The Strong vs. Weak Distinction

I just wanted to jot down some clarifying thoughts for myself on the Strong vs. Weak distinctions, since it can sometimes be a squishy topic. Theist, weak atheist, and strong atheist positions follow a similar logical structure as the following propositions:

EXAMPLE 1: THE BASIC LOGICAL STRUCTURE

1.1. I want to go to the park
1.2. It's not the case that I want to go to the park
1.3. I want not to go to the park

In this analogy, a proposition is given in (1.1), "I want to go to the park." When we negate that proposition, we get (1.2). What does (1.2) mean? It means that I have no preference to go to the park. But the question is do I have a preference not to go to the park? We do not know in this case. We only know that I have no preference to go. This could mean that I have a preference to stay home. It would be a much more strong statement to say that I have a particular preference not to go to the park as in (1.3).

EXAMPLE 2: THE BASIC LOGICAL STRUCTURE USING BELIEF

2.1. I believe Elvis Presley is alive
2.2. It's not the case that I believe Elvis Presley is alive
2.3. I believe Elvis Presley is not alive

In this case we have a proposition in (2.1), this time a statement of belief, that the King is alive. In (2.2), I have no belief that Elvis is alive. This could mean that I don't know anything about Elvis, and therefore don't know one way or another whether Elvis is alive or not. All I know in (2.2) is that there is no belief of Elvis being alive. This does not mean there is a belief that Elvis is not alive, as (2.3) requires.

EXAMPLE 3: THE BASIC LOGICAL STRUCTURE USING THEISTIC BELIEF

3.1. I believe a God exists
3.2. It's not the case that I believe a God exists
3.3. I believe a God does not exist

So from the other instances, we find our central theistic proposition in (3.1). The negation of that (3.2) says that I have no belief that a God exists. As above, this could mean I don't know anything about God, and therefore don't know one way or another whether a God exists or not. As above, all I know in (3.2) is that there is no belief of the existence of a God. This does not mean there is a belief that a God does not exist, as in (3.3).

What this means is that theistic belief is well, either theistic or atheistic; it comes down to either (3.1) or (3.2). A person either believes or does not believe in the existence of a God. However just because a person does not believe does not mean they believe in non-existence. The strong atheist requirement (3.3) goes a step further than (3.2) and requires that a person conclude the non-existence of deities.

For additional discussion on the Strong vs. Weak distinction, see Austin Cline's Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What's the Difference?

Theistic Anchoring and the Burden of Proof

A few years back, I was at work, grading papers, and overheard a conversation at a table next to mine that a couple of other teachers were having. Usually the conversations were kept pretty light, but this one in particular caught my attention as one teacher told another how an eleventh grade student of hers had mentioned that he was an atheist. She found this fascinating and, although she was a devout Christian, she could not understand how one could so confidently determine that a higher power could not exist.

The more they talked about this, what became increasingly clear (and all the more interesting) was the worldview my colleague had. She essentially looked at the world metaphysically from a theistic viewpoint and saw there was quite a good deal of evidence to corroborate that viewpoint. As a result, she was quite baffled how, with all that evidence to refute, her student would be able to say with such confidence there was no God.

This brings up some interesting key similarities and differences in the philosophical approaches between theists and atheists. We might say that each position is “anchored” to a starting point that presupposes a theory about ultimate reality. The theist is anchored in a belief, or theory, about how the world works; in the theists’ theory of things, a God exists, and all other events are filtered through that theory. Likewise, the atheist is also anchored in a belief, or theory, about how the world works. But in this case, the atheist’s view of things, a God doesn’t exist, and events are likewise filtered through that theory.

As far as differences go, of course while my colleague and other theists utilize the existence of God as an anchoring point, Atheists anchor from the perspective of non-existence. Relative to the theist’s paradigm, atheists shift the burden of proof. When the theist asks, “How can you not believe?” the atheist responds, “What reason do you have to believe?” Jake from AfterFaith.com discusses this key difference in his description of what atheism actually is:



So we can say that both the theist and atheist use anchoring premises to construct each view of reality. The question is what is the source or justification of each anchoring premise? Can we claim one position to be stronger than the other? Or perhaps more appropriately: Under what philosophical assumptions (or other circumstances) is one clearly stronger than the other?