On Atheism and Agnosticism

[Measure_for_Measure]

Tangential Issues

Apos says: Flow, (X exists) is not the same claim as (X does not exist). That’s why, on the first order of definition, I don’t use (X does not exist) as a distinguishing feature. Why? Because it is the positive claim that’s important here: the definition of theist came before the definition of atheist (since “atheist” is simply the outgroup created by theists). That someone believes that there are no gods is not directly relevant to the question of whether they believe IN god or not: it is, rather, one possible detail of the “no” answer.

Slippery. Atheists are not simply the outgroup created by theists, otherwise Deists would be a sub-category of atheist. That aside…

Help me out. Do you consider strong atheism to be a sub-category of weak atheism? Or do weak atheists refuse to affirm the truth-value that X does not exist, thereby distinguishing them from Strong Atheists? If the latter, then we could either make agnosticism and weak atheism interchangeable, or we could adopt your framework and attach the word agnostic to matters of knowledge. If the former, then your system is in need of a term: perhaps I could suggest, “Agnostic agnostics”.

The remaining difficulty, of course, is that many consider the belief of cognitivists to be a function of their knowledge, a point which Eris discusses.

To summarize, how does Apos define those who

1. ~(Affirm truth-value that X exists) (Not theists)
   AND
2. ~(Affirm truth-value that X does not exist) (Not strong atheists)
   ?
   Even more tangential
   ----- Nonsense: 2c and 2d aren’t characteristics of any agnostics I’ve ever met. Indeed, they seem to violate your own previous position! What’s going on here?

Not enough caffeine, maybe. Frankly, I’m not clear on whether they make sense. Let me clarify. If you withhold judgement on a question (which is what I take to be a defining characteristic of empirical agnosticism), it seems to me that you both not only not affirm the truth-value of certain statements, you deny that the truth-value of certain statements can be established, given existing information. (It is possible, OTOH, to believe any manner of things, depending upon your disposition). That is, knowledge of something has 3 components:

1. You must believe X.
2. X must be true.
3. You must have adequate evidence of X.
   (What “adequate” entails requires book-length discussion.)

The point: Empirical agnostics who withhold judgement withhold suspend both belief in X and deny that they have sufficient evidence to form a sound judgement. Which is to say the (yes), I’m beginning to think my second formulation is consistent with your 2x2 matrix.

Apos:*No. I define atheism by using a negative definition. Some people (like flowbark) don’t. They aren’t “wrong” for not doing so. There is no “requirement” for what “atheism” should be defined as: we are discussing what we think is the best definition (using a pretty loose set of subjective estimations as to what makes a good definition). *

I am relieved to have it confirmed that we are on the same page on that issue (though I must note that my proposed definitions have been all over the board).

*My definitional scheme isn’t about opposites, it’s about being exhaustive in regards to the truth of the god claim. *

Yeah, and my concern is that it doesn’t allow for “Withholding judgement”. To review:
If Weak Atheists a) Do not affirm the truth-value of X-exists
and
b) Do not affirm the truth-value of (X does not exist),
then your framework does allow for withholding judgement and weak atheists seem to part company with strong atheists.

Nighttime, Eris: Frankly, I agree with you that belief is a continuous concept (and probably one that varies qualitatively, depending upon context). But it seems to me that “affirm/do not affirm” is binary. (At the same time, I suspect that one’s affirmations may vary more than their beliefs. For example, theists who find their faith tested may at times shy away from affirming that God exists, though on only rarer occasions would they stumble into the strong atheist POV.)

Apos: -----Babies are atheists, under my definition, for the very reason that they don’t have any beliefs at all (including god beliefs).

According to T.M Drange (Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998)), "It would be more natural to call infants and fetuses “nontheists” than to call them “atheists.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
That’s only Drange’s opinion, of course. Personally, though, I find the subject of appropriate definition to be secondary, as long as all parties understand one another (and all positions are intelligible).

(BTW-AFAIK, this is the very first SDMB atheist v. agnostic thread. So what do we freethinkers discuss? Definitions. )

[erislover]

Well, I went through all the trouble of digging up my logic book at home to quote some passages on definitions, marked some relevent passages, then packed the book away (since I am moving). :smack:

It’s not clear what this really means: what’s the opposite of the distinction “car”? An “anti-matter car”?

Well, what’s the opposite of belief? Hypothesize: lack of belief, as you assert. Then you can answer your own question. The opposite of a car is every single space where a car is not found.

Of course, a “car” is not an activity like “believing” is. I find no easy opposite for “believe” like I find no easy opposite for “run”. It is not clear what “not running” is supposed to indicate in an exclusive or operation.

[erislover]

No. I define atheism by using a negative definition. Some people (like flowbark) don’t. They aren’t “wrong” for not doing so. There is no “requirement” for what “atheism” should be defined as: we are discussing what we think is the best definition (using a pretty loose set of subjective estimations as to what makes a good definition).

Well, you are addressing the grander issue. I am taking your terms and discussing that you are incorrect for placing atheism and theism as logical opposites. I am not saying flowbark is wrong at all. He has qualified all his responses. I’m still debating internally whether or not I agree with them. But I do not feel that theists and atheists are opposites wrt belief. And so no binary question will separate the two adequately.

[erislover]

Gah! In my first response, it should be

It is not clear what “lack of running” is supposed to indicate in an exclusive or operation.

Apologies for lack of clarity.