Just like there can be different degrees of theistic belief, there can be different degrees of atheistic disbelief. In philosophical discussions concerning atheism the terms “weak” and “strong” are often used to differentiate two different views of atheism.  Loosely put, “strong” atheism can be equated with more conservative religious views while “weak” atheism can be equated with more liberal religious views. While this comparison is helpful to gain a basic understanding of atheism within the context of this discussion, it is also important to realize where the comparison fails.  First, both liberal and conservative interpretations of religious arguments interpret religious texts as being true, but do so differently.   Although there are probably many different individual atheistic positions, generally speaking, they will be either weak or strong, and weak and strong atheism are two very different positions rather than two different interpretations of the same atheistic viewpoint.  Secondly, both liberal and conservative interpretations of religious arguments assume the existence of God no matter how they interpret what God’s edicts might be.  Strong atheism claims the term “God” is meaningless while weak atheism allows for a meaningful definition of the term “God”.  While religious interpretations make the same assumptions about the knowledge of God, strong and weak viewpoints of atheism do not make those assumptions.  Religious interpretations normally fall under the rubric of theology, while atheistic interpretations generally fall under philosophy, especially epistemology.   

Epistemology is the study of how we “know”.  Matthias Steup, a well-known philosopher of epistemology, defines epistemology as “the study of knowledge and justified belief.”[1]  Epistemological positions are as varied as the philosophers that study epistemology, and include atheism.  Atheism is an epistemological stance concerning the knowledge that we claim to have about a creator/deity of the universe.  Of course, atheism is also a metaphysical stance, and can also be an ethical stance as well, but for the discussion of strong and weak atheism, the claims are primarily about knowledge. Atheism makes at least two knowledge-claims: that theism is not justified, and/or that theism is not related to any valid forms of knowledge. 

Both weak and strong forms of atheism are based on good epistemic reasoning.  A good epistemic reason is a reason that makes a belief or knowledge claim likely.[2]  For example, in his book, The Case Against Christianity, Michael Martin makes excellent arguments that the propositions Christianity makes are highly unlikely, and that because of their unlikelihood, they are epistemologically unjustified.  One must understand that most if not all of our knowledge is not absolute, but is probabilistic. A proposition becomes truer as its credibility is strengthened, and the plausibility of its conclusion is strengthened as the credibility of its premises is strengthened.  This point is one that differentiates theistic claims from atheistic claims: theistic claims are based on the assumption that the conclusion is true, while atheistic claims are based on the assumption that reasons for accepting a conclusion rather than the conclusion itself are true.  Keeping this in mind, the difference between weak and strong atheism is based on probability and/or the belief that premises used are not strong enough (or are strong enough, in the case of strong atheism) to warrant atheism.  With that said, weak atheism is more attuned to agnosticism than is strong atheism.  But what is agnosticism?

“Agnosticism” is a term first used by Thomas Huxley in 1869.  Basically, “Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area.”[3]  The agnostic claims that there are not enough premises to warrant a plausible conclusion concerning the existence or non-existence of a god.  The terms “weak” and “strong” can apply to agnosticism just as they can to atheism. The weak agnostic is open to the concept of there being a god, and many times may even believe that a god exists, but is unwilling to accept the epistemological possibility of a god.  Within this position, the idea of a god is not dismissed, but is deemed unknowable given the information that we have.  A weak agnostic position is based on good epistemic reasons because its claim is that there is simply not enough information to know whether a god exists or not.  The reasoning behind this position is solid because while it claims ignorance, it does not claim ignorance for no good reason.  While agnosticism is a valid viewpoint, it is not epistemological helpful in any way: it does not strengthen or weaken any argument for or against the existence of a god. For this reason it is not beneficial, allowing for arbitrary beliefs to exist.  From the agnostic position, there is just as much “proof” for the existence of a god as there is against the existence of a god.

The weak agnostic position differs from the strong agnostic position in the actual belief that a god exists.  The strong agnostic disbelieves that there is a god, but is willing to accept the epistemological possibility of a god.  This position is more along the lines of atheism and is a good position because it makes no unwarranted claim, but is not epistemologically beneficial because it disallows for any meaningful discussion or progress.  In this example, a key difference between weak and strong agnosticism is the belief in god.  The weak agnostic leans towards a belief in a god while the strong agnostic leans towards atheism but is not willing to claim that there is enough “proof” to warrant such a claim.

The atheist, both weak and strong, takes the stance that no theistic god or gods exists.  The difference is that while both strong and weak atheists might make similar claims as the agnostic, they do so without the acceptance of god or the concept of “god”, and they go further in claiming that there is in fact enough evidence to warrant the conclusion that a God or gods does not exist.  A weak atheist disbelieves in a god, and is unwilling to accept the epistemological possibility of a god while at the same time allowing for a valid definition of the concept of “god”.  Disbelief in a theistic god is what connects strong and weak atheism, but the acceptance of the term and/or the concept of “god” is what differentiates strong and weak atheism. A weak atheistic position is an atheistic position that accepts the concept of god, but disbelieves that there exists such a being. The reasoning behind this position is solid because it makes no unwarranted claims, and while it accepts a “concept” of the term “god” it does not assume that the concept is epistemologically justified.  While the weak atheistic position may be valid it is not is not epistemologically beneficial because it allows for arbitrary beliefs to exist.  Weak atheists, in allowing for the term “god” to be meaningful tend to disregard the contradictions of doing so.  These contradictions include God being perfectly good but allowing evil (the argument from evil), and the puzzle of Epicurus.  Furthermore, in allowing the concept of terms such as “god”, they allow the theist to rely upon antiquated rational arguments for the existence of a god, such as the ontological argument and Descartes supposed “proof” of God’s existence.  These allowances make room for the continued “non-debates” such as intelligent design and other disproved hypotheses.

A strong atheistic position is an atheistic position that does not accept the concept of the term “god” because such a term is deemed indefinable and meaningless.  Because the concept of “god” is not construed as meaningful in any way, the strong atheist does not have an unwarranted foundation for any belief whatsoever in any deity.  The strong atheist is unwilling to accept the epistemological possibility of a god not because it dismisses the metaphysical possibility of god, but because given the premises, the conclusion that a god exists is highly unlikely.  The strong atheist not only finds the argument for the existence of a God or gods highly unlikely, but also finds the term “god” vague, meaningless, indefinable, or all three. A famous atheist, Annie Besant, writes in her essay “Why I Do Not Believe in God” that “no man can rationally affirm “There is no God”, until the word “God” has for him a definite meaning”.[4]  This is primarily the position of a strong atheist, but the strong atheist adds that such a definition is impossible without weakening the theological argument for God.  The strong atheist does not dismiss the actuality of “god” from ignorance, but from the lack of evidential proof, a stance known as “evidentialism”, and the lack of epistemological evidence, a stance known as rationalism.  The strong atheistic position is epistemologically helpful because it makes does make a knowledge-claim (that “god” is meaningless and that the arguments for the existence of god are invalid), and dismisses the existence of “god” both on good epistemological and  sound metaphysical grounds.[5]  The strong atheistic view is beneficial because it forces in rationality and forces out mythology and the occult, not allowing for arbitrary knowledge claims.  Furthermore, it trusts evidence, based not on ignorance, but on testable and empirical grounds as well as inductive logical conclusions.

While weak atheism can be a form of strong agnosticism, strong atheism is void of theistic belief and acceptance altogether.  This being the case, agnosticism is not an option for the strong atheist.  It is important to understand that strong atheism does not necessarily claim epistemological knowledge for the non-existence of a God or gods, but that it is sufficient to deem such claims as meaningless altogether.  For example, a strong atheist can still claim belief in other, non-theistic religions. Also, the strong atheist can make the claim that religion is beneficial, or not.  Beneficial and epistemological reasons are very different from one another, and the strong atheist differentiates them.[6]       

William K. Clifford, in his essay “The Ethics of Belief” argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”[7] Atheism complies with this simple rule of thumb while theology does not.  While there are different degrees of theological belief, all theological beliefs accept the conclusion that God exists on insufficient evidence.  The agnostic, on the other hand, claims that because of insufficient evidence, any conclusion concerning the existence of a God or gods is simply impossible. Some agnostics may have the hope or even the belief that a God or gods exist but disallow themselves to make a knowledge-claim concerning their hope or belief.  The atheist claims that theological propositions are false.  All three positions, theological, agnostic and atheistic, can be defined as being weak or strong.  Weak positions allow for certain latitudes while strong positions do not.  The weak atheist disbelieves in a God and in gods but allows for the term “God” or “god” to be used as a meaningful way of communicating an idea.  The strong atheist not only disbelieves in a God or gods, but simply claims that such terms are no different than other terms such as “Santa Claus”, or “unicorns”.  In other words, the term “God” is empty of any relationship to reality.  Some strong atheists go farther, claiming that terms such as “God” or “gods” have no meaning at all such words like “twagbert” or “twedililump”.  Either way, both weak and strong atheists dismiss any belief in theological ideas concerning a creator of the universe based on sound reasoning and solid grounds.

 

 

What are Strong and Weak Atheism?