Roger Ebert is one of my favorite essayists. I don’t tend to agree with him on which movies are good (mostly because I only like movies if they are about wizards or vampires or both), but I tend to find his musings interesting. Unfortunately, this week his essay demonstrates a pretty fundamental confusion about atheism:
If I don’t believe God exists, that doesn’t mean I believe God doesn’t exist.
I shouldn’t blame him, as it appears that even the normally-infallible Wikipedia accepts this distinction too.
According to this line of thinking, there is some sort of “important” difference between the statements:
1. I believe there is no god. (strong)
2. I do not believe there is a god. (weak)
This is stupid, as the following conversation demonstrates:
Woman: It looks like your battery is dead. Are your jumper cables in the trunk?
Man: I don’t think they’re in the trunk.
Woman: You think your jumper cables aren’t in the trunk?
Man: THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID! I said, I don’t think they’re in the trunk.
Woman: Isn’t that what I said?
Man: No, you said that I thought they weren’t in the trunk!
Woman: What’s the difference?
Man: IT’S THE SAME AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRONG ATHEISM AND WEAK ATHEISM, YOU PHILOSOPHICAL NINNY! WHAT KIND OF CRETIN ARE YOU?! AFTER WE CALL AAA, I WANT A DIVORCE!
Of course, we are sympathetic to the woman here, not only because she got called a “philosophical ninny”, but also because (unlike Ebert) she makes total sense.
I think there are two main ways someone can be an atheist: they can say “God does not exist” or “I believe God does not exist.” One expresses certainty, one does not. Perhaps that is what he was trying to say. The latter, of course, is leaning towards agnosticism, but with a very strong feeling that God doesn’t exist. I do agree with him about not liking labels. It makes it too easy to dismiss people.
I am skeptical that very many atheists would assert “certainty” that god does not exist.
But even if they did, we don’t make a distinction between people who are “certain” god exists and those who merely “believe” god exists. Why make that distinction in the opposite case?
It’s just that some are more certain than others, hence the weak and strong atheism concepts.
He’s stating an agnostic position.
“I believe there is no God” is a strong atheist statement of belief.
“I haven’t adopted the belief in God” is an agnostic statement implying lack of need.
Most atheists confuse belief in God with belief in dualism, and then pursue quasi-dualism through a sense of moral right centered in the socialized ego.
To believe is different to ‘to know.’
The confusion of both is a fundamental flaw for anyone trying to understand the beliefs of another.
Your example is poorly chosen for the same reason.
I can believe in God. I can believe I am an atheist. There is no contradiction because there is no rationale involved.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No more. No less.
Have you ever studied any mathematical logic? It’s not valid to move operators (you have both a negation and a quantifier that you’re trying to transform) inside and intentional context … statements like “I know …” and “I believe…”.
This is painfully obvious in very common situations.
I’m at work right now nad my wife is at home. I do not know that she is having lunch right at this moment. Obviously this is not the same as saying that I know she isn’t having lunch at this moment.
Go back to the drawing board on this one.
@Richard You changed “believe” to “know”. “I don’t believe my wife is having lunch right at this moment” and “I believe my wife is not having lunch right at this moment” ARE basically the same thing.
I think you are missing the intention, because the crux of the difference is between not believing and believing in a lack of God.
Trying to boil the discussion down to something less heady is both extremely difficult since few things are as ephemeral as the concept of God and the things that could work would not be any less confusing:
“I don’t believe in souls, but that doesn’t mean that I believe their aren’t souls.”
See? Not any better. However, there is a linguistic difference between the two halves of statements. It’s not as simply broken down into a contradiction as “just because I don’t like apples doesn’t mean I don’t like apples.”
This is, unfortunately, only a piece of the point anyway. The confusing (but linguistically chewy) turn of phrase is a single piece of the point, that point being put as simply as possible:
Roger Ebert doesn’t believe God exists, but does not necessarily believe that God doesn’t exist.
This statement alone speaks somewhat to agnosticism, since it is purportedly leaving the door open to the possibility. He does, however, refute agnosticism later in the essay by, in not as many words, saying “to say you don’t know is to imply that one COULD know.”
The point of the article, at least the one that I personally gleaned from it, is that the very questions humanity asks itself regarding God are unanswerable and prescribing beliefs one way or the other on the issue is unappealing. The point to garner from the quote is not that Roger believes that God doesn’t exist, but rather that Roger doesn’t “believe” period.
I know that *some* agnostic belief is perhaps best summed up as “I don’t know if there’s a God” – but there is also a branch that says essentially, “I believe that the existence of God is unknowable.” I guess I’m saying that yes, it’s possible that something is out there that one could describe as ‘God’ – hence Ebert’s discussion of the first causer. Problem is, even if a glowing being came down from the sky and started performing miracles, and claimed to be ‘God’ – there would be no way to differentiate between God, and a being who merely possesses very advanced technology.
Richard, your comment reminded me of a quote from one of the Star Trek movies. “What does God need with a starship?”
The woman believes the jumper cables exist, and therefore if they are not in the trunk she believes they must be somewhere else. The man recognizes the possibility that the cables don’t exist, and therefore believing that they are not in the trunk doesn’t imply he believes they are somewhere else.
What I want to know is where is Schrödinger’s cat?
Let me fix your example to make it more accurate.
Woman: Do you have jumper cables in your trunk?
Man: I do not have enough evidence, nor do I know if any man can have enough evidence, to have a belief about whether there are jumper cables in my trunk. I do not have a strong enough conviction to say that I “believe” the cables are in my trunk or that they are not. Therefore, I do not believe that they are there, nor do I believe that they are not there.
Now remember, to know whether the cables are in the trunk is equivalent to knowing whether God exists or not.
Man: Furthermore, the mystery of what is in the trunk is older than I am. For the thousands of years that the trunk has existed, no man has ever been able to open the trunk or see into it. Based on the best evidence I have, knowing what is in the trunk is impossible. Some men believe that when we die, we will know what is in the trunk, but this is speculation.
The real problem with this argument is that meanings lie not in words, but in people. The problem is in how we define the phrase “I don’t believe….” You defined it as “I believe the direct opposite of the position that…” which is the most common meaning in general speech. Ebert defined it more along the lines of “I do not have a strong enough conviction to say that I ‘believe’ the position that….” That’s where you two disconnected.
@Joel
An intentional context is an intentional context. I used “know” because it best illustrated the point, but the principle is the same.
What is the linguistic purpose of this view of atheism? Most people in society (as you noted even wikipedia has it this way) view atheism as a specific rejection of the existence of god.
You are correct in saying that there should be no difference in label between knowing and believing there is no god. However, what about those who wouldn’t say either, but also could say they know or believe in a god? Beliefs are complex things, our labels aren’t binary. You don’t either believe or disbelieve. Our labels for beliefs are usually made up of a multitude of sub-beliefs. So for instance, I don’t lean either way. I don’t believe there is a god and I don’t believe there is no god. I have abstained from choosing because I don’t have enough evidence either way. I think this is what Ebert is describing.
I’m not sure if this is what you’re doing but it seems like some Atheists are trying to recategorize anything that is not a specific belief in a god as atheism. This is not linguistically helpful considering the gap between someone who abstains from judgment and one who believes there is no god (even if they are not very sure of this belief). To lump them under one label creates a lot of confusion and it is more intuitive in general (and much more intuitive to the current public’s understanding of the words) to have separate words for such separate beliefs.
There have been arguments about root words or interpretations of dictionary definitions. In the end those arguments end up in a stale mate, neither side can prove definitively exactly what the root words say…but, of course, it’s not the root words that matter to the definition. Words evolve over time and you have to also look at their current meaning and what the most useful meaning for communication would be (since they are just abstract sounds and letters with no substantial correlation with the meanings behind them).
What is the linguistic purpose of this view of atheism?
There are really three distinct positions:
1. I believe god exists.
2. I am not sure what to think about god’s existence.
3. I don’t believe god exists.
I would call those “theism”, “agnosticism”, and “atheism”.
The purpose of this view is that any further divisions might be interesting to philosophers, but otherwise only confuse things.
I believe God exists, as I believe the universe exists. I believe that certain things that have occurred in my life were engineered and not coincidence. I would call these things blessings. But I also believe that it is man’s hubris that attempts to define the undefinable. These definitions, as the ones prescribed by organized religion, are dangerous. So dangerous they even cause war. Any attempt to define God means that you don’t have true faith. If you were truly faithful, why would you need a definition?
Wow, Raf, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why would you worship something you cannot define? Why call it something that requires faith rather than something that lacks any evidence? Based on what you wrote, you don’t believe it because you have reason to, you believe it because it makes you feel better.
I think Rogers’ essay did imply he was an atheist, however it seemed as though his major concern was being defined as someone whose mind is made up. It’s easy to declare oneself a Christian, an agnostic, or an atheist and then to refrain from contemplating the matter entirely. Why would we continue to feel a sense of awe and wonder when we have our perception of the universe figured out? Agnostics, ironically are great at declaring their impartialism and then remaining neutral for life, without ever feeling compelled to find a more advanced understanding of existence. While I have not problem declaring myself an atheist, for the most part when these labels are attached to a person it implies the end of that person’s understanding.
Not very insightful either this post is.
Roger isn’t responsible for the confusion; unfortunately Joel you are.
Your jumper cable question is the equivalent of asking Roger “are you confident that God exists?” In either situation, the answer is “no”, and both statements mean the same thing.
The question that needs to be asked is “are you certain that the jumper cables are not in the trunk?”
The response would be “I don’t think so, but I’m not sure”. This implies that they could be there, we should look into it, and we might find out eventually.
The alternative is “I am completely sure that there are no jumper cables in the trunk”, which clearly says that the cables are not there, and that no effort will be made to look for them there.
Kim, ironically you are the one trying to label me. Many people try and place their “brand” on God and I’m simply saying that choice is as ignorant as some of your statements. But I’ll play. If you have evidence, then your choice to believe becomes quite simple, doesn’t it? There is no choice. Things exist beyond our understanding. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. To assume they don’t because you can’t comprehend it just illustrates how laughably arrogant you are. My reasons for believing are very concrete, as concrete as any science book. There are a wealth of miracles that do not cater to scientific explanation. Yes, they exist. If you can’t see them, that’s your problem. And your misfortune.
“Have you ever studied any mathematical logic?”
No, of course he hasn’t. He also hasn’t studied philosophy (or else is willfully ignoring an entire field of study and exclaiming ‘that’s stupid!’) and is just another socially maladjusted, failed scientist, Dawkins fanboy dancing on his internet soapbox.
While I agree with the sentiments in this blog, it reads as fairly uninformed and obnoxiously dismissive in posts (hence the ‘socially maladjusted’ qualifier). Additionally, as a biologist myself, it’s upsetting to see scientists proselytize about fields of study they know little about and generate bad PR for science as a whole as a result.
Ebert’s entry on his beliefs read as a well thought out, personal essay that didn’t deserve a snide and incorrect first comment. The sentence you, Joel, quoted from him is the very definition of agnostic, if anything (or at least, a subdivision of agnostic), so I don’t know why he’s so adamant about being labeled as such.
Your argument is fallacious because it describes a logical system in which there are only two possibilities. An object can either be in the trunk, or it can not be in the trunk. Unless one wants to fiddle with excuses about being half in the trunk, then one concludes that those are the only two possibilities. However, when strong and weak atheism is compared, we can see that there are two statements opposed to the statement, “I believe in god.” The confusing bit concerns the inclusiveness of the statement “I believe there is no god.” That argument includes the similar but separate argument, “I do not believe in a god.” If the belief is A, non-belief is B, and belief in non-existence is C, we see that C = (not)A, and if(C)-then(B). Since one wants to know whether the two beliefs are separate, to be proved is there exists a circumstance X such that if(X)-then(B and (not)C). Thus, if there is a circumstance in which B has a different truth value than C, then they must be different statements. The fundamental problem here is the misunderstood definition of belief. If one does not believe in god, then what one is saying is that one has no belief in god. However, there is also the possibility that one has no STRONG belief, period. One can know that they do not believe in god, but not be sure whether or not they want to believe in no god, or be instead agnostic (null belief). There is also a fourth statement, let’s call it D: “I do not believe that there is no god.”, and a fifth statement, E: “I have no belief on the matter of god.” E is equivalent to agnosticism WHICH IS THEREFORE DIFFERENT THAN THE STATEMENT “I do not believe that there is a god.”, HOWEVER, BOTH E AND B CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY WEAK ATHEISM. One can clearly see that all five views are separate, though they may be inclusive of one another. Regardless, this means that one is certain that they do not believe in a non-existence of god, but are unsure of whether they wish to accept god. At any rate, in the circumstance where one is unsure whether one wishes to posit a lack of the existence of god, the statement (B and not(C)) is true, thus B =/= C.
This can also be adapted to your metaphor with luggage and a trunk. One can claim “I believe there is luggage in the trunk.” Another can claim “I do not believe there is luggage in the trunk.”, and not be sure of whether this luggage exists out of the trunk or whether it does not exist. A third statement is, “I believe that this luggage does not exist.” This statement is agnosticism, because it creates a situation where luggage in or outside of the trunk is a falsehood (similar to agnosticism relating to theism). A fourth is “I do not believe that there is luggage outside of the trunk.” The last, equivalent to strong atheism, is “I believe that the luggage is outside of the trunk.”
We see here, counter-intuitively, that there are in fact FIVE different possible logical scenarios relating to belief in god. The reason there appear to be only three possibilities (or two to those who are narrow minded about the existence of luggage) is that two of them are highly inclusive statements. Being a practitioner of weak atheism (though I do lean towards the statement “I believe there is no god.”), I am able to recognize the very distinct logical differences between weak and strong atheism. Another reason why this difference is so difficult to understand is the fact that statement D, “I do not believe that there is no god.”, is essentially unused when not part of statements C or E. All people that refute belief in the non-existence of god are either agnostics or believers.
A quick, one question quiz: if arguments D and B are both accepted by one person, what is that person’s belief system? Answer below.
Answer: Agnostic (E).