I think the difference is “perhaps we can’t know” is one person stating something that appiles only to him, while “unknowable” applies to everyone. To me, “perhaps we can’t know” leaves open the possibility that we can know, if only at some vague time in the future. “Unknowable” implies that no one can ever know. To me, it imposes a position on others which the former doesn’t.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Surely “perhaps we can’t know” is the same as “unknowable”?
[/quote]
Nah. “Perhaps” something is, isn’t the same as just plain “is”.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
The only difference is in the certainty that you can be certain, if that makes sense.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[QUOTE=Noone Special]
*Veeeeery *generally:
- Atheist – believes there is a **proof of absence **(of god)
- Agnostic – believes there is an absence of proof (of god)
No in formal logic, “Proof of Absence” != “Absence of Proof”. So they are not the same.
[/QUOTE]
While x-ray vision gives a good response, I want to go further. First, can you identify atheists who claim that there is proof of the absence of god? In about 30 years of discussing this subject on message boards, I have seen maybe one. Second, exactly which god do you think atheists need to have a proof of the nonexistence of? There are hundreds of thousands believed in on Earth alone. Would an atheist have to disprove every tribal deity?
Typically strong atheism is considered to be the belief in no god, while weak atheism is the lack of belief in any god. Notice that a belief does not rule out a possibility. I can believe Rob Roy will win the second race while not ruling out the possibility that he won’t. If a belief is properly based on evidence and lack of evidence, one can agree that a change in the amount of evidence would change the belief.
Now agnostics in the real sense believe it is impossible to know either way. I certainly agree it is impossible to know that no God exists, but how about if a God exists? Up to the extent we know anything, we can get convincing evidence of the existence of a deity. The parting of the Red Sea on command would have done it for me. That we have no such solid evidence seems to be justification for atheism, not agnosticism.
I’ll cheerfully admit that an extreme skeptic qualifies as a true agnostic, but anyone else?
No, I agree with those who say claims of agnosticism are ways of turning aside the use of atheist as a kind of curse word. I was just reading about the election of 1800, where the Federalists accused Jefferson of atheism. (Unjustly, of course, since they equated god with Christianity.) It’s time to reclaim the word, and use it proudly.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
There may be a subtle difference in philosophy, but in the end all an agnostic is saying is “I’m not dealing in absolutes. I don’t see the world in black and white. I dont so rigidly define everything,” a haughty, superior attitude on its face.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what you call a “haughty, superior attitude”?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
In about 30 years of discussing this subject on message boards
[/QUOTE]
What year do you come to us from?
I knew there were differences of opinion here about what atheist and agnostic mean, but I didn’t realize there were this many different views. Suddenly my apology about about not knowing what I am seems unnecessary.
There are atheistic religions (oh no- am I about to set off a debate about what ‘religion’ means?) and people who definitely believe in deities without belonging to a particular sect. Although I suppose few people fully invent their own idea of what a god is. But if you see agnosticism as a soft middle ground between two fanatical viewpoints, I know what you mean. It’s hard to get all worked up about going out and convincing people that a question isn’t settled. It’s hard to even make up a good chant for it. “Hell? No. We don’t know!”
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
I would say that there is a much firmer basis for being a witch agnostic than being a peanut butter monster agnostic.
[/QUOTE]
I would say that you moved the goal posts.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Nah. “Perhaps” something is, isn’t the same as just plain “is”.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Then I would say that my definition is better than yours, because under yours all agnostics think the existence of god is unknowable, whereas in mine it leaves room for some of them to say “I could be wrong, of course”. I’m sure there are at least some agnostics who would say that they might be wrong.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
What year do you come to us from?
[/QUOTE]
My compliments. You’re the first person who picked up on that.
In 1974 I was involved in the PLATO project at the University of Illinois, which had many of the things the Internet later had, including interactive games, a newspaper (I wrote a Star Trek column), instant messaging, and message boards. The original one was called pad, but it got so popular that boards were set up for things like religion debates.
PLATO was located on dual Cybers at Champaign, but there were users all around the world.
The only thing missing were spam and viruses.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
That’s what you call a “haughty, superior attitude”?
[/QUOTE]
Some people just think everybody is talking down to them. I don’t see haughtiness in this thread, except for in the OP, since some agnostics are even using Mosier’s peanut butter monster analogy instead of dismissing it or saying it’s insulting or whatever.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Fair enough. Then I would say that my definition is better than yours, because under yours all agnostics think the existence of god is unknowable,
[/quote]
All agnostics do think the existence of god is unknowable. That’s the one thing that defines an agnostic.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
whereas in mine it leaves room for some of them to say “I could be wrong, of course”. I’m sure there are at least some agnostics who would say that they might be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
So? Is a theist not a theist if he says “I could be wrong, of course”?
An agnostic (or anyone else with a label) does not have to be absolutely certain he’s right to keep that label.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
My compliments. You’re the first person who picked up on that.
In 1974 I was involved in the PLATO project at the University of Illinois, which had many of the things the Internet later had, including interactive games, a newspaper (I wrote a Star Trek column), instant messaging, and message boards. The original one was called pad, but it got so popular that boards were set up for things like religion debates.
PLATO was located on dual Cybers at Champaign, but there were users all around the world.
The only thing missing were spam and viruses.
[/QUOTE]
Cool!
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
All agnostics do think the existence of god is unknowable. That’s the one thing that defines an agnostic.
So? Is a theist not a theist if he says “I could be wrong, of course”?
An agnostic (or anyone else with a label) does not have to be absolutely certain he’s right to keep that label.
[/QUOTE]
What? I’m not saying that an agnostic who says “I could be wrong” is not an agnostic. Quite the opposite, it’s you that’s saying that, since your definition did not allow for that possibility; my definition includes the idea that an agnostic might not be certain yet still are an agnostic, while yours doesn’t.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
Agnosticism is functionally no different from atheism as it applies to a study of the possibility of the existence of God, or His nature. There may be a subtle difference in philosophy, but in the end all an agnostic is saying is “I’m not dealing in absolutes. I don’t see the world in black and white. I dont so rigidly define everything,” a haughty, superior attitude on its face.
[/quote]
I didn’t realize intellectual honesty was a “haughty, superior attitude”.
I am agnostic because, just as the term implies, one cannot know whether or not God (or any god) exists; he is unfalsifiable. I have brought this up several times here on this board wherein some clever wag will point to our imperfection as “proof” that an intelligent designer cannot exist. I say that’s sloppy thinking: our preceived perfection or imperfection tells us nothing whatsoever about the presence or absence of an intelligent designer. We can obviate the need for such a being by finding naturalistic explanations for phenomena, but we still cannot prove, one way or the other, such a being’s existence or non-existence. In other words, such things are beyond the purvue of science.
Peronsally, I do not believe such a being exists. But I cannot know that such a being does not exist; nor can I know that one does. And neither can anyone else.
An agnostic also believes that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There may not be sufficient evidence to believe, but neither is there sufficient evidence to discount the idea entirely. Atheists, on the other hand, have discounted the notion.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
All agnostics do think the existence of god is unknowable. That’s the one thing that defines an agnostic.
[/QUOTE]
“Unknowable” and “unknown” are not the same thing. All agnostics, in my definition which may be shared by nobody, says they doesn’t know if there are gods. Some agnostics, sometimes called ‘hard agnostics,’ say that it’s impossible to know anything about gods, including whether or not gods exist. I take issue with that because I think it’s a contradiction. If you can’t know anything about gods, how can you know that you can’t know anything about them?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
What? I’m not saying that an agnostic who says “I could be wrong” is not an agnostic. Quite the opposite, it’s you that’s saying that, since your definition did not allow for that possibility; my definition includes the idea that an agnostic might not be certain yet still are an agnostic, while yours doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]
My definition does not need to allow for the possibility of being wrong. Just as a definition of ‘theist’ doesn’t have to include a caveat that he may be wrong.
Let’s look at your answer to the following question again:
Is there enough information to support the existence of a god?
Agnostic -------------- I don’t know. Perhaps we can’t know.
Mine:
Agnostic -------------- No. A god’s existence is unknowable.
If someone gives your answer, are we supposed to know he’s agnostic? Not at all. It would seem he’s not as an agnostic is defined as “a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable”. My answer fits perfectly.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
“Unknowable” and “unknown” are not the same thing. All agnostics, in my definition which may be shared by nobody, says they doesn’t know if there are gods.
[/quote]
It just may not be shared with anyone. All definitions I’ve seen and the way the word is used in the vernacular uses ‘unknowable’.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Some agnostics, sometimes called ‘hard agnostics,’ say that it’s impossible to know anything about gods, including whether or not gods exist.
[/quote]
What do other agnostics say?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I take issue with that because I think it’s a contradiction. If you can’t know anything about gods, how can you know that you can’t know anything about them?
[/QUOTE]
Where’s the contradiction?
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
My definition does not need to allow for the possibility of being wrong. Just as a definition of ‘theist’ doesn’t have to include a caveat that he may be wrong.
[/quote]
Right, a definition doesn’t have to include that. But if you wanted to try and include describe the belief of all theists, you’d have to say “they believe in a god, perhaps some accept they may be wrong”. Likewise, if you’re trying to get across a concept of agnosticism, you should try and include all variations on what they believe; you say “they don’t know, perhaps they’d say we can’t know”.
Your answer certainly works as far as getting across the general belief system of some agnostics. Mine gets across them all, by encompassing those who may be uncertain. I don’t have to include it in defining agnosticism, but I do have to include it in defining agnostics. Just as describing theism only requires “they believe in god” but describing the overall beliefs of theists would require saying “they believe in god, some accept they may be wrong”.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
An atheist believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
An agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
An Agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
An Atheist believes there is sufficient evidence to support a notion that there is no God.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Wrong.
An Agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
An Atheist believes there is sufficient evidence to support a notion that there is no God.
[/QUOTE]
It would really help if you guys would cite where you are getting these definitions from. It seems to me like we are all pulling definitions out of our asses.
The harder part is that I have seen different definitions in different dictionaries. How do we resolve this? Clearly we don’t seem to be able to agree on meanings of words.