to some extent, yet I personally think it's simply 'not being careful enough' with words. I can also imagine how years of dialogue with theists can make people upset that eventually they let their emotions take over and become 'strong atheists'. That would be a bad thing, but it's understandable.

One more thing: Just because strong atheism is logically problematic, that doesn't automatically give justification to agnosticism. Agnostics would have to be agnostic about everything, and this fails to address degrees of likelihood.

Example: I don't know whether aliens exist or not, but I would think that they're much more likely to exist than pink unicorns. I could call myself an a-unicornist (a weak one) and an agnostic with tendencies towards the positive answer for the question of whether there are aliens.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021