Expert: Philip A. Stahl - 5/19/2007

Question
Can you please clarify the differences between weak and strong atheism and agnosticism?  

Answer
Hello,

Weak atheism and strong atheism are actually more correctly called implicit atheism and explicit atheism.  Implicit atheism is the most natural form of atheism in that it does not require *active disbelief*, but rather simply a passive withholding of belief. (Recall the origins of the word from the Greek, a-theos, or ‘without God’)

A lot of the confusion to do with semantics arises because people (usually those outside the atheist orbit) don't take care to discriminate between implicit and explicit atheism. Even worse, this often leads to a conflation of the implicit atheist with the agnostic!

Let us think of how this all unfolds.

The theist posits his active  belief in a deity, and the implicit atheist simply withholds his. In other words, a totally passive transaction. By contrast, the strong or explicit atheist actively disbelieves the claim of the theist. In its most extreme form this can result in the “denial” of the claim.(For the implicit atheist, by contrast, “denial” implies an indirect or unconscious  acceptance of the basis for the claim, in order to “deny” it. This the implicit atheist chooses not to confer!)

Now, many erroneously conflate the position of the implicit atheist with that of the agnostic, but this can easily be parsed with some logic, and attention to the respective definitions.

The gist of it all is that implicit atheists withhold belief on the basis of placing the burden of knowledge, e.g. to show an adequate support sustains the extraordinary knowledge claim- whether extracted from a standard deity template or a personalized, subjective interpretation of such) on the claimant believer. (Which is at it should be, since the believer posits the addition to the base of knowledge by his claim of an extra-material reality via deity)

The agnostic, by contrast, places no burden on anyone because he believes the entire issue is beyond the realm of human knowledge.

To make this even clearer, let me use a more or less prosaic example, to show where the implicit atheist's position resides.

My neighbor comes running over to me and claims he knows an "other -worldly, alien ghosts” inhabit his attic. His only evidentiary support is assorted knocks hard in the middle of the night. I am free to withhold my investment of intellectual energy or belief, on the basis that this knowledge support provided is inadequate.

By contrast, an "agnostic" here would simply say that the notion of whether extraterrestrials ghosts exist is beyond the realm of human knowledge, and wouldn't support or reject the neighbor's claim. As per George Smith’s definition (‘The Case Against God’, p. 9):

“Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.”

Most implicit atheists refuse identity with agnostics because they assert the issue at hand isn't one of "lack of adequate knowledge," but one of adequate evidentiary support for spectacular claims. Which could easily be addressed by the claimants if their claims or beliefs were toned down (i.e. simply argue for reality of god-concepts, not 'God').

Often religionists resort to an argument like:

“There is no evidence to support a claim that there is no god"  

which inherently embodies a logical fallacy since it presumes the atheist ("weak" or "strong") is obliged to prove a negative. In fact, we already know (from Logic 101) that proving a negative is impossible.

It also errs by placing the burden of proof on the atheist, when in fact it is on the theist. The theist then has the obligation to PROVE his claim of deity, as the extraordinary addition to visible, manifest reality. It is no more the job of an atheist to disprove it than to disprove a neighbor’s claim that “extraterrestrial ghosts” inhabit his attic.

This brings up the vexing question of exactly WHY those who make preposterous claims in the theological or religious domain are allowed to have so much free reign and wriggle room in an alleged rational and technologically-advanced society. Much more  than the person who insists flying saucers are taking over the planet or ghosts of long dead ancestors are running amuck in his house at night.

The latter are literally dismissed as delusional, addle-pated or worse, but the former are granted a gravitas and benediction merely because they insist their claims are based on an ancient "sacred" book or books (written by preliterate, pre-scientific nomads)

What Sam Harris (author of ‘The End of Faith’- which is an excellent book by the way) has insisted on is a comparable distrust of religious claims that matches in every way the distrust of other preposterous claims.

Harris argues that the only reason religion gets a pass for its own species of unadulterated nonsense is because so many *share in the belief*. While only relatively few may openly profess belief in flying saucers taking over the world or ghosts.

I concur, and would argue that at the very least religious claims and beliefs be tested to the  same critical level and intensity as all other extraordinary claims. This includes the claim for special “divine” origin of any of their sacred texts.