🚀 go-pugleaf

rra@cs.stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)  wrote on 07.09.96 in <qumzq328m3e.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>:

> > Atheism does not need to be held to religiously for it to be held, since
> > it may be derived from observable data and application of demonstable
> > principles.
>
> Neither weak nor strong atheism can be derived from observable data.  A
> weak atheist states that they do not believe in a god; this is a statement
> of personal belief, not a theory subject to scientific analysis, support,
> or rebuttal.  A strong atheist holds that there is no god, which is a
> fundamentally unprovable negative.  There is no possible way to
> scientifically prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist.

That's true, but it isn't a contradiction.

If I don't believe in the tooth fairy, or the IPU, or the Christian god,  
*because* I know of no data that would be easier to explain by one of  
these, then that is not a belief that needs to be (or is) held to  
religiously.

It *is*, of course, still a belief. But it is a belief that is well  
supported by the available data.

And like any negative belief (outside mathematics), it is impossible to  
prove. It is, of course, possible to prove such a belief wrong, by  
supplying the evidence the absence of which made the belief a good idea.



Of course, there are more reasons why I might have such a belief, and some  
of these *would* qualify it as a religiously-held belief. For example,  
suppose I don't believe in the IPU *because* my mother told me that there  
is no IPU, and so does our minister. That would certainly qualify.


Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/