The two most common themes I receive in e-mails from Christians and other theists are these two claims:
1. Atheism is untenable, to know for certain there is no God would require complete knowledge of everything.
2. It is better to believe than to disbelieve because the risk of disbelieving is too great. Why risk going to hell? (Known as "Pascal's Wager')
To the first issue, about whether atheism is tenable or untenable, there are a hundred other papers on the web by other atheists that say similar things as what I'm about to say. But, since it comes up so often, I will give my perspective.
First, I will discuss what is an atheist and what is an agnostic. There are a lot of technical definitions around the web on what these mean. There are even definitions of strong and weak forms of each. (strong agnostic, weak atheist, etc.) Personally, for agnostic, I prefer the popular definition of a "fence-sitter"--someone that isn't sure whether they believe in God or not. For people that prefer the technical definitions, my definition of agnostic is roughly the same as a "weak agnostic." Note that I have had some e-mails complaining about my use of the term agnostic for a "fence-sitter". I contend that there are indeed many "fence-sitters"--I had been one for many years. And I contend that most "fence-sitters" use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves. I did--and I so do many other people. Also, in casual conversation, the term "agnostic" is generally used this way. Therefore, I am happy with using the term as I have defined it here.
For atheism, I prefer the simple definition of "without theism" or "without theistic beliefs". Christians and other theists may say I cannot know for certain there is no God unless I knew everything. This is true. But likewise, one cannot know for certain that Zeus is mythology unless you know everything. Yet, most people today feel they have sufficient reason to conclude that Zeus is likely to be myth. Therefore, most people are "without theistic beliefs" towards Zeus, or are atheistic towards Zeus. On the other hand, if someone were to say, "I'm not sure if Zeus exists, but I'm still weighting the evidence", then in my view, this person would be agnostic towards Zeus. But most people are indeed atheistic towards Zeus.
In fact, to paraphrase Stephen F. Roberts, it may be said that everybody is an atheist, everybody is "without theistic belief" towards many gods. I just believe in one less god than most other people do. To what Roberts says, I would add that everybody is born a total atheist--everybody is born without theistic belief towards all gods. An infant knows nothing but its own needs. A child has to be taught (or imagine) the idea of gods once they are sufficiently developed to understand the concept.
For people that prefer the technical definitions, what I've just discussed is normally called "weak atheism". So, what about "strong agnosticism" and "strong atheism"? I considered not even discussing these in this paper, I believe the "weak agnostic" position describes most people that say they are agnostic, and "weak atheism" describes most people that call themselves atheists. But, since I've brought up the terms, I'll go ahead and briefly discuss the strong variants.
Strong agnosticism is more in keeping with how Thomas H. Huxley who coined the term defined it. A strong agnostic says that knowledge of god cannot be known for certain. Nobody can know if God exists or not. This is different from a weak agnostic who believes that knowledge of God might be possible, but has not yet found it.
A strong atheist is not merely "without theism," but asserts that God does not exist. Note that many dictionaries define "atheist" similar to what I am defining as a strong atheist. Weak atheists generally feel that most dictionary definitions are unsatisfactory. Strong atheism is a strong claim. I can see how a theist would contend that strong atheism would require complete knowledge of everything to be able to defend. However, strong atheists counter that the very definition of God, if it includes omnipotence and omniscience, cannot exist--just like a round square cannot exist. Strong atheists contend that the very concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are fundamentally impossible to exist. Though I find some strong atheistic arguments along these lines to have merit, I am not sufficiently convinced to classify myself as a strong atheist. Therefore, I consider myself a weak atheist. I also believe most atheists are weak atheists, according to the terms described here.
Another common issue that arises in my e-mails is the issue of "burden of proof." Theists often say that atheists are making a claim just as much as theists and therefore share burden of proof. Atheists on the other hand, (particularly weak atheists,) assert the burden of proof is on the theists to prove their claim as it is the theists who are making the assertion of the existence of a God or gods. It would be fair to say that strong atheism entails a burden of proof. I think most strong atheists would concede that, but claim that they meet the burden of proof with their arguments as to the alleged impossibility of omnipotence and omniscience. As I said, I find that some of those arguments seem to have some merit, but I don't find them conclusive and therefore am a weak atheist. But, back to the issue of "burden of proof," I agree with most weak atheists that the burden of proof lies with the theist who makes the claim of the existence of God or Gods.
1. Atheism is untenable, to know for certain there is no God would require complete knowledge of everything.
2. It is better to believe than to disbelieve because the risk of disbelieving is too great. Why risk going to hell? (Known as "Pascal's Wager')
To the first issue, about whether atheism is tenable or untenable, there are a hundred other papers on the web by other atheists that say similar things as what I'm about to say. But, since it comes up so often, I will give my perspective.
First, I will discuss what is an atheist and what is an agnostic. There are a lot of technical definitions around the web on what these mean. There are even definitions of strong and weak forms of each. (strong agnostic, weak atheist, etc.) Personally, for agnostic, I prefer the popular definition of a "fence-sitter"--someone that isn't sure whether they believe in God or not. For people that prefer the technical definitions, my definition of agnostic is roughly the same as a "weak agnostic." Note that I have had some e-mails complaining about my use of the term agnostic for a "fence-sitter". I contend that there are indeed many "fence-sitters"--I had been one for many years. And I contend that most "fence-sitters" use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves. I did--and I so do many other people. Also, in casual conversation, the term "agnostic" is generally used this way. Therefore, I am happy with using the term as I have defined it here.
For atheism, I prefer the simple definition of "without theism" or "without theistic beliefs". Christians and other theists may say I cannot know for certain there is no God unless I knew everything. This is true. But likewise, one cannot know for certain that Zeus is mythology unless you know everything. Yet, most people today feel they have sufficient reason to conclude that Zeus is likely to be myth. Therefore, most people are "without theistic beliefs" towards Zeus, or are atheistic towards Zeus. On the other hand, if someone were to say, "I'm not sure if Zeus exists, but I'm still weighting the evidence", then in my view, this person would be agnostic towards Zeus. But most people are indeed atheistic towards Zeus.
In fact, to paraphrase Stephen F. Roberts, it may be said that everybody is an atheist, everybody is "without theistic belief" towards many gods. I just believe in one less god than most other people do. To what Roberts says, I would add that everybody is born a total atheist--everybody is born without theistic belief towards all gods. An infant knows nothing but its own needs. A child has to be taught (or imagine) the idea of gods once they are sufficiently developed to understand the concept.
For people that prefer the technical definitions, what I've just discussed is normally called "weak atheism". So, what about "strong agnosticism" and "strong atheism"? I considered not even discussing these in this paper, I believe the "weak agnostic" position describes most people that say they are agnostic, and "weak atheism" describes most people that call themselves atheists. But, since I've brought up the terms, I'll go ahead and briefly discuss the strong variants.
Strong agnosticism is more in keeping with how Thomas H. Huxley who coined the term defined it. A strong agnostic says that knowledge of god cannot be known for certain. Nobody can know if God exists or not. This is different from a weak agnostic who believes that knowledge of God might be possible, but has not yet found it.
A strong atheist is not merely "without theism," but asserts that God does not exist. Note that many dictionaries define "atheist" similar to what I am defining as a strong atheist. Weak atheists generally feel that most dictionary definitions are unsatisfactory. Strong atheism is a strong claim. I can see how a theist would contend that strong atheism would require complete knowledge of everything to be able to defend. However, strong atheists counter that the very definition of God, if it includes omnipotence and omniscience, cannot exist--just like a round square cannot exist. Strong atheists contend that the very concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are fundamentally impossible to exist. Though I find some strong atheistic arguments along these lines to have merit, I am not sufficiently convinced to classify myself as a strong atheist. Therefore, I consider myself a weak atheist. I also believe most atheists are weak atheists, according to the terms described here.
Another common issue that arises in my e-mails is the issue of "burden of proof." Theists often say that atheists are making a claim just as much as theists and therefore share burden of proof. Atheists on the other hand, (particularly weak atheists,) assert the burden of proof is on the theists to prove their claim as it is the theists who are making the assertion of the existence of a God or gods. It would be fair to say that strong atheism entails a burden of proof. I think most strong atheists would concede that, but claim that they meet the burden of proof with their arguments as to the alleged impossibility of omnipotence and omniscience. As I said, I find that some of those arguments seem to have some merit, but I don't find them conclusive and therefore am a weak atheist. But, back to the issue of "burden of proof," I agree with most weak atheists that the burden of proof lies with the theist who makes the claim of the existence of God or Gods.
So now, on to "Pascal's Wager." The seventeenth-century mathematician, Blaise Pascal, is famous for his "Pascal's Wager". According to Pascal, one might as well believe in God, because if you are wrong, it won't matter. Therefore, one should believe in God to hedge ones bets, so to speak. I'm surprised at how often I hear someone argue "Pascal's Wager" and not know this is the name of the argument.
And basically, all my life I've more-or-less accepted this premise. Though I've long found it hard to believe in a God that would inflict eternal punishment on anybody, on the chance it could be true, I've long wanted to be a believer.
But I've had a real problem. I cannot force me to believe that which fails my logic any more than I could convince myself that squares are round if someone offered me a million dollars. So, I would read apologetics hoping that they would answer my questions. But yet, the more I would read, the less convinced I would be. So in a sense, I've been a prisoner to "Pascal's Wager," trying to take the bet but just not being able to.
But the other main problem with Pascal's Wager is, it doesn't tell you which God. To hedge one's bets, should one believe in Judaism, Christianity and Islam? But Christianity says you can't be a Muslim, and Islam says you can't be a Christian. Will the Christian find him or herself in Allah's hell?
Also note that while today, most Christians are happy to say that other Christian denominations are acceptable to Jesus, but this wasn't always the case. Catholics and Protestants used to go to war. Will a Protestant find him or herself in the Catholic hell?
In short, "Pascal's Wager" fails as a good argument to believe in God.
NOTE: This paper replaces my older paper on Pascal's Wager.
And basically, all my life I've more-or-less accepted this premise. Though I've long found it hard to believe in a God that would inflict eternal punishment on anybody, on the chance it could be true, I've long wanted to be a believer.
But I've had a real problem. I cannot force me to believe that which fails my logic any more than I could convince myself that squares are round if someone offered me a million dollars. So, I would read apologetics hoping that they would answer my questions. But yet, the more I would read, the less convinced I would be. So in a sense, I've been a prisoner to "Pascal's Wager," trying to take the bet but just not being able to.
But the other main problem with Pascal's Wager is, it doesn't tell you which God. To hedge one's bets, should one believe in Judaism, Christianity and Islam? But Christianity says you can't be a Muslim, and Islam says you can't be a Christian. Will the Christian find him or herself in Allah's hell?
Also note that while today, most Christians are happy to say that other Christian denominations are acceptable to Jesus, but this wasn't always the case. Catholics and Protestants used to go to war. Will a Protestant find him or herself in the Catholic hell?
In short, "Pascal's Wager" fails as a good argument to believe in God.
NOTE: This paper replaces my older paper on Pascal's Wager.