Well, those are handy arbitrary numbers which I won’t quibble with, but my point is that by admitting a possibility (however small) that they are wrong, both the atheist and theist are admitting that they don’t know for sure, and are therefore agnostic as well.
In the literal definition of agnostic, yes. Not in the way most people use the term though.
Even though I see that science has formed a nice self-consistent theory about the origins of the universe, and even though, scientifically speaking, I accept it, for some reason, it does not satisfy me.
I don’t know why but “The universe has always existed” and “The universe is everywhere” seem very similar to “God has always existed” and “God is everywhere”. These statements are:
a) Hard to comprehend with our ape brains
b) A nice way to stop further questions of the sort “who created God?” and “who created the universe?”
In other words, I don’t see much that science has to offer me over what religion has to offer me about the fundamental questions, and as a kid I rejected religion because it asked us to accept such statements.
“X has always existed”
“X is everywhere”
Insert your own X here.
Anyway, I tried to ask the “where” question in this thread a while ago, and I got some good answers, but I’m still seeking.
There’s a huge difference between the two!
Do you believe that magnetic monopoles exist? Some would say “Yes!” Some would say “Heck, no!” Still others would say “I don’t know.” The people in this third category do not believe in magnetic monopoles, but that does not mean that they disbelieve in their existence.
Similarly, there are a great many individuals who do not believe in God, but who do not specifically believe in his non-existence either. They are simply undecided on that matter. These individuals have an absence of belief, but not a belief in his absence.
I’d suggest that the whole point is that these questions arise only because our common sense is only common to these senses, which evolved on a 3-D sphere where every place does have a “next to” and every time does have a “before”.
“Always” and “everywhere” are time and space words. Enstein demonstrated that the universe is made of spacetime. How can there be a before or next to spacetime?
I ascribe a probability of less than 50%. So, ultimately, I both believe no monopoles exist and do not hold a belief in monopoles. I don’t know anything for sure, when all is said and done.
Well, OK, do you have an absence of a belief in, say, ghosts, or do you believe in their absence? Like my Premiership beliefs or lack thereof, I consider the two positions to be equivalent.
Wrongo. Try Occam’s razor. The supernatural adds an unnecessary and untestable element to our understanding of the unvierse. Therefore, it’s not necessary to believe in it. That’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of rationality.
You can consider them to be equivalent, but logically speaking, they are not.
Sorry, I’m a bit late to this fight, …erm…, discussion. (That’s what I get for playing WoW instead of reading the boards!)
I have not seen that since high schoiol time. Granted, I don’t know what part of the country you live in, but I don’t know any people who fear calling themselves atheists.
I was hoping to give a link to the term “militant agnostic.” I thought it came from JREF as something like “I’m not sure that there is a god, but I am sure that it isn’t the one you claim.”
Well, not quite the same (as JREF), but here is one site’s definition. (Note: I’m not trying to get you to buy anything, I just can’t find any good non-merchandise links.)
I actually tend to describe myself as an “atheist” when I need a short answer. But, when I have time to explain, I prefer the term “militant agnostic.”
When it comes to the definition of “agnostic”, I will turn to one much more eloquent than I.
(This speech/essay does not differentiate the agnostic stance versus the atheisitic one, however, based on the line about all knowledge, I think that CD would group Atheists with Theists.)
To answer the OP (finally), yes, I think the difference is real. And, as you can see from the posts in this thread, it matters to people. Generally, I define the terms as:
Atheist - one who denies or disbelieves in any God.
Theist - one who believes in a God.
Agnostic -
----------1.) One who believes that the question of God is insoluable, or
----------2.) One who is unsure of which definition above he fits into.
In my experience, there is very little difference between Agnostics of the first definition and Atheists. They may quibble over sematics (“you must believe in order to say ‘no gods.’” “look, dude, it ain’t belief, it’s sound reasoning and Occam’s Razor.”), but, if you could get them to ignore the semantic difference, I think that there would be no real difference in the philosophies.
-Geek
How do you figure you can be a theist and an agnostic? Theists believe and agnostics say it’s unknowable. Why would you believe if you didn’t think you knew?
You can simply recognize your faith (or lack thereof) as a guess or a suspicion rather than as certain knowledge.
No, all I have to do is reject any particular definition of God. Any definition of God that I have been made aware of has failed the test of convincing me. I will ask you again. What is your definition of God?
I would ask you to show me this force. I would ask you if this force existes today, and if not, where it went. And I might comment that you are using the terms ‘force’ and ‘God’ so broadly as to render them useless for meaningful discussion.
Until everyone agrees on a definition, the term is basically useless, isn’t it? Kinda like Christianity.
I’d hardly call that faith. I’d call it a suspicion or a guess, but certainly not faith. At one point I felt that the existence of god was unknowable. I don’t feel that way anymore. I’m not saying proof wouldn’t change my mind…I’m just saying at this point, with the evidence I’ve been shown, I don’t believe there’s a god.
No. As already mentionned, many (most) people who say they’re agnostic atually just mean they don’t know whether or not god exist, not that they can’t know.
Quite often, “agnostic” just means “undecided”.
The linked article is a total mess. For one thing, he only discusses the Western God. One who disbelieves in this god, but believes in another, is not an atheist - unless you want to classify all ancient Romans as such. For another, it does not seem to give a word to define a lack of belief in god as opposed to a belief that there is no god or a claim to knowledge that there is no god. This is actually fairly common, since the next step is:
You can’t prove that there is no god
Thus, atheism is an irrational belief.
The attempt to force atheists to accept a definition created by theists which directly leads to a charge of irrationality is what is insulting.
There are other problems with the article, not the least of which it does not even attempt to define agnosticism, but only disputes Huxley. Notice it does correctly state that some people call themselves agnostic to be polite (or are chicken as Der Trihs would have it). A proof of the non-existence of God through the omnibenevolence argument is fine, but not all gods have that quality, so it at most allows one to deny a subset of gods.
Here is a definition from atheists.
Here is one from atheist writer George H. Smith.
Some indeed say that nontheism should be used, however this word has not caught on in the general atheist community. I don’t mind it myself, but fail to see why we should abandon a perfectly good word.
The deriviation of the term as coming from godless doesn’t fit any more. A person can be godless though believing that god does exist. I am catless though I believe cats exist. Godlessness does not express the crucial meaning of atheism today, which is a statement of belief (for hard atheists) and lack of belief (for soft atheists.)
Perhaps the disbelief argument comes from thinking the only possible god is the one from Western civilization. I would suspect that a larger number of atheists deny the existence of this god than deny the existence of any god. How can I deny the existence of the god of a remote Pacific island of whom I have never heard? I can certainly lack belief in this god. How about one of an alien (space alien) culture?
Finally, though in general it might be unacceptable to allow the proponents of a term to define it, atheism is a special case, since hardly anyone is neutral. In many years of reading alt.atheism I hardly ran across anyone who adhered to your definition of atheism. I’m not sure I’ve seen one doper who does - I can do a poll in IMHO if you’d like.
I’m reminded of the furor a while back about the terms used to describe homosexuality in Roget’s Thesaurus. I think it is time for a logically supportable definition.
I’m for this in part because I don’t buy agnosticism. Though I agree it is impossible to disprove the existence of all gods, I think a god could be demonstrated to exist to any level of certainty one wishes. I can think of several events that would convince me. Some atheists do say they’d still not believe if God wrote their name in the stars, but I’m not one of them.
That is why the term is such a convenient haven for atheists who do not want to get into fights. An atheist must explain why he does not believe in a god - so to be logical, an atheist must have arguments against the evidence for gods, be it the Bible, the first cause argument, the fine tuning argument, or what have you.
Some one who claims to be undecided can just say that all these are very interesting, but they haven’t concluded things one way or another yet, and as such are less of a threat. Most theists are not in the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” camp, and so aren’t as hostile as they are to atheists.
So, you have lack of faith. That’s reasonable. But don’t you think that at least some theists may have faith in a god even if they don’t claim direct knowledge? Maybe even if they are as suspicious of the Bible as I am? I’d think a deist would be agnostic by definition, since knowledge of the deity is impossible, but they certainly can still have faith in its existence. Agnosticism and theism, in the definition of agnosticism having to do with knowledge, are certainly compatible.
I’d rather think that a theist would have more reason to claim that knowledge of god is impossible, since that is a good reason why we don’t have this knowledge. By thinking that knowledge is possible, through a physical interaction of god and the world, I can offer the lack of such interaction as partial justification for my lack of belief. Absence of evidence of Godot might indeed be evidence of his absence.
This invoking of Occam’s Razor is bound to come up in these threads, often to little use. Willaim of Ockham’s method was reductionist: he proposed reducing things to the fewest elements needed, but not fewer than that. So by invoking the Razor you just devolve in into a circular argument of whether or not the “extra-natural” exists and is necessary. It adds nothing to these debates.