Hard Atheism

[Inevitable Droid]

Any hard atheists on this message board?  I know we have at least one.  A hard atheist would be one who doesn't merely lack belief in deity, but has a positive belief that deity does not and cannot exist.

The only arguments for hard atheism that I've encountered are indefensible as far as I can see.  First, there's the argument that the unknowable cannot exist, or that the existing cannot be unknowable.  I see no causal link between knowability and existence, so I can't defend either proposition.  Second, there's the argument that we must not postulate what data doesn't demand, but to me that merely argues for soft atheism, not hard.  Finally, there's the argument that we must not postulate what we can't conceive, but again, to me, that merely argues for soft atheism, not hard.

Does anyone have anything to add to the above?  I would be delighted to be able to argue for hard atheism.  I just can't for the life of me see how.

[Tank]

This screen capture comes from a thread at the now defunct Richard Dawkins Forum.



It makes interesting reading in that a substantial number of members classified themselves as '7' on the Dawkins scale which would be a hard atheist. I classify myself as a 6. The debates between hard and de-facto atheists went on for thousands of posts. The main reason that people chose to justify there own classification of '7' was that the complete lack of evidence for a god allowed them to make the step from a logically defensible 6 to an emotionally defensible 7.

[Inevitable Droid]

The main reason that people chose to justify there own classification of '7' was that the complete lack of evidence for a god allowed them to make the step from a logically defensible 6 to an emotionally defensible 7.

Thanks, Tank.  Interesting that they defended 7 emotionally.  I myself view emotion as irrelevant when discussing truth.  Yet even a logical defense of 6 is problematic for me.  How do we assess the probability of a Deistic God?  I'm actually not a fan of the Dawkins scale, but if I apply it to myself, I come out a 4 with respect to Deism's God, the probability of which seems impossible to assess, so I either reject the question (my usual response) or else, out of necessity, designate the probability as 50/50.

Typically when people argue for the implausibility of God, they mean the Christian God, with its implications of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.  But God doesn't have to be any of those things.  The Deistic God simply represents a way of saying that the universe was created.  What's the probability that the universe was created?  50/50.  How could we claim anything else?

[Inevitable Droid]

Is there anything that would have to be true, if the universe were created, that manifestly isn't true?  A convincing affirmative response would turn me into a hard atheist.  

If the universe is created then X must be true.
X is false.
Therefore the universe is uncreated.

Unfortunately I can't come up with any X that isn't true.  Frankly, I can't come up with any X at all.  I don't see that the universe being created would imply anything about the universe.  A created universe could be logical or illogical, orderly or disorderly, benign or malevolent or indifferent.  Our universe is logical, orderly, and indifferent.  But it could have been illogical, disorderly, and malevolent, and still be created.  Or it could have been benign while still being logical and orderly, and be created.

A created universe could betray its created status or hide it.  Ours hides it - assuming there's something to hide - but it could have betrayed it at every turn.

Another approach would be to prove logically that matter and energy must be viewed as primary components of existence, such that, in order to exist, something must be either matter or energy or else the result of matter or energy; I.e., that nothing can be prior to matter and energy, that matter and energy must be prior to all else.  But how do we prove that logically?

Another approach would be to prove that matter and energy, or at least energy, have always existed, that there was no beginning.  But how do we prove that?

Deism just seems invulnerable.

[karadan]

For a while i was in the 'definitely no god' camp, but as Droid said in the first post, there's no real way to know for sure. It is that simple crux which makes the logical part of my brain concede to the infintesimal chance that god might exist.

[Tank]

Well I used to say that I was a 6 in my head but a 7 in my heart. For me nobody has yet been able to put together a sensible, rational, reasonable and verifiable argument for the existance of the supernatural. In addition that part of the supernatural realm is sentient or that the sentient part of the unproven supernatural realm cares about my existance one jot and that it cares that I might let another man put his willy in my bottom and as a result would send me to Hell for eternity! Sorry but this God nonsense is a pile of poo. I don't care which flavour of institutionalised superstition one subscribes too it's all man-made wishful thinking bullshit.

Now as one can't prove a negative I am forced to concede that the supernatural may exist but I'd no more buy religion from a preacher than I would a second hand car from Dell Boy (reference to UK comedy about a dodgy dealing character)!

[Wilson]

Well, obviously we can't know 100% that there is no God.  That would be as illogical as those who are sure there is one.  I think a lot of those who said they were "hard atheists" are doing so to show that they are committed to the cause - that they have no doubts.

[elliebean]

For me nobody has yet been able to put together a sensible, rational, reasonable and verifiable argument for the existance of the supernatural.

For me, no one has yet put forth even a coherent definition of the supernatural. As for deism, how would we ever know, and what difference would it make if such an entity did exist? Occam's razor applies.

[Tank]

Well, obviously we can't know 100% that there is no God.  That would be as illogical as those who are sure there is one.  I think a lot of those who said they were "hard atheists" are doing so to show that they are committed to the cause - that they have no doubts.

I think that is exactly what happens with some people. One trend I felt I think I saw were that there appeared to be a high probability that the '7s' were ex-theists. That would have been something that could bear further investigation. I did get the feeling that a small number of demonstrative atheists had left the dogma behind but not the dogmatic attitude. The was one 15yo lad who was an ex-Muslim, incredibly bright, incredibly obnoxious, all the subtlety of a shotgun at point blank range. He simply would not listen to what anybody had to say, whether it supported his position or not  

[Wilson]

[or me, no one has yet put forth even a coherent definition of the supernatural. As for deism, how would we ever know, and what difference would it make if such an entity did exist? Occam's razor applies.

How about this for a definition?  An intelligent entity which created the universe.

And you're absolutely right that unless someone believes in a personal god - one who either can intervene on Earth or provide an afterlife for those who please him - it makes no difference if that god exists or not.  The only advantage of deism that I can see is that it allows you to feel warm and fuzzy about us all being part of a greater whole.  Many of the important American founding fathers were deists, which was an intellectually defensible position, in my opinion, before Darwin came along.

[Kylyssa]

I thought this was maybe a porn title, "Hard Atheism."

[McQ]

I thought this was maybe a porn title, "Hard Atheism."

I was thinking the same damn thing! LOL!

[Ihateyoumike]

I thought this was maybe a porn title, "Hard Atheism."

I'd watch it.  

[Tank]

An interesting 'jury' analogy of Hard and Soft atheism. The defendant is unanimously found not guilty. Some people on the jury feel the person is innocent, some feel that the defendant has not been proved guilty and thus maintain the status quo of presumed innocence; these positions are analogous to hard and soft atheism respectively.

[youtube:358alqok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jgOivvOc7M[/youtube:358alqok]

[dloubet]

Well, we CAN disprove the ones that provide testable handles.

For example, if a god is described as truthful and says its followers can drink any poison without ill effect, yet Drano cocktails have the unfortunate expected effect, then that particular god has been disproved.

Another different god may still exist, but the "drink poison without ill effect" one had been eliminated.

Same with moving mountains with prayer and any other testable quality.

Also, if certain observations are necessary given the description of the god, and the observations are in fact absent, that's another way to eliminate a god from the running. For instance, if the god is described as making its people wander the desert for 40 years, and there are no observations congruent with that event, then it didn't happen and that particular god does not exist.