Posted in 3 AM Philosophy

Reductionism of my WASP (Weak Atheist Special Pleading) Argument

   July 6, 2024

Reductionism of my WASP (Weak Atheist Special Pleading) argument which I am going to try to write in Python. (Part I)

Legend:

A= Atheism
T= Theism
B = Believes
L = Lacks a belief

Ang= Agnostic

Lacktheism argues that atheism is “disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” where “lack of belief” is sufficient to be considered atheism.

1. ∀x(A(x) -> B(x, ¬God) v L(x, God))
2. ∀x(T(x) -> B(x, God)

Notice the obvious problem?

Atheists want two conditions for atheism (B(x, ¬God) or L(x, God)), but only allow Theist one condition!

That is intellectually dishonest, and is textbook special pleading if they don’t allow theists to make the same move.

LOGICALLY according to lacktheism:

1. ∀x(A(x) -> B(x, ¬God) v L(x, God))
“For all of x, x “Believe God does not exist” OR “lacks a belief God exists”
2. ∀x(T(x) -> B(x, God)

“For all of x, x “Believes God exists”

So why do atheists get to say L(x, God)) is sufficient for atheism, but L(x, ¬God)) is insufficient for theism?

Anyone??? WHY?

Theist’s can make the exact same move and say:

1. ∀x(A(x) -> B(x, ¬God) v L(x, God))
“For all of x, x “Believes God does not exist” OR “lacks a belief God exists”
2. ∀x(T(x) -> B(x, God) v L(x, ¬God))

“For all of x, x “Believes God exists” OR “lacks a believe in the nonexistence of God”)

For those who do not understand the logic…let me dumb it down:

According to lacktheism:

If condition A or B is met, then atheism.

If condition ~A is met, then theism.

Why does atheism get 2 conditions and theism only 1?

I would argue in philosophy these are logically denoted as:

1. ∀x(A(x) ->1)
2. ∀x(T(x) ->2)
3. ∀x(Agn(x) ->3 OR ∀x(Agn(x) -> (~B(x, God) ∧ ~B(x, ¬God)))CONCLUSION:
Lacktheism is asymmetrical and dishonest!

  1. B(x, ¬God) -> L(x, God [↩]
  2. B(x, God) -> L(x, ¬God [↩]
  3. L(x, God) ∧ L(x, ~God [↩]
Share: TwitterFacebookLinkedin
Author: Steve McRae