All right, glad to.
But first, let’s make it clear that we’re talking about a “disinterested creator” who is also God.
Because, of course, the laws of physics are, strictly speaking, a disinterested creator. But they are not God.
Agreed?
In my view an agnostic would generally say that ‘god’ as a concept may or may not exist, and empirical evidence isnt really much use in helping to decide either way, only whether a god as traditionally viewed might exist, eg whether the world is 6k years old or not.
Atheists are more likely to say empirical evidence does play a role in whether one can draw a conclusion over the likelihood of whether god exists or not at all, ie the presence of proof requirement stated below.
Agnostics of course care whether they get sympathy from atheists about as much as atheists care about getting sympathy from theists. By definition the world views are somewhat different and each of the 3 groups think they are on to a better view of reality than others and that the other positions are inherently flawed.
It is amusing to note that theists sometimes argue that atheists are theists in disguise, and you now often see atheists arguing that agnostics are atheists in disguise. Guess a good argument is always worth nicking.
Otara
Yes, that’s all you have to do to be an atheist.
So maybe I misunderstand your earlier post.
You seemed to be saying that this is not just the minimum, but also the limit. In other words, I took you to be saying that an atheist can only assert that s/he doesn’t believe in God, not that there are no gods.
Am I wrong?
If so, then that’s that, and my apologies.
No, I said “all an atheist necessarily asserts is that he has no belief in any gods.” And I only used the word assert because I was following Roderick’s post about atheists and what he thinks atheists must assert. Of course an atheist doesn’t have to assert anything; all he has to do is be without belief in the existence of gods and be an atheist. Of course if you do assert that no gods exist you’re still an atheist.
I don’t want to offend anyone, but Agnosticism is a weenie position. What exactly is it about belief in God that makes it so special that we need to have a word for not knowing if he exists?
That doesn’t sound clear, so let’s look at it this way. We can’t know that someone doesn’t come in every night and replace all your belongings with identical items. We can’t know that everything in the world wasn’t multiplied by one, or that zero isn’t constantly being subtracted from everything. We can’t know that there isn’t a parallel universe in which everything is exactly like this one except that tuna fish means aardvark. In fact there are an infinite number of things that we can say are unknowable. But since they are such absurd ideas we don’t create a special term for people that think we can’t know them.
For some reason, we take the God-hypothesis and put it in a special place of honor in regards to not knowing if it is true. But it’s a tautology. If you define something as having the characteristics of being unknowable, then of course it is unknowable. How is that in any way interesting enough to obsess over?
For cultural reasons many people start from the premise that there is, or might be, a God and then work backwards to prove or disprove that premise. But there is nothing special about that premise that means we should do it that way. We don’t start with the premise that there might be 11 foot tall orange bunnies and have agbunnyists bloviate about how the existence of 11 foot tall bunnies is unknowable.
There is no evidence of God in the same way that there is no evidence of 11 foot tall orange bunnies. One could ascribe characteristics to the bunnies that would make their existence unknowable, but why would one do that?
Perhaps because its a pervasive question and belief that has existed throughout humanity. Just anthropologically speaking, the belief in gods is a big deal.
You’re talking about belief. We already have the word theist for one who does believe and atheist for one who doesn’t. Agnosticism is about not knowing, and how many of us really believe we can absolutely know anything other than maybe “I exist”? I’ve heard many people on this board say that they aren’t agnostic because if a god could provide sufficient evidence that it’s a god, they would believe it existed. Wouldn’t we all? Of course we would; it’s already implied by using the word sufficient. And wouldn’t most of us admit that we still wouldn’t know this god existed because we were using a more casual definition of know and nothing can really be known and it could all be an illusion? I’m not a fan of the word agnostic either. It tells us almost nothing about what a person believes and what he believes he does or doesn’t believe can be known because we use the word know both strictly and casually. Then of course some use the word agnostic to define themselves as a fence sitter which apparently means they’re not sure if they believe in any gods or not and that just muddies the waters even more.
I find it a very useful word to describe an intellectual position - not one about belief or faith, but about the “provability” of the existence of gods. Since that has been an important philosophical question for pretty much ever, its a very useful word. Then again, I spend my spiritual time in a Unitarian church, where we discuss agnosticism as an intellectual concept with some frequency. As well as the very different concepts of theism and atheism.
:dubious:
I think the reason Thomas Huxley coined the word was to differentiate himself from atheists…because he saw the inherent flaw in the atheism of his day. He realized that asserting, “there are no gods” was simply the reverse side of the theist obverse, “there is a god.”
Neither was sustainable as an assertion…and both had the taint of “belief” and “faith in that belief.”
It made sense to do this…and I admire him for doing so.
Most people who kept the designation “atheist” after that moment scoffed at the notion that they should temper the age-old atheistic contention that there were no gods. They insisted THERE ARE NO GODS!
And that is pretty much the way things went until debates between atheists and agnostics got into full stride…with the agnostics pretty much making minced meat of the atheistic position. By the time the Internet came along…the atheists realized that debate in the forums required a tactical adjustment…and the “weak atheist” position became the norm for almost all atheists actually debating.
This relieved the atheists from any assertions that might entail a burden of proof responsibility…and relieved them from any accusations that atheism was merely a belief.
But since they wanted so much to be known as atheists…they simply borrowed the essentials of the agnostic position…and called it weak-atheism.
It is less a weenie position when called agnosticism, Dan…than it is when used and called atheism of some sort.
SAID ANOTHER WAY: When Madalyn Murry O’Hare (or O’Hair) said that agnostics were atheists without the guts to call themselves atheists…she almost got it right. Fact is, weak-atheists are agnostics without the guts to call themselves agnostics.
I still view agnostics as a subset of atheists. An atheist is someone who does not believe gods exist. Agnostics are a specific type of atheist who don’t believe in gods because they don’t think the question is settled at this time, or because they think it’s possible get a definitive answer. Either way, unless you believe that there is somebody up there or out there, you’re an atheist as far as I’m concerned.
None of the people above really believe what they said in their posts.
I can say this, because I know better than they do themselves what it is that they are really thinking.
Does anyone see slight flaw in that position?
But I believe in god (I’m a Deist, its a weak god, but its a god) and am an agnostic (I don’t believe I could prove there was a god - i.e. there is no way for me to be sure about this intellectually, and I suspect I might be wrong). So, I don’t exist?
To me, if you’re asked “do you believe there is a god?” and you say “yes,” you’re not an agnostic. An agnostic says “I don’t know.”
It sounds like what you are agnostic (or rather, doubtful or skeptical) about is your ability to prove it. You’re not positive you’re right, but then again, few of us are. So I don’t see that as agnosticism.
And I’m with Polycarp on this “guts” thing. I am sure some agnostics are uncomfortable at the idea of being lumped in with hardcore atheists, but some atheists feel that way, too.
But that is the definition of agnosticism. To believe God is not “knowable.” a - not gnostic - know.
Its an intellectual position, not one of faith. (In common usage its one of faith - 'I don’t know and/or I don’t care - personally, I think the caring is the deal, if you cared, you’d have an opinion one way or the other).
I see it as a position on whether or not the individual thinks a god exists, not whether it’s possible for humanity in general to know the answer.
See why I don’t like the word? It’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion using the word when multiple people all mean different things when they use it.
Sort of like the word “God?”
Atheists and Theists answer the same question with a certainty neither can prove. “I don’t know” is the only scientific answer. I my case followed by an “I don’t care”. In exactly the same way if someone is certain giant pink bunnies do or do not exist. Devote your life to whatever you wish, if you come up with proof I might start to care, but right now, I do not.
I used to call myself an agnostic because I just didn’t care whether god existed. Then I realized that not caring is not believing, so then I called myself an agnostic because only spoiled dweebs call themselves atheists. Then I realized I was one of those, so now I call myself a catholic.
I thought you said you hope God doesn’t exist. You can’t be much of a Catholic.