By the way, to all those trying to find holes in my listing of the categories Pagnostic, Cagnostic, Satheist, and Hatheist, you’ve all overlooked two (actually four) BIG missing categories:
Not-An-Agnostic, and Not-An-Atheist. (Or Not-A-Pagnostic, Not-A-Cagnostic, Not-A-Satheist, and Not-A-Hatheist, if you want to get technical.) The labels described sets, and none of them were presented as opposite or exclusive to one another; nor were they described as amongst them containing all possibilities.
Not-An-Atheist has a more common name, of course: Theist. Not-An-Agnostic, on the other hand, doesn’t have a catchy name that I know of. The obvious one, “Gnostic”, isn’t really available; I gather it has some other archaic meaning that I’m not real clear on but don’t want to mess with. So we’ll just call it “Not-A-Pagnostic” and “Not-A-Cagnostic” for now, eh?
Clearly, Not-A-Pagnostic includes everyone who thinks that one can find out with certainty whether the god or gods in question exist or not. This would of course include the Lazyassnostics, as well as the people who have transcended mere mortal limits and actually HAVE complete certainty now, which would include a healthy percentage of Theists, and all the Hatheists, the latter of which (as you may recall) I don’t think exist in reality.
I see your point in that the term “impossible” is merely being applied to the evidence that exists at this moment.
When I see the word “impossible”, to me that means not just that the evidence is not currently available, but that it will never be available under any conditions no matter how smart we are in the future and regardless of the methods we use to probe the depths of the universe.
I think it’s a poor choice of words, and frankly a mistake to use that particular term, but, given your explained usage of the term then at least I understand what you mean by it.
Fair enough. I assume you do actually believe my computer exists otherwise it would be difficult for my keyboard to transmit these characters to the sdmb (I hesitate to use the word “impossible” :)).
So, with that assumption, do you believe my computer is black or non-black?
Under one definition of atheism you are correct, but not under all definitions.
In addition to common agnostics and philosophical agnostics, there are empirical agnostics who withhold judgment on the God question, pending further information. (I suspect that Eagnostics are a subset of Pagnostics, but I’m not sure.)
In my case, I am guessing that I would require a better understanding of consciousness and the ontology of mathematics before moving to judgment. The former is not likely in my lifetime (.01 < p < .50); the latter might be answerable now. Voyager noted in another thread though that I don’t necessarily need a full-blown model of consciousness to surmise that (for example) the mind ends when the brain is destroyed. So there might be some shortcuts that I haven’t fully grasped.
The mind resists uncertainty. Rats experiencing random electric shocks will get stressed out; those receiving electric shocks at constant intervals merely grow lethargic. Humans have different tastes for psychological certainty: theists and strong atheists are in one camp, agnostics in another.
That’s one possible agnostic response anyway. Personally, I tend to enjoy the board’s occasional atheist-agnostic smackdowns.
I’m OK with uncertainty, actually, but it’s not necessary in the case of deciding whether the existence of God is knowable or not. There is an answer & that answer is “yes, it is possible to definitely know he doesn’t (and can’t) exist”.
But certainty is not a requirement for strong atheism - or theism for that matter. Many theists confess to having doubts. You don’t necessarily believe in only those things you are certain about. Plenty of scientists believe in a particular hypothesis, yet are willing to change their minds with additional evidence.
Well, I chose the term relative to my understanding of how the term was classically used; it’s my understanding that agnosticism was ‘founded’ in opposition to the people arguing certainty one way or the other. (At the time “Atheist” may have meant Hatheist and not the larger set of Satheists, though that’s not how it’s used nowadays by most of the people who self-identify that way.) If my memory serves, the position of these early agnostics was that it was impossible to know one way or the other whether God exists.
And now I’m going to table this for a moment, since I think my response to Measure for Measure’s post will conclude it.
I don’t believe with any level of positive certainty that you have a black computer. In other words, I am not a Blackcomputerist - which makes me an Ablackcomputerist, because if you ain’t the former, you’re the later. Note that I can do this without a positive certainty that your computer is non-black; this is because I’m actually a Sablackcomputerist, not a Hablackcomputerist.
I am of course also a PagnostiComputerColoric, because all Sablackcomputerists are PagnostiComputerColorics. But that doesn’t mean I’m not an Ablackcomputerist too.
One thing to note though is that I’m a lot less confident of your computer’s non-blackness (assuming you even have a computer*) than I am of the nonexistence of any arbitrarily selected random god that you might invent. This is because there is at least some anecdotal evidence that you might have a computer, and I have pretty good evidence on hand (actually, next to my leg) that computers at least can exist in reality. These facts lend credence to the idea that you didn’t just imagine up this black computer that your asking about my belief of - a credence that is totally absent when talking about gods. As a result of this differing credence, I have a great deal more confidence in the claim that you don’t have a god than in the claim that you don’t have a black computer. (Still not 100% certainty, though.)
You could be using somebody else’s, you know.
Under the definition of ‘atheism’ that atheists use to refer to themeselves, I’m correct. (That would be Satheism. Remember, I don’t believe in Hatheists.)
Welllllll, I actually think that (with one caveat*) all Pagnostics are Eagnostics - and always have been. As I’ve said, no Pagnostic thinks that a god would be unable to reach out to us and provide evidence. They think that it’s impossible for us to go out and find evidence on our own. This is of course the Eagnostic position, which means that as best I can tell, “Pagnostic” and “Eagnostic” are not a subset of one another; they describe exactly the same set of people. And thus, another term is unnecessary. Err, even if some people don’t like the slightly overzealous phrasing used in the classic definition of the Pagnostic position.
The caveat is, the Pagnostic might assert that if a god appeared before the world and said “Hi”, that one still couldn’t be certain that the supposed god is really a god, or alternatively that you couldn’t be certain that the god was the god it claimed to be. This position is pretty unassailable - no amount of evidence a God can present can prove it’s not a different god pretending to be somebody else. (God also can’t prove you’re not a solipsist, meaning that he might just be part of your Red King-like dream.) Of course, this position is pretty orthogonal to normal agnosticism and so it’s not really relevent, but I thought I’d mention it anyway to cover my bases.
Huh?
Depends on which god you’re talking about - or even which version of which god you’re talking about. Not all gods are created equal, and not all conceptions of the Judaeo-Christian God are either. (Though the persistent habit of claiming the latter as omnimax does make most conceptions of it definitively impossible.)
Do try to remember we’re not talking about just the christian God - if you ignore the nonundisprovable* ones, then you’ll put to lie my claim that there aren’t any Hatheists, and we wouldn’t want to make me look silly, now would we?
Yikes! Depends on your definition of “strong atheism”, I suppose. The definition I’ve been using for “Hatheists” (Hard Atheists) has explicitly included certainty, and I thought that was a common understanding of the difference in meaning between soft/weak atheism and strong/hard atheism.
As you appear to be using the terms differently from me, what do you think the difference is between weak and strong atheists? And what do you call the theoretical guys who think they’ve proven (all?) the things don’t exist?
Hell, certainty isn’t even a requirement for certainty. Just because I’m certain now doesn’t mean I’ll never under any circumstance change my mind, even if new evidence comes to light. That’s way beyond being certain, that’s just stupid.
Ok, if we use this version of impossible that you posted above, then we get the ollowing:
Agnostic thinks it’s impossible to prove existence of god, not just due to evidence today, but that due to the nature of god the evidence will not appear in the future either.
Any person not actively believing in at least 1 god is an athiest (soft/weak)
This seems consistent.
My problem was that originally you said that the Sathiest is also a Pagnostic, and given that the Pagnostic thinks it’s impossible to prove then you have just implied that the Sathiest also thinks it’s impossible to prove.
Note: I know this hinges on the use of the word impossible, but you have used it in this quoted post in the way I assumed you meant it. To me, impossible means exactly that, not possible, period, ever, waste of time to even try. Which is not the same as a situation in which it’s possible, but extremely difficult. If god created our universe and walked away, and in 1,000 years we came to that conclusion based on the physical evidence relating to the big-bang etc. etc., then it’s possible, but clearly difficult.
Back to my point: Because you said Sathiests are Pagnostics, then items 1 and 2 above get merged into 1 item, which ignores the people that hold a belief that it is possible that the existence will be proved (which is really “it is possible that it is possible”). Those people are now no longer Pagnostics and are no longer Sathiests because you said Sathiests are Pagnostics.
If, on the other hand you said “Pagnostics are Pagnostics and you, sir, who believes it is possible that it is possible to prove, are an Sathiest due to the fact that you do not actively believe currently”, then I wouldn’t see a hole in that previous post.
You are simultaneously an Ablackcomputerist and an Anon-blackcomputerist (it would be hard to argue otherwise, in both cases you can’t commit to the opposite due to lack of information and thus you are placed in the “A” set with respect to both attributes).
It should be pretty obvious that what is going on here is that belief about (or our response/conclusion to) a question like this, given the information at hand, is not a binary proposition.
You can arbitrarily force the “unknown” position into 1 of 2 sets, and that may be a reasonable thing to do for certain purposes. With respect to athiesm, it would seem odd to say “I’m a theist” because it’s not the case that you believe gods don’t exist, but there is also a loss of information if the “unknown” position is lumped in with the actively do not believe in god.
First, you can’t merge 1 and 2 for the simple reason that while I said all Satheists are Pagnostics, I didn’t say all Pagnostics are Satheists. They could also have been Stheists.
And you are getting way hung up on the term “impossible”. Remember how a few posts ago you said you saw my point in that the term “impossible” is merely being applied to the evidence that exists at this moment? That point still applies. Pagnosticism could alternatively be described as Eagnosticism, if that gets you around your little hangup with the term “impossible”. Remember, NOBODY thinks that it’s impossible for a god that exists to provide evidence for itself tomorrow. Pagnosticism is about what you can prove NOW.
But I will say that if you really do think that you can readily and easily discover definitively whether God exists and you just haven’t bothered because you’re a Lazyassnostic, that doesn’t disqualify you from being a Satheist. So despite the fact that you’re perniciously refusing to use the term Pagnostic correctly, you have caught me in an error. I was wrong when I said “All Satheists who aren’t Hatheists are also Pagnostics, by definition.”; I should have said, “All Satheists who aren’t Hatheists but instead think there’s not sufficient evidence to support belief in any god are Pagnostics, by definition”. I am covered with shame by this error; my only defense being that I don’t really believe in Lazyassnostic atheists* who actually think that a person could prove there was a god if they tried. Yeah, yeah, there are the self-identified apatheists, but I have a hard time thinking that they think it could be definitively proven if they got off their asses for a few minutes. (I think they just don’t worry about it.)
So yes. You have caught me in an error. I think this means you have won the internets, right?
I do believe in Lazyassnostic theists, though - though I don’t think they think they’re lazy; I think they think they just haven’t prayed enough or been lucky enough to have God reach down and born them again or reveal the truth to them or whatever. Faith the the fuel of the ‘Lazyassnostic’ theist. When faith fails, though, they lose their Lazyassnosicism as the necessary turning point to becoming an atheist.)
It’s not the “unknown” position, though; most atheists don’t know there’s no god, so that’s as bad a word choice as ‘impossible’.
The correct term with regard to your computer color is the funky-computercolor-term for Lazyassnostic. (Lazyassnosticomputercoloric?) I think I could find out your computer color, but I just don’t care. I am weakly atheist to all color options. (But nonetheless atheistic - I certainly don’t have a positive belief in your computer having any given color.)
And I’d like to reiterate that, while I don’t have any real reason to disbelieve you when you say your computer is some color, I do have good reason to doubt any god you might propose, on account of the fact that to earn the title ‘god’ you pretty much have to be physically impossible or at least scientifically unprecedented to a severe degree. So as fun as it is to try to compare my ambiguous apathy about your computer color with my calm very-near-certainty that gods are the stuff of myth and fiction, it’s actually a very poor analogy. I’ve only been playing along this long because it lets me invent dumb-sounding twenty-five letter words.
Yes I remember that point (as I acknowledged in my previous post), but then you responded with a description of using the word “impossible” that went beyond your first definition, so it became unclear which definition you really wanted to use.
It’s not a “little” hang up, it’s a significant difference in meaning.
That is a huge assumption. It may be correct, it may be incorrect, who knows, people think all kinds of things.
Ok. I assume by “can” you mean the evidence is already plainly in front of us, it does not require any more scientific effort to acquire.
I’m not “perniciously refusing”, I am merely unfamiliar with the accepted definition if that is what you presented.
There is a big difference between “can’t currently prove due to lack of data, but further investigation may turn up critical evidence” and “impossible to ever prove no matter how hard you try”.
I’m not sure where this is coming from. We have a difference in either definitions or assumptions and it takes some going back and forth to understand where those differences are.
Un-belief? Null?
But whether you care to find out or not is irrelevant when determining your current belief.
I agree that you don’t have a positive belief about the computer having any given color, but you also shouldn’t have any negative belief.
I don’t think you can escape the fact that there are some things that a human does not have a belief about either way, or that their belief leaves open the possibility of many different answers.
And this is exactly the space where I spend my time thinking about this problem. What kind of a god could be provable, still be considered a god yet be so difficult to prove that it has not happened yet.
It seems like a god that created the universe and then walked away might fit the bill. Physical evidence/traces may exist (maybe scientists would say they must exist if there was a creator), but we simply don’t have the understanding yet to be able to prove it.
Some have previously mentioned that this type of god is not the type that theists normally think of, and that this type of god could not be a source for morals. That all may be true, but I’m not really interested in those items.
The computer question wasn’t supposed to be an analogy.
It was supposed to show you in a more neutral way that human belief is more complex and fuzzy than you were allowing for. It is not the same as mathematical set operations.
Weak atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god. I suppose we can create a term for the claim of knowledge or certainty that there is no god, but in 35 years of this stuff I’ve run across maybe one or two people who fit this definition. Perhaps the confusion lies in the difference between being certain that God does not exist (for some instances of the Western God) and that no god exists.
The reason I even care about this is that in venues not as enlightened as ours, I’ve seen many a theist demand that atheists prove that there is no god, and assume that the claim of this knowledge is the atheist position. The discussion usually went into burden of proof territory, but I realized after a while what the difference actually was.
As for what you went huh about, I believe it came from one of the soul discussions, where someone said that we can’t know for sure a soul doesn’t survive death without knowing the details of the internal workings of the brain.
I accept Voyager’s (and others) definitions, but I note that they are not universal. Over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they define atheism as “the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God”, which is equivalent to hard/strong atheism in our nominaclature. (I was surprised by SEP’s position). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (CDP) concurs: they define atheism as, “the view that there are no gods”. But at least they go on to say that, “A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.” The author of that piece is Louis P Pojman of the University of Mississippi.
But definitions should be chosen for the sake of clarity, and there’s no reason why we can’t adopt the technical ones used here. It’s my understanding that Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the founder of American Atheists, was a hard atheist.
My underlying point is that characterizing an agnostic as a “Fence-sitter” is basically just name-calling - not that I have a problem with that! For reference, I provided a possible counter-accusation. On the substance, it appears that you are taking a strong atheistic position. In my experience at this board, most apparent hard atheists generally reveal themselves as soft atheists after some prodding.
I had missed that. One can say:
I lack a belief in G (soft atheism)
or
I believe that G does not exist (hard atheism), but I could change my mind given better evidence.
Still if one wishes to argue for hard atheism, then one has to provide evidence for the negative. As someone showed in another thread, proving a negative isn’t always impossible, IIRC.
My argument still stands as an expression of playground name-calling though.
I’m not sure what is or is not a hijack in this thread, but…
That’s not the way I define Empirical Agnosticism. Huxley-agnosticism takes the position that “…metaphysical ideas can be neither proved nor disproved” (Source: CDP, except I provided the label). Empirical agnostics say that the issue of God is potentially resolvable to their satisfaction, but not with current knowledge. In my view, the Lord is mysterious but one minimally necessary condition He possesses is consciousness, or perhaps something that encompasses that. But until I have a working model as to the determinants of consciousness, I am uncomfortable with ruling out something like pantheism, Judeo-Christian Pantheism or even more exotic models.
Is this the proper thread for an Empirical Agnostic/Atheist smackdown? Or does Mr. Kobayashi have something else in mind?
Not at all, go right ahead.
The discussion has gone along lines of definition, which speaks to the idea that the distinctions are pretty minor and common ground can be found…depending on the person. Although there’s still the matter of ‘classic’ atheist versus agnostic; belief that no God exists versus belief that it’s impossible to know whether a God exists. These are pretty mutually exclusive; if you’re claiming that no God exists you aren’t claiming it’s impossible. Likewise, claiming it is impossible to know one way or another obviously precludes any conclusions about the non-existence of God.
As Voyager has pointed out, classic atheists are not especially common and I’ll opine that most who call themselves agnostics are simply saying that they don’t know whether God exists or not. We might be able to dig up some hard atheists in this thread (Dibble?), but are there any classic agnostics?
Sure, if you wish your belief to be seen as a belief with some justification. It is a tricky proposition, as it almost always includes a working definition of gods which at least some theists will dispute as not being theirs. The argument often boils down to induction on pitiful defenses of gods which turn out to either be false (fundamentalist type gods) or useless (deistic gods, or the universe as god.) So the argument against isn’t all that satisfactory for these reasons.
As for philosophical definitions, I’ve read some philosophy by fairly well know people where the discussion of atheism is just awful - especially when the philosophers were strong theists. Remember when it was discovered that Roget’s had some awful descriptors of words meaning “gay?” Since everyone has a position on this issue, I’d not be surprised if some unintentional bias crept in.
I saw that sleight of hand - moving from belief that no God exists" to “claiming that no God exists”. To use the common alien analogy, I can believe that some aliens exist without claiming the same. Or the reverse to be closer to the atheism case - I can believe that there are no aliens in our galaxy, but I’d be foolish to claim this. Belief versus knowledge - they are different.
Good news everyone: I’ve just converted to pantheism, as of a couple of minutes ago. I came across this definition at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
That about covers all the bases doesn’t it? So I am NOT a soft atheist, insofar as I believe in either everything or a self-expression of His nature. And speaking of sleights of hand, I remain an agnostic, at least insofar I can’t say which of those 2 descriptions best describes Him.
I’m talking about every deity I’ve ever heard a theist make a claim for. Of course I can’t disprove an unpostulated God. But it’s not *my *burden to postulate a God to knock down.
Name one nonundisprovable one, and we’ll see who’s silly.
