When you say “not really”, I’m assuming you mean that my interpretation of agnosticism versus atheism is incorrect, and not that I am incorrect to say that denial of the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Is that right?
Well, I guess it depends on what one means by “logical.”
I read the word as meaning its meanings of “sensible and based on facts” or “rational” rather than meaning “realted to philosophical logic” - Encarta dictionary.
Certainly by the last word usage you are correct.
But you are incorrect by the two more common uses of the word. And this is not a mere hijack but is the heart of this op: if formal philosophical logic was the sensible means of forming beliefs about the world then it would be true that individuals of the same intellectual abilities should come to the same conclusion given the same set of initial postulates … of course one of those postulates might be “God exists.” But that is neither the sensible way to form beliefs about the real world nor in fact the way it is typically done. I never used formal logic to conclude that “my mother loves me” or that “night follows day” and to do so would be irrational. To hold the belief that “I am agnostic regarding whether or not night will follow today’s day” is irrational even if it is true by formal logic. (In fact by rational thought an atheist may not conclude that Christianity is true even if the God of the Bible appeared to him - he may conclude that he is hallucinating and needs medication, or a host of other possible explanations more consistent with his current belief set. It isn’t always rational or sensible to believe your own eyes.) Instead the sensible and rational approach to forming beliefs is more of an inductive process than a deductive one, and for every induction we have varying levels of doubt that we are willing to tolerate based a variety of other factors and needs, including how consistent it is with the rest of our worldview.
Firstly, almost all kids in the Muslim world. Secondly, huge numbers of children in Latin America. Thirdly, the majority of children in any heavily religious third-world country. Fourthly, substantial numbers of children in the United States and other parts of the developed world. If you believe that it’s impossible for religious parents to raise their children in a total “bubble belief system” in this country at the present time, you should read up on some of the weird Mormon cults in remote areas of the West. You’d be surprised.
But on a larger scale, there are places in the United States where Christianity is the only belief system presented. There are small towns in the South with only one church, where basically the entire population attends that church if possible. No other religions are represented. The only bookstores within thirty miles are Christian bookstores. There’s no access to any thought produced by a person with a dissenting viewpoint.
I had the following discussion with a high-school aged kid in Kentucky while doing volunteer work.
Him: “So you’re Christian, right?”
Me: “I’m Jewish.” [I said that at the time, as I was still figuring out my religious beliefs.]
Him: “Oh, so that means your mom has to wear one of those Burqa things, right?”
If he wasn’t aware that Judaism and Islam are two different religions, I think it’s safe to say that he was never exposed to any religious thinking other than Christian.
Think back to when, where and from whom you learned to say and spell basic words like “the”, “it” and “and”.
If you can’t remember these details, don’t you think it’s plausible that you carry other conditioning that influences your reasoning today, even if it pre-dates your conscious memory?
I was raised by an essentially single mother who was very neurotic and constantly lamenting that she wished she’d never had kids. Hearing in church that God created the universe for us to live in made less sense to me than the knowledge of how insignificant humans are in the vast, random universe.
I wholeheartedly acknowledge that my beliefs might be very different if I had had different life experiences and religious training than I did. I have no problem admitting the influence of early experiences on my present-day thinking and I will respect your opinions more if you admit the same, whether you are a believer or not.
That said, I do think there are in-born components to our nature. Some people have more of a need to question, others feel more of a need to believe.
I agree with you and think this is an important point. People would do well to ask “Why do I believe the way I do?” Some of it is emptional and enviormental. Some of it is just the make up of that individual. People also go through phases as life’s experience affects them Here on the SDMB we have atheists who have become believers and believers who have become atheists and many assorted forms of belief and non belief.
In my own life now I look back at former beliefs and I understand some of why I believed as I did then. The group I was influneced by and my desire to trust what they were telling me, along with the emotional need to belong. At some point I began to consider the questions I had surpressed and realized I needed to be honest with myself. I still count myself a believer but have chosen a different path than before.
I see some many who want to be told what to believe and want to trust religious leaders to explain things to them. They want to belong to a group or family so they accept some things that they probably wouldn’t if they looked at them with complete honesty.
I take some small exception to your last sentance. Many people, like myself, see their spiritual journey as an on going thing and that means we are both believers and questioners.
Just to add a bit of anecdotal evidence, the Mensa magazine for the UK often has a considerable section of it’s letters pages devoted to debating religion - and more often than not, there’s just the same mix of strident athiests, vigourous defenders of religion, and inbetweeners as you’d expect in any discussion group.
First, thanks for the link!
I agree that making a denial based on just the above evidence would be illogical.
However, as you know, there are a lot of claims made by religious believers, some of which are fundamentally in disagreement (e.g. whether Jesus is the son of God means that either Judaism or Christianity is wrong on a fundamental point).
Most religions claim they worship the only true God and that the others are mistaken.
Religions have died out in the past.
In addition, there are real difficulties in understanding any God’s purpose, how we should behave and why God’s World is set up as it is.
I think all this justifies moving from agnosticism to atheism.
I don’t think that’s entirely accurate, either. While some atheists fail to see any evidence for a God (erroneously, IMO), others believe that they have positive proof for the non-existence of God. The latter may use arguments such as those posited by David Hume, for example. (I don’t consider Hume’s arguments to be very good, but that’s beside the point.)
Moreover, even if there were no evidence for God, it would not logically follow that there is none. One might consider this to be a reasonable inference (which I don’t), but it is not the automatic conclusion to draw. In the absence of evidence either way, the best that one could say is “I don’t know” or maybe even “Probably not.”
And I personally don’t think that justifies moving from agnostisicm to atheism, or necessarily from theism to agnosticism, or anything else. Kinda neat how two intelligent people can look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusions, eh? 
I think agnostics are reluctant atheists. They should make up their mind and stop sitting on the fence. They certainly aren’t swayed by theistic arguments. 
I understand the idea that agnostics are more intelectually correct by demanding evidence of God… but until you get some evidence of God your a non-beleiver, no ?
Now as for the smart people… every once in a while we hear about really smart people doing some really stupid things. Differente inteligences. I remember my dad talking about this really really incredible and smart workmate… who complained about sleeping badly at night. When they asked him if he slept in the afternoon… he said he did… about 3 hours. Duh… no wonder he slept badly at night… but somewhere this genius couldn’t figure that one out. :smack:
There are theistic agnostics.
And that is exactly what religions feed off of.
First., you are mistaking your God for all gods. We might be able to prove that gods defined a certain way cannot exist, since the7y have logically inconsistent properties, but that is far different from the claim that we can prove that no god exists. If you have seen such a claim, I’d appreciate a cite. I’m sure that even you would be able to find some god definitions which you can prove are untrue.
No, the proper response is to withhold belief pending some reasonable evidence. “I don’t know” is not a response that you would consider reasonable to make for other situations where there is no evidence. Certainly withholding belief implies “probably not.”