(Today’s article is by guest writer Rob Wheeler. For a brief bio, see below.)
The issue of atheism and agnosticism comes up on this forum from time to time. Here is my take on the issue, which comes from the point of view of analytical philosophy.
I think the agnostic/atheist divide can be clarified a bit better when we recognise atheism to be about assertions of belief while agnosticism is about claims to knowledge. And both come in strong and weak varieties.
‘Strong’ and ‘Weak’ here are not evaluative judgements but are purely descriptive about the strength of the claim being made. You are not a more committed, and better, atheist if you are a strong one!
1. Weak Atheism says…
I, personally, have no good reasons to believe in God and so I inevitably live as if God does not exist. I can do no other. I have no knowledge of the will of God or his nature that could affect my behaviour. I accept that perhaps others do have good reasons and I am open to them explaining their reasons for belief and if I find them convincing I’ll change my belief.
Belief is not voluntary and something I can choose at will. Belief forces itself upon us as irresistible. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be worth anything. However, I can engage in critical, rational, dialogue and enquiry evaluating reasons and evidence for a claim and then try to come to a disinterested judgement — although none of us are that perfectly rational so you can only do your best!
In discussions about belief in God I am always amazed when people talk about evidence for God as if it were blindingly obvious what that evidence would look like. What possible evidence could you adduce to demonstrate the existence of God? A voice from heaven and the parting of the Red Sea? Would a miracle do it for you? If you actually witnessed something like that you would certainly be amazed but would it engender faith? I can’t think that any empirical evidence or vivid experience would be convincing to a committed rationalist. So what must our belief or non-belief in God be based on? (Room for a further discussion later).
2. Strong Atheism says…
I have positive reasons for disbelieving in God. One of the main reasons usually brought up for strong disbelief is the perennial problem of natural evil: how can there be an all powerful, benevolent God and yet suffering in the world? If God is all-powerful he can prevent suffering and if he is all-loving wants to prevent suffering. Another reason for strong disbelief might be that the very concept of God itself is self-contradictory and incoherent.
3. Weak Agnosticism says…
I have no personal knowledge of God’s existence and so like the weak atheist I live as if God does not exist. Alternatively, the weak agnostic might say: ‘I am unsure about the truth of any religion but I’ll hedge my bets and live as if, say, Christianity is true. This attitude is what sometimes gets agnosticism a bad name as it looks vacillating and morally weak.
4. Strong Agnosticism says…
It is impossible to know the truth of any religion. This is based on a philosophical belief about the universal limits of human knowledge. Because humans can only know about the natural world, claims to knowledge about a supernatural world, even if based of vivid and profound experience, must inevitably be illusory. Ironically, agnosticism is often thought of as slightly wishy-washy, fence-sitting and showing a lack of commitment. However, as this shows, strong agnosticism is the most powerful and direct rejection of theism. It says “I don’t know and can’t know, but neither can you!”
Like atheism and agnosticism Naturalism also comes in two flavours: weak and strong.
1. Methodological Naturalism says…
When I’m doing science I operate as if only natural laws and forces are at play, without referring to divine or supernatural causes. It is a rule for conducting scientific investigation, rather than a statement about reality itself. So as Christian theist I can quite consistently operate as a naturalist within my scientific practice while still holding that there are supernatural realities in the world.
2. Metaphysical Naturalism says…
There exist no super-natural entities, energies or forces over and above the natural world as defined and studied by the sciences.
I am a materialist in that I believe matter is the only ‘stuff’ that exists in the universe, ie, there are no non-material entities or beings at work in the world ‘causing’ or ‘explaining’ events. The only causation we observe in the universe comes from natural sources. Consequently, we do not believe in interventionist deities in the sense of supernatural agents who bring events about miraculously, by providence, or in response to prayer. There is no benevolent guiding hand in, above, or beyond nature looking after the welfare of human beings. No moral values, meaning or purpose are built into, or underpin, the world.
Liberal naturalism rejects the supernatural and embraces the explanations of science but it does not suppose the sciences are the only way of understanding humanity and our dealings with the world and each other. It resists ‘greedy reductionism’ or ‘nothing-buttery’ whereby human subjectivity, intention, freedom of the will, values, self-consciousness, understanding, rational agency, meaning, etc, are all evacuated from human life and human existence is said to be ‘nothing-but’ the operation of impersonal mechanisms.
In a reductionist world the autonomous, self-conscious subject who acts for reasons disappears and is replaced by an impersonal matrix of causes. Liberal naturalists believe that the self-conscious, moral agent can appear in nature as an emergent property and this is where the idea of Spiritual Naturalism can develop without recourse to the supernatural.
Religious Fictionalism says that the art, music, architecture, stories, myths, and rituals of religions and spiritual traditions are still available to us as inheritance from our culture even though we reject supernaturalism. The doctrines of religions do not inform us about how the world is but we can entertain them as works of literature and play with them as if true and see where they take us in imagination.
So… Naturalism which at first sight may seem to be a net loss to humanity, can instead be construed as a liberation of the spirit
__________
Learn about Membership in the Spiritual Naturalist Society
The Spiritual Naturalist Society works to spread awareness of spiritual naturalism as a way of life, develop its thought and practice, and help bring together like-minded practitioners in fellowship.
SNS strives to include diverse voices within the spectrum of naturalistic spirituality. Authors will vary in their opinions, terms, and outlook. The views of no single author therefore necessarily reflect those of all Spiritual Naturalists or of SNS.
__________
Rob Wheeler’s Bio
Rob Wheeler graduated many years ago from the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, in philosophy and theology and since then has, at various times, been an assistant hospital manager, a social worker, an IT systems manager, a software developer and a college lecturer. He is now happily retired and living in south east UK, where for many years he has been running a pub philosophy group called ‘The Stoa’ (stoa.org.uk) and occasionally officiating at weddings, baby namings and funerals as a Humanist celebrant.
Rob, Thanks for the articulate and well thought out article. Just a comment on the reason you list for non-belief under Strong Atheism. That argument would only apply to the God of Christianity and the way its theologians have tried to make sense of the diverse claims for that God. Atheism, I would think, wants not only to deny God as conceived by Christians, but any claim for God. That argument would not apply to God as conceived in Hinduism.
You add that “Another reason for strong disbelief might be that the very concept of God itself is self-contradictory and incoherent.” I don’t believe that is necessarily true, though my reasons are too complex to go into here. But do I think that using God as an explanation for anything about this world is incoherent, for the existence of such a God cannot be explained, so using God to explain something, such as the origin of the world, is simply to use one inexplicable to explain another, and one gets nowhere by multiplying inexplicables.