Philosophers distinguish between "Soft Atheism" and "Hard Atheism."
"Soft Atheism" is the position that, as long as there is no evidence for the existence of a God, there is no more reason to believe in a God than to believe in gremlins or unicorns. In the absence of evidence, a reasonable human holds that gremlins, unicorns and gods are fictions that don't exist in reality.
"Hard Atheism" is the position that a belief in the existence of a God would contradict known facts of reality. Historically, "hard" Atheism was typically associated with the position that the properties attributed to the God or Gods of some specific religion were mutually contradictory, or stood in contradiction to known facts. This is not difficult to establish with respect to, for example, the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence traditionally ascribed to God in Abrahamic monotheisms. But the attributes ascribed to God differ from religion to religion; a Hindu or a Deist need not ascribe to her God any of the traditional attributes from this list. Until the last half-century, hard Atheism was always associated with preclusion of some specific religious conception of God, rather than of God/Gods in general.
A "hard Atheism" independent of any specific religious conception of God can only be based on a contradiction between reality and those attributes that are shared by every conceivable God of any conceivable religion. There are two such attributes: consciousness and non-measurability. A measurable entity cannot be "transcendent," and an entity incapable of awareness cannot be "spiritual" in any religious sense of those terms. Thus, a demonstration that the same entity cannot be simultaneously non-measurable and aware would be a foundation of a Hard Atheism independent of any specific religion's list of the attributes of its God. It would be the foundation of a simultaneously "hard" and universal Atheism.
The steps in demonstrating the contradiction are as follows:
(1) Mass and energy are measurable. To be non-measurable, a God cannot be physical in the sense of being composed of, or containing, matter or energy. A God is non-physical.
(2) To be aware is to be aware of the identity of something. To be aware, an aware God must have information about the identity of whatever it is ware of. A God must have information.
(3) The quantity of information in an entity, is given by Shannon's Law applied to the range of possible states of its physical attributes. For that quantity to be non-zero, the entity must have physical attributes with measurable properties. But only physical entities composed of matter and energy can have measurable properties and states. Therefore only physical entities composed of matter and energy can contain or carry information. (For more detail on this, an explanation of the need in every data network protocol stack, for a physical layer to carry the information, can be found in any standard textbook on data networks.)
(4) Therefore only a physical entity can be aware.
(5) Therefore a God, being non-physical, cannot be aware. QED.
Thus Shannon's Law precludes the possibility of there being a God who is simultaneously non-measurable and aware. If one understands Shannon's Law, and the evidence on which it stands, one must be a Hard Atheist - or incoherent.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
On a deeper level, it has to do with the pleasure-pain mechanism. Can one exist on a so-called immortal being? Can something that cannot die experience pleasure or pain?
No. The whole phenomenon of pleasure and pain stems from morality in a volitional being--from good and bad.
If a being were immortal, then nothing could be good or bad for it. How could it experience joy from sex or pain from stomach flu vomiting? It would not need sex or food or anything to survive. Pleasure and pain stem from desires, interests, goals, and values that need to be achieved for survival. Without such desires, there could be no arm, leg, abstract thought, sex, etc.
Something that cannot die cannot have desires, i.e, cannot have things that are good or bad for it.
Adam,
Would you say that Rand was a hard atheist? In a passage of ITOE, Rand says that the god concept isn't even a concept by the standards of her theory of concepts. She didn't use information science but I always got the impression that Objectivist epistemology mandates the conclusion that you don't believe in god and the positive affirmation that there is no god as it is an epistemological impossibility.
Breaking down the various terms that theists use always results in epistemic contradictions. What is super-nature? What is a supernatural "being"? How could a "being" be a "non-material, transcendent consciousness." No theist can answer these questions.
Indeed Platonic Realism is just concept stealing and the destruction of concepts and language.
Thanks for this essay.
madmax,
In general, negating God on epistemic grounds is "soft Atheism," on existential grounds "hard Atheism." Note that a Theist might respond to "God is not a valid concept" by appealing to the existence of singleton constants (analogous to static classes in OO) such as "universe" - if "God" were a singleton constant like "universe," then it would come down to whether there is evidence, i.e. Rand's position is still "soft Atheism." It requires some knowledge of the sciences (which Ayn Rand didn't get to study, with the important exception of developmental psychology) to get to "hard Atheism."
Note that a Theist might respond to "God is not a valid concept" by appealing to the existence of singleton constants (analogous to static classes in OO) such as "universe" - if "God" were a singleton constant like "universe," then it would come down to whether there is evidence, i.e. Rand's position is still "soft Atheism."
Adam,
Thank you for the response but wouldn't a singleton constant be an example of "consciousness conscious of nothing but itself" in this case? Wouldn't that violate the Objectivist metaphysics?
madmax,
The conception of a God who existed before there was anything else (and then created the rest) is specific to some religions - not general. So this is a "hard Atheist" argument against a subclass of religions - see article.
Post a Comment