How should atheists and agnostics view each other?

[begbert2]

@RaftPeople

One of the problems with the percentages approach is that it’s not really the way the human brain operates (IMHO).

But, let’s pretend it is the way the human brain operates and, like C3PO or Spock, we respond with an exact percentage of our certainty one way or the other. Why lump the 50%'ers in with the groups on either side? In what way does that make conversations about our positions better? To me it’s a loss of info.

I know you keep insisting that nobody really is a 50%er, but that is a pretty difficult position to support, it’s a big world and people think all kinds of things.

I’m pretty certain that the human brain operates by collecting all the knowledge and opinions and biases it’s got and dumping them in a big messy pile, and then measuring the height of that pile with a crooked yardstick with blurred markings. As noted it doesn’t usually end up mentally as a number, unless it starts as one - it just comes down to whether the pile of evidence looks big, small, or nonexistent, approximately. Nonetheless, you do somehow sum up your information and use it to compose some value which informs whether you declare that you believe something.

I’m calling this composed value your level of belief. There is the separate issue of your threshold of belief, which is the chalk mark on that yardstick in your brain above which you accept the statement in question as fact, and declare that you believe it. But even if you don’t have enough belief piled up to reach that mark, the pile is still there.

As for the treatment of those 50%ers - I think that most of them self-identify as theists. And what info do you think is being lost, here, by referring to them as atheists if they don’t identify as theists?

@spark240

No, I meant the 2/3 heads coin that was posited earlier. I said I didn’t “believe” it would come up heads, because I had the information that there was a 1/3 chance of tails. It seems nonsensical to me to say that I “believe” something when I have reason to think that the opposite could turn out to be the case. On the other hand, if compelled to guess, of course I’ll guess heads.

You seem to be using “belief” here to mean what I would call “knowledge,” or “information,” and perhaps what some people would call “faith,” in certain contexts. Whereas I use the word “belief” to mean something like what you’re calling “certainty.”

If that translation is correct, I follow you, except that I don’t perceive it in terms of a continuum, where maybe some uncertain concepts are closer to certainty than other. That would suggest that I knew how much I didn’t know, which of course I don’t.

Knowledge, information, opinions, calculations, faith, mental hangups - these are all different things that inform your decision-making process. They’re slopped into the big pile, they’re not all the same thing, they certainly can’t all accurately be refered to as “knowledge”. So, what do you call the pile all together? I call it “belief”, since it matches how I’ve heard the term used. “Belief” certainly doesn’t mean “certainty”, because you can be told to “believe a little”, which is a call for far less than absolute certainty. Belief is just however much or little you, um, believe.

And there is also a “threshold of belief”, which is the mark on your beliefometer you have to hit before you accept the fact as true - before you say you believe it. That is, before you consider the fact close enough to certain that you treat it as such. I recognize that that means that I’m using the same word to refer to three things - the height of the pile, the mark on your yardstick, and the state of being past the mark. And all three uses have precedent! The english language is truly a bitch.
And if there’s not a continuum; if there’s not a pile that you accumulate until you reach your belief threshold…then what is your model of how decisions are made? That all unconvinced states are exactly the same? Certainty against is the same as waffling on the edge? Except when suddenly you are convinced, at which you suddenly have a certain belief where before you had nothing?

I don’t think so.

@spark240

If I’m uncertain–agnostic–that means I haven’t established any “belief.” Eventually, I may find myself convinced one way or the other, but it’s more of a gestalt tipping point than an accumulative creep toward certainty.

What’s tipping?

In my model, the crud you’re accumulating towards that ‘tipping point’ is called ‘belief’.

@Measure_for_Measure

When I was growing up, my father was a church-going agnostic. I’d say he put the probability at something far above 1%, quite possibly above 50%.

Theistic agnostics are a different breed of animal, as repeatedly previously noted. He went to church, right? I figure there are maybe five kinds of people who go to church: 1) Hardcore certain theists, 2) people who are theists except they know about cogito ergo sum and so maintain a theoretical awareness of the possibility of error, 3) people who are theists who still pretty much believe but lack the faith to claim certainty for some reason, perhaps due to a crisis thereof, 4) people who are placidly uncertain, apathetic to that fact, and attending due (basically) to pascal’s wager 5) and people who don’t have any noticeable belief at all and are attending for the percieved social benefits or due to cultural pressure.

I’d call the first three types theists, since they probably would. The fourth type may primarily identify as an agnostic - though they may primarily identify as a theist. The last category may primarily identify as atheists, or maybe agnostics if they don’t like the term “atheist” (perhaps for social reasons).

I don’t know which of these your father was, besides probably not being in category 1.

@Measure_for_Measure

a) Accepting your probabilistic model for the moment (for after all, it’s not given that it is the best conceptual framework) it’s not unreasonable to apply different thresholds to different topics. Say I doubt that Venezuela will change Presidents before July 2010: I don’t know for sure whether there’s an election between now and then prior to a google search. For a topic like that, I might be comfortable saying “I believe” or “I don’t believe,” primarily because it doesn’t affect me.

Wait, you’re choosing what your threshold of belief is? Where to apply it? I can’t do that. If I believe or not is out of my hands.

I can choose whether to declare that I believe something or not, though. I can even lie, if it suits my purposes. I can lie to myself!

Some agnostics claim to be exactly in the middle. And then don’t go to church. Hmm.

@Measure_for_Measure

b) Pascal’s Wager lacks the force that it once did due to competing metaphysical theories: religious possibilities for a modern westerner are wider both in terms of institutions and imagination. I’m not sure what a Pascal-approved Safety Prayer might look like, but if anybody has any ideas, I’d take it into consideration. Then again, some theologians seem to think that prayers are for humanity’s benefit and not God’s, which muddles the argument further.

The competing metaphysical arguments and religious possibilities are evidence that argues against belief in any specific god. Awareness of these competing options can, and does, effect your level of belief. There was a thread here about “conversion to atheism” a while back where among other reasons people converted to atheism due to an increasing awareness of other conflicting god-beliefs people hold.

Pascal’s wager has plenty of force - but only if you believe there might be gods. If you’re not influenced by it, it’s because you’re not waffling. Possibly because you’ve been made atheistic by the very competing possibilities you mention.

@Measure_for_Measure

Puzzling. As an agnostic, I am told by atheists that I am a soft atheist as I ~B G (which is distinguished from B ~G). As a matter of logic, I can’t disagree. As a matter of communication, I find the label misleading.

Well, there are a lot of people (mainly theists) who think atheist means “strawman atheist”, which is plenty misleading. If we can get past that, would the label “atheist” still be misleading?

@Measure_for_Measure

Perhaps I should clarify something. I’ve stated in certain contexts that atheists can’t handle uncertainty – but that has always been in response to accusations of intellectual cowardice and the like. Imputing motivations to your opponent is typically a wholly bogus argument (strictly speaking) but as a matter of rhetoric – well two can play at that game, can’t they? It is true that uncertainty makes mammals uncomfortable, but this is a separate issue from the existence or non existence of a supreme deity.

For most atheists, it’s not a matter of being afraid of uncertainty. It’s a matter of actually, genuinely, thinking the uncertainty is negligible, like we do about whether we’ll be stabbed by a psycho the minute we step out of our houses. We don’t say it can’t happen in theory, but if we really were agnostic about the theoretical knife-weilding psychos, we’d stay indoors.

I’m not 100% certain there’s no psycho lurking outside my door, and I’m not 100% certain that there’s no supreme diety. But I go outside and am an atheist nonetheless.

@Measure_for_Measure

Separately, are you saying that there are a lot of proselytizing agnostics? Agnostic/atheist debates aren’t that common, are they, at least relative to theist/atheist discussions? Personally, I find them rather diverting.

“A lot” is relative. I’m-an-agnostic-not-an-atheist agnostics are obviously rarer than theists, and I have a somewhat high but below-threshold belief they’re a bit rarer than self-identifying atheists.

Full disclosure - I don’t know any self-identifying agnostics in real life. I also don’t know any self-identifying atheists. I’m surrounded exclusively by people who believe silly things. So my experience in agnostics is mainly from this board - so proselytizing agnostics are plenty common!

@Voyager

First, I agree that the threshold of belief may be based on irrational things. For most people it depends on what their parents tell them. And past this, the level of belief may be stronger or weaker - but you have to have a belief to give it a strength. I’d also say that the strength of belief is tied to the strength of whatever got one over the threshold.

We seem to mostly be on the same page, Voyager, so I’ll just respond to what I think are differences. (Where I don’t respond back-patting may be assumed.)

I think the threshold of belief -that is, the chalk mark on the yardstick- is fixed, as a hardwired part of the human cognitive process. I think it’s the level of belief you have -the confidence you have in something’s truth based on all available info- which changes.

I’m a little mixed up by this “strength” stuff you’re saying. Certainly, when you change your mind to believe something more or less strongly, the stronger the new factor in your thought process is, the more it changes your belief, and the further you’ll be pushed past the threshold. That’s fairly axiomatic, once you accept the model. Is that what you meant?

@Voyager

I don’t think all, or even most, agnostics are extreme skeptics, though I agree that perhaps they should be. I think some learned the mistaken notion that atheism is about claims of knowledge that there is no god, correctly reject this notion, and find themselves with no other position. Some might also use a term that gets a lot less hate from the general public than atheism.

You’re probably right. I called these folks ‘Cagnostics’ - and was (and am) not spectacularly impressed by their grasp of terms.

I think that an alternate explanation for some of these agnostics-not-atheists is that they’ve decided that the model is a “100% for----0%----100% against” continuum, and then decided they ought to be at the midpoint because they mistook it for the null hypothesis. If they think this, then even after the correct defintion of ‘atheist’ is pointed out to them, they still will resist admitting atheism because they believe that dead center in the middle is some magical place to be.

@Voyager

Nope, and for similar reasons why I don’t believe in any gods. Unless the evil hypnotist is god, with unlimited resources, I’d expect our fake world to be a lot simpler than the one we see. I’ve written simulators, and you keep them as simple as possible to do the job. In a similar way, if God made the universe for us it might be a simpler one - just like the one the ancients believed in. In neither case can I say I know I am right, but I have plenty of good reasons to believe I am.

:smack: I should have asked, “Do you believe the evil hypnotist doesn’t exist?” In this thread that was an idiot’s mistake.

You’ve partially answered, though - you don’t believe in an incompetent evil hypnotist. Or in an incompetent god. Fair enough; good arguments for the atheist position.

[RaftPeople]

@begbert2

I’m pretty certain that the human brain operates by collecting all the knowledge and opinions and biases it’s got and dumping them in a big messy pile, and then measuring the height of that pile with a crooked yardstick with blurred markings. As noted it doesn’t usually end up mentally as a number, unless it starts as one - it just comes down to whether the pile of evidence looks big, small, or nonexistent, approximately. Nonetheless, you do somehow sum up your information and use it to compose some value which informs whether you declare that you believe something.

Ok, good so far.

I’m calling this composed value your level of belief.

Here is the problem.

The word “belief” has a definition, which can be reasonably summarized as “accepts as true”.

You can certainly describe the world any way you want, but when discussing things with other people, there has to be some agreement on terms otherwise it’s tough to make progress.

You want the word “belief” to not include the threshold, but (as far as I can tell), most others do not agree with your personal definition. It doesn’t mean that your analysis of our strength of certainty is wrong, just that the definition you want to use appears to be different from that of others.

As for the treatment of those 50%ers - I think that most of them self-identify as theists.

Well, I’m a little more cautious with my categorization of potentially millions of people.

And what info do you think is being lost, here, by referring to them as atheists if they don’t identify as theists?

Let me answer your question with a question, do you feel comfortable with the following statements?

George Bush:
“You’re either with us or against us”

Jerry Springer audience member:
“You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”

[begbert2]

@RaftPeople

Ok, good so far.

Yay!

@RaftPeople

Here is the problem.

The word “belief” has a definition, which can be reasonably summarized as “accepts as true”.

You can certainly describe the world any way you want, but when discussing things with other people, there has to be some agreement on terms otherwise it’s tough to make progress.

You want the word “belief” to not include the threshold, but (as far as I can tell), most others do not agree with your personal definition. It doesn’t mean that your analysis of our strength of certainty is wrong, just that the definition you want to use appears to be different from that of others.

I do not think that the term “belief” is as restricted in usage as you appear to claim. But honestly, it doesn’t much matter, since you appear to have now gotten the gist of what I mean. If my analysis of the strength of certainty isn’t wrong, I’m not much concerned about the semantic quibbles.

Suffice to say I have not heard any better term offered to describe the level of lack of belief you have regarding a question. “Information” certainly doesn’t cut it, as the human assessment of credibility is certainly not solely dependent on information. In fact, regarding the god question, information seems to as often as not be disregarded large categories at a time to allow people to reach and hold the decisions they do.

@RaftPeople

Well, I’m a little more cautious with my categorization of potentially millions of people.

I’m not! Restraint is for the weak!

@RaftPeople

Let me answer your question with a question, do you feel comfortable with the following statements?

George Bush:
“You’re either with us or against us”

Jerry Springer audience member:
“You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”

I prefer “Only Sith deal in absolutes”.

Okay, seriously here - the examples you give are specific examples of the fallacy of excluded middle. They’re taking two categories that don’t cover all cases and assert that they do. But when people tell you that you’re an atheist because you’re not a theist, they’re not doing it to try to paint you as something you’re not. They’re using a definition of “atheist” that does describe you. (Unless you’re a closet theist as Locrian alledges, I suppose).

So a properly analagous statement would be “You’re either old enough to drink, or you’re not.” Does that statement make you uncomfortable?

[begbert2]

@begbert2

the level of lack of belief you have regarding a question.

Missed edit - should have been “the level OR lack of belief” I mention this becuase the typo could change the meaning; basically we’re talking about that pile of credence you’ve personally attributed to the statement in question that we’re going to measure with the bent yardstick, whether that level approaches the amount required to assert belief, or whether it’s in the range of being low enough to dismiss the idea. Or whether it’s anywhere inbetween.

[RaftPeople]

@begbert2

I do not think that the term “belief” is as restricted in usage as you appear to claim.

Based on a small sample of posters in this thread the evidence points to the more restricted usage being more common. If you had definitions from any external generally accepted sources, I would admit my view is the minority in a heartbeat, but when I’ve googled for the philosophical definition of belief, I haven’t found anything as strong as you want to define it.

But honestly, it doesn’t much matter, since you appear to have now gotten the gist of what I mean. If my analysis of the strength of certainty isn’t wrong, I’m not much concerned about the semantic quibbles.

I understood all along and I don’t think I ever disagreed that we have varying strengths of certainty about various things. As I said from the beginning and still do, the category of not having a belief one way or another (using my definition) is a distinct and valuable category from those that do believe and those that believe not.

Okay, seriously here - the examples you give are specific examples of the fallacy of excluded middle. They’re taking two categories that don’t cover all cases and assert that they do. But when people tell you that you’re an atheist because you’re not a theist, they’re not doing it to try to paint you as something you’re not. They’re using a definition of “atheist” that does describe you. (Unless you’re a closet theist as Locrian alledges, I suppose).

Those were primarily for fun, but you could argue that “theist or athiest” suffers from the same problem in that the middle is lumped in with one side. Again, that might be a valuable way to look at it, or it might not be, all depends on your goals, etc.

[begbert2]

@RaftPeople

Based on a small sample of posters in this thread the evidence points to the more restricted usage being more common. If you had definitions from any external generally accepted sources, I would admit my view is the minority in a heartbeat, but when I’ve googled for the philosophical definition of belief, I haven’t found anything as strong as you want to define it.

Pheh, the word has two definitions. At least. Which I’ve tried to be farily clear about distinguishing between.

Now, here’s merriam-webster:
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: \bə-ˈlēf
Function: noun
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So: there’s belief as in, a label assigned to a discrete statement of fact that you assign a credence to in excess of your “standard of belief” (aka chalk on yardstick). An idea is a belief if you give it this much credence. This is definition 2 above.

Then you have belief, as in, the aforementioned credence itself. This is the kind of belief you have in statements. This is the usage of the word you mean when you write “believe” - you believe in statements, but a statement is itself not a believe. This is definition 3 above.

Now, a person might say that “conviction of truth” in the definition 3 doesn’t allow for a person to have very very little belief in something, as one would have to to begin to approach the point of believing the opposite. Based on how the word is used in english, though, I’d have to disagree.

@RaftPeople

I understood all along and I don’t think I ever disagreed that we have varying strengths of certainty about various things. As I said from the beginning and still do, the category of not having a belief one way or another (using my definition) is a distinct and valuable category from those that do believe and those that believe not.

Okay, keeping in mind that I VERY VERY EXPLICITLY am fine with you not having a belief, while simultaneously maintaining that you logically must have some level of belief (if I can get away with saying that 0% is a level of belief):

So, given that… what’s so valuable about the category in question? I get that it’s distinct - it’s people who are wishy-washy. (Okay, people between 5% and 95% or whatever their stanards of belief/disbelief are.) But why is the category so valuable that you can’t possibly be referred to as atheists?

Yes, the meaning of the term “atheist” is a little unclear - but it’s not like the term “agnostic” is any better. I’m an agnostic - but I’m not the kind of agnostic that’s between his standards of belief. I’m an agnostic in the sense I’m not a fully-faithed theist or a strawman atheist - aknowledge that absolute certainty is unattainable. I’m a philosophical agnostic, in other words - not the other kind. So both the terms are crapped up. Given that, what’s wrong with solidifying the definition of “atheist” as “person who’s not a theist”, and then accurately describing you as an atheist?

Hmm, I guess part of what I’m asking is, what’s the value in distinguishing between “soft” atheists, and “semi-soft/hard squishy” atheists, or whatever ya’ll people are calling them atheists that somehow manage to be neither soft or hard aka “strawman”. (I never did see a significant distinction in the middle there, myself.)

@RaftPeople

Those were primarily for fun, but you could argue that “theist or athiest” suffers from the same problem in that the middle is lumped in with one side. Again, that might be a valuable way to look at it, or it might not be, all depends on your goals, etc.

What goals do you think are supported by, er, whatever you think the various different agendas are?

What kind of agenda are you pursuing by declaring that you’re not an atheist?

[Voyager]

@begbert2

We seem to mostly be on the same page, Voyager, so I’ll just respond to what I think are differences. (Where I don’t respond back-patting may be assumed.)

I think the threshold of belief -that is, the chalk mark on the yardstick- is fixed, as a hardwired part of the human cognitive process. I think it’s the level of belief you have -the confidence you have in something’s truth based on all available info- which changes.

Hard wired in the sense that we don’t consciously decide where the threshold is - I agree. I think it may vary for each of us (higher for those from Missouri) and perhaps on the subject, though I’m not sure. I definitely agree with your point on the dependence on the availability of information. Perhaps those moments we have when we are on the cusps of switching a belief come when the information places us just at the threshold, and each additional piece moves us past it and then back.

I’m a little mixed up by this “strength” stuff you’re saying. Certainly, when you change your mind to believe something more or less strongly, the stronger the new factor in your thought process is, the more it changes your belief, and the further you’ll be pushed past the threshold. That’s fairly axiomatic, once you accept the model. Is that what you meant?

Pretty much. The more evidence the stronger the belief, and this can change over time. We also have mechanisms with which we filter evidence to strengthen our beliefs - cognitive dissonance, etc., and certain types of evidence count more than others. We have a chart in our behavioral economics tutorial showing that the average belief in the incidence of various types of death and disasters is better correlated to media coverage of these than their actual incidence.
You’re probably right. I called these folks ‘Cagnostics’ - and was (and am) not spectacularly impressed by their grasp of terms.

I think that an alternate explanation for some of these agnostics-not-atheists is that they’ve decided that the model is a “100% for----0%----100% against” continuum, and then decided they ought to be at the midpoint because they mistook it for the null hypothesis. If they think this, then even after the correct defintion of ‘atheist’ is pointed out to them, they still will resist admitting atheism because they believe that dead center in the middle is some magical place to be.

That sounds very plausible.

:smack: I should have asked, “Do you believe the evil hypnotist doesn’t exist?” In this thread that was an idiot’s mistake.

You’ve partially answered, though - you don’t believe in an incompetent evil hypnotist. Or in an incompetent god. Fair enough; good arguments for the atheist position.

I thought you had. But I took a theory of knowledge class once which was disrupted by a few extreme skeptics, so my opinion of this worldview is a bit worse than my opinion of fundamentalists.

[RaftPeople]

@begbert2

So, given that… what’s so valuable about the category in question? I get that it’s distinct - it’s people who are wishy-washy. (Okay, people between 5% and 95% or whatever their stanards of belief/disbelief are.) But why is the category so valuable that you can’t possibly be referred to as atheists?

“can’t possibly”?

@RaftPeople

Again, that might be a valuable way to look at it, or it might not be, all depends on your goals, etc.

What kind of agenda are you pursuing by declaring that you’re not an atheist?

can’t answer the rest of your post right now, but why do you think I have an agenda and why do you think you know my stance on believing in god/God? Maybe I’m a theist, maybe I’m an athiest, maybe I’m an agnostic, who knows? I haven’t discussed it. I’m merely walking through the definitional part of the problem.

[begbert2]

@RaftPeople

“can’t possibly”?

can’t answer the rest of your post right now, but why do you think I have an agenda and why do you think you know my stance on believing in god/God? Maybe I’m a theist, maybe I’m an athiest, maybe I’m an agnostic, who knows? I haven’t discussed it. I’m merely walking through the definitional part of the problem.

You said “Again, that might be a valuable way to look at it, or it might not be, all depends on your goals, etc.” I wanna know under what set of goals (aka agenda) it might be valuable to distinguish between the people who don’t believe but refuse to claim disbelief, and who claim disbelief but don’t claim certainty? There’s no differential treatment of these types, except by each other, and that disagrement’s based mainly on each refusing the other’s label. We all look the same to the theists after all. (Presuming for a moment that you’re not a theist.)

[RaftPeople]

If your goal is to discuss people’s beliefs about a topic and gain a better understanding about their point of view and the ways in which groups are similar and different, having the additional information is generally a plus, right?

We probably both agree that only having 1 group would make discussions difficult (the group of all humans regardless of their specific beliefs about god(s)).

And we probably both agree that having 379 groups would make discussions difficult.

2 groups - better than 1 or 379, but still a little broad IMO
3 groups - IMO - better than 1, 2 or 379 groups, might still be broad, not sure

[begbert2]

@RaftPeople

If your goal is to discuss people’s beliefs about a topic and gain a better understanding about their point of view and the ways in which groups are similar and different, having the additional information is generally a plus, right?

We probably both agree that only having 1 group would make discussions difficult (the group of all humans regardless of their specific beliefs about god(s)).

And we probably both agree that having 379 groups would make discussions difficult.

2 groups - better than 1 or 379, but still a little broad IMO
3 groups - IMO - better than 1, 2 or 379 groups, might still be broad, not sure

Well, at the moment there are no less than five distinct groups, and possibly several more:

1. 100% certain that there’s one or more gods. (usually, a specific one).
2. above threshold that there are gods - enough to assert belief but not certainty.
3. between thresholds; unwilling to assert belief.
4. above threshold that there are no gods - enough to assert disbelief but not certainty.
5. 100% certain that there are no gods.

Added to these are the ones introduced by the rainbow spectrum of opinions of what “soft” and “hard” atheist mean:

3a) ‘soft’ atheist A - doesn’t believe but is unwilling to admit it - claims only complete unqualified uncertainty. Self-identifies as agnostic - atheists still claim 'em as soft atheists, to their chagrin.
3b) ‘soft’ atheist B - identifies as agnostic but will admit disbelief if pressed, being close enough to the threshold to seriously entertain the idea.
4a) ‘softish’ atheist - frankly admits disbelief but rapidly declaims any semblance of certainty, being close to the threshold.
4b) ‘hardish’ atheist - states disbelief, but will admit uncertainty if pressed.
4c) ‘hard’ atheist - asserts certainty that there’s no god - but then says stuff like “(Send the sky daddy to my house, and I’ll apologize.)”, so is not quite at the level of dogmatic no-possibility-of-error 100% certainty.

I can assure you that these are distinct - or at least as distinct as the various other divides. And some or all of these presumably have analogues on the theist side too, though as best I can tell they frame the question in terms of assuming belief, and then varying levels of failure on the part of the (presumed) believer to maintain proper faith. They may also not claim self-proclaimed agnostics at all - though I’ve seen the occasional case of a theist claiming that stated atheists are theists deep down, so it gets tempting to throw one’s hands up.

So. Five to (approximately) eleven categories. Do you want to start inventing and assigning terms, and trying to get other people to use them in a consistent manner, or shall I?

[RaftPeople]

@begbert2

Well, at the moment there are no less than five distinct groups, and possibly several more:

1. 100% certain that there’s one or more gods. (usually, a specific one).
2. above threshold that there are gods - enough to assert belief but not certainty.
3. between thresholds; unwilling to assert belief.
4. above threshold that there are no gods - enough to assert disbelief but not certainty.
5. 100% certain that there are no gods.

Added to these are the ones introduced by the rainbow spectrum of opinions of what “soft” and “hard” atheist mean:

3a) ‘soft’ atheist A - doesn’t believe but is unwilling to admit it - claims only complete unqualified uncertainty. Self-identifies as agnostic - atheists still claim 'em as soft atheists, to their chagrin.
3b) ‘soft’ atheist B - identifies as agnostic but will admit disbelief if pressed, being close enough to the threshold to seriously entertain the idea.
4a) ‘softish’ atheist - frankly admits disbelief but rapidly declaims any semblance of certainty, being close to the threshold.
4b) ‘hardish’ atheist - states disbelief, but will admit uncertainty if pressed.
4c) ‘hard’ atheist - asserts certainty that there’s no god - but then says stuff like “(Send the sky daddy to my house, and I’ll apologize.)”, so is not quite at the level of dogmatic no-possibility-of-error 100% certainty.

I can assure you that these are distinct - or at least as distinct as the various other divides. And some or all of these presumably have analogues on the theist side too, though as best I can tell they frame the question in terms of assuming belief, and then varying levels of failure on the part of the (presumed) believer to maintain proper faith. They may also not claim self-proclaimed agnostics at all - though I’ve seen the occasional case of a theist claiming that stated atheists are theists deep down, so it gets tempting to throw one’s hands up.

So. Five to (approximately) eleven categories. Do you want to start inventing and assigning terms, and trying to get other people to use them in a consistent manner, or shall I?

I personally think that the 5 categories you listed is a pretty good way to go (but the expanded list may be necessary under some circumstances).

A simple approach would be to just use the number, 1 through 5, then we aren’t saddled with any past baggage regarding terms.

[Gustav]

@begbert2

1. 100% certain that there’s one or more gods. (usually, a specific one).
2. above threshold that there are gods - enough to assert belief but not certainty.
3. between thresholds; unwilling to assert belief.
4. above threshold that there are no gods - enough to assert disbelief but not certainty.
5. 100% certain that there are no gods.

I hate this kind of list, it’s so misleading. We’ve already established in this thread that position 1 and 5 are purely hypothetical. No one actually has a flat 100% certainty, it’s impossible for humans to have complete certainty in anything. I know you didn’t intend it, but when you put it like this it gives the appearance that the categories are more or less comparable. Why should positions that are held by exactly 0% of the population be given 40% of the categories?

[begbert2]

@Gustav

I hate this kind of list, it’s so misleading. We’ve already established in this thread that position 1 and 5 are purely hypothetical. No one actually has a flat 100% certainty, it’s impossible for humans to have complete certainty in anything. I know you didn’t intend it, but when you put it like this it gives the appearance that the categories are more or less comparable. Why should positions that are held by exactly 0% of the population be given 40% of the categories?

Position 1 is certainly not hypothetical - I know lots of theists who claim absolute certainty in their diety. The fact that they have a poor grasp of epistemology is irrelevent to the question of what they believe and the levels of certainty they have about it.

Yes, group 5 is rarer - perhaps vanishingly rare. (I certainly think it is.) So what? I think that group 2 is also pretty rare - perhaps as rare as all atheists and agnostics put together. Does that mean we should throw out all the categories except 1?
ETA: Oh, and I think that just referring to the groups as numbers in casual conversation is likely going to be a hard sell with regard to imroving clarity. “I’m a 1.” “No, you’re not that bad, I’d say you’re at least a six. A seven if you got a proper haircut.” It might fly in a thread like this where we’re discussing what the groups believe - but we already know what the groups believe. We’re quibbling about what the labels mean.

[RaftPeople]

Maybe 100% should be replaced with “a staunchly unwavering belief”

[begbert2]

@RaftPeople

Maybe 100% should be replaced with “a staunchly unwavering belief”

Why?

[Gustav]

@begbert2

Position 1 is certainly not hypothetical - I know lots of theists who claim absolute certainty in their diety. The fact that they have a poor grasp of epistemology is irrelevent to the question of what they believe and the levels of certainty they have about it.

Yes, group 5 is rarer - perhaps vanishingly rare. (I certainly think it is.) So what? I think that group 2 is also pretty rare - perhaps as rare as all atheists and agnostics put together. Does that mean we should throw out all the categories except 1?
ETA: Oh, and I think that just referring to the groups as numbers in casual conversation is likely going to be a hard sell with regard to imroving clarity. “I’m a 1.” “No, you’re not that bad, I’d say you’re at least a six. A seven if you got a proper haircut.” It might fly in a thread like this where we’re discussing what the groups believe - but we already know what the groups believe. We’re quibbling about what the labels mean.

I don’t know about group 1. They may claim 100% knowledge, but even they at the very least have to recognize The Matrix-type loopholes. There’s pretty much universal agreement that no human can be absolutely certain of anything.

Even if there are a few people who honestly think they can claim that level of certainty, I wouldn’t consider it significant enough to warrant an entire category just for them. Just lump them under “asserts belief”, file marked “eh, close enough”.

[begbert2]

@Gustav

I don’t know about group 1. They may claim 100% knowledge, but even they at the very least have to recognize The Matrix-type loopholes. There’s pretty much universal agreement that no human can be absolutely certain of anything.

Have you ever talked with these people?

@Gustav

Even if there are a few people who honestly think they can claim that level of certainty, I wouldn’t consider it significant enough to warrant an entire category just for them. Just lump them under “asserts belief”, file marked “eh, close enough”.

I’m a little dubious about any model of people’s beliefs that explicity and deliberately ignores what people say about their own beliefs in favor of what the model-maker wishes were the case.

But if we’re going to go that way, I’m going to say that all 3s are really 2s or 4s, who are just lying about it because they think holding themselves aloof gives them a moral superiority. That’s fair, right?

[Gustav]

@begbert2

But if we’re going to go that way, I’m going to say that all 3s are really 2s or 4s, who are just lying about it because they think holding themselves aloof gives them a moral superiority. That’s fair, right?

Well first of all how would you know which side to move them to?

But this seems to go completely opposite to what I was saying. Sure, there’s probably not a lot of people who are exactly 50/50 undecided. If they really went on a 6 month soul searching journey, cabin in the mountain, that sort of thing, they would probably find themselves leaning more to one side than the other.

But that doesn’t mean we need a new category for 40/60-guy, and 45/55-guy, and 60/40-guy. People who aren’t convinced one way or the other, probably for lack of interest or information can go in group 3. That one makes sense to me. And that’s the same reason why I don’t see the need for a special category for 100/0-guy and 0/100-guy either.

[begbert2]

@Gustav

Well first of all how would you know which side to move them to?

But this seems to go completely opposite to what I was saying. Sure, there’s probably not a lot of people who are exactly 50/50 undecided. If they really went on a 6 month soul searching journey, cabin in the mountain, that sort of thing, they would probably find themselves leaning more to one side than the other.

But that doesn’t mean we need a new category for 40/60-guy, and 45/55-guy, and 60/40-guy. People who aren’t convinced one way or the other, probably for lack of interest or information can go in group 3. That one makes sense to me. And that’s the same reason why I don’t see the need for a special category for 100/0-guy and 0/100-guy either.

The categories are defined based on what people describe themselves as. 1 is the self-declared theists. 2 is the theists with faith problems (if you can get them to admit it). 3 the agnostics. 4 are the atheists. 5 are what the theists think the atheists are. The categories are neither arbitrary nor for the sheer fun of making categories.
And I would divvy up the so-called 3s by their behavior. What, you don’t go to church? Don’t pray? Don’t go dancing nude in the woods (except for the sheer fun of it)? Stamp! goes the 4 on your forehead.

We’ll be sending someone around to collect your dues shortly.