On Atheism and Agnosticism

Great Debates
81

The word “belief” is a slippery little thing loaded with assumptions. If a theist asks me if I believe in God, the question of God’s existence and the worship of said deity are both imbedded in the definition. If I say “yes” to this question, the theist assumes that I both believe in and worship God. The proof of this is how odd an answer of “Yes, but I don’t worship him” is.

Isolating our discussion to the question of God’s existence will clairify things a bit.

On one hand:

If we agree that the prospect of God’s existence is something that can be based on evidence, then, like all evidential beliefs, it is up to the person making the claim to come up with said evidence. (Say it with me now) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If an agnostic is on the fence simply because of the balance of evidence, then it can be assumed that the agnostic position is a temporary state prior to some piece of evidence coming to light. Therefore, an agnostic’s answer here (to the question of god’s existence) should properly be “I don’t have enough evidence to warrent belief in God.” Atheist, anyone?

On the other hand:

If we agree that the prospect of God’s existence cannot be proven, even in principle, then belief in God is a matter of faith. Agnostics do not have faith in God; faith is a positive attribute. So, if asked: “Do you believe in God?” Which really means “Do you have faith in God’s existence?” an agnostic should answer “No.” I think this is what Apos is getting at.

82

Are any other atheists vaguely annoyed that we’ve seemingly accepted a label that is, at it’s core, a negative statement? I guess it’s to be expected, though, for such a small minority to have to define itself against the prevailing majority. Seems potentially self-defeating, to me.

It reminds me of a time, when I was a kid, I saw a shirt emblazoned with the statement “New Kids Suck” (in reference to the late-80s pop singing quintet New Kids On The Block). I thought it was stupid, since even though I agreed with the sentiment, I would much rather purchase and wear a shirt supporting something I liked, rather than dumping on something I despise.

83

That’s exactly right.

With respect to faith and belief, they aren’t necessarily the same thing either. At least for me, faith is a metaphysical phenomenon that implies, not just intellectual belief, but trust and reliance.

For me, faith came first, sort of as an out-of-the-blue sudden inspiration. One moment, I saw the world a certain way; the next moment, my whole world-view was profoundly changed: things looked different, falling into place in whole new ways. There was no confusion, no bafflement, no period of adjustment to the new understanding — it was just there.

It was then that what was already an earnest intellectual inquiry began to shape up much differently than when it first began. Over time, I began to believe in God intellectually. It was my faith that contextualized what I learned.

84

—If a theist asks me if I believe in God, the question of God’s existence and the worship of said deity are both imbedded in the definition.—

Indeed: this is often described as the dual reinforcing nature of belief. If you believe that god exists, you trust god, and if you trust god, you are obviously assuming that there is an object of your trust. The two senses of the word reinforce each other.

—If I say “yes” to this question, the theist assumes that I both believe in and worship God. The proof of this is how odd an answer of “Yes, but I don’t worship him” is.—

This isn’t so odd. For instance, I believe in the existence of the pantheist god: it just isn’t my god (it doesn’t fit my criteria for divinity). I believe (provisionally) in the probable existence of Julius Caesar, who was worshipped as a god by some. But Caesar is not my god.

—Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.—

Perhaps in relation to an established body of knowledge: but not necessarily if we are starting from first principles, wherein almost every claim is as extrodinary as any other. :slight_smile: Not that I think that changes things much.

—Genseric: Are any other atheists vaguely annoyed that we’ve seemingly accepted a label that is, at it’s core, a negative statement?—

Not me. The label is really only useful when I, for some reason, need to distinguish the difference between myself and believers. It is never useful or important to me in the normal course of things. It isn’t meant to be a helpful basis on which to hold beliefs, in my opinion. To hold beliefs, you need to find some other avenue, some affirmative reasons.

—I guess it’s to be expected, though, for such a small minority to have to define itself against the prevailing majority.—

Indeed, that’s exactly why it’s sometimes necessary: because it’s such an overwhelming majority, that many people almost consider god belief to be a default belief of everyone (and indeed have all sorts of psychological explanations whenever someone doesn’t).

To describe myself as a non-redhead would normally seem a little silly, even in a majority redhead culture. Almost everyone can not only SEE that I’m not a redhead, but they can see what color my hair actually is. But beliefs cannot be so easily percieved.

—Seems potentially self-defeating, to me.—

It can be, if people take the wrong attitude towards it. It’s not clear what one would necessarily want to defeat instead, however.

—I thought it was stupid [anti-NKOTB shirt], since even though I agreed with the sentiment, I would much rather purchase and wear a shirt supporting something I liked, rather than dumping on something I despise.—

I agree completely (except for the “despise” part of the analougy). Among people who don’t listen to NKOTB, there are of course going to be some that hate them. But imagine the stupidity of forming a group based on not-listening to NKOTB. The members of the group would likely have almost nothing in common (well, perhaps this isn’t such a great example, since teenyboppers would be underepresented) :slight_smile:

In the same vein, I have YET to encounter any affirmative cause in which it made any sense at all to only involve atheists, for instance. Religious freedoms and SOCAS? Who, really, has more of an pressing interest in that than a believer? Reason? There are millions of perfectly logical people and champions of reason who are also theists.

85

I couldn’t agree with that more. Some theists get so incensed that the first amendment is intended to keep religion out of government, that they forget it is also intended to keep government out of religion.

I like the term freethinker since some atheists are not freethinkers and some theists are, but unfortunately many people equate freethinker with atheist and think you are claiming they are not freethinkers. That’s my main problem, so many people take these things personally. Several times I have mentioned that I don’t believe in God, and most people take it as a personal attack on their belief system. (It’s my perception that this mostly has to do with the part of the country I live in.)

86

Description of Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

87

It may seem strange to you, but to me it is not strange at all.

While I understand your statement that if you don’t believe IN god, then you are a non-theist (or atheist) in your terminology. I’ve come to the conclusion that to me, atheist implies a negative belief, not the absence of a belief.

My own little head does not seem to contain a belief on this topic. And believe me, I’ve spent much time attempting to settle on a belief, and still end up without a belief one way or another. This does not make me feel inadequate, nor a failure, but it is why I gravitate to the word agnostic.

Perhaps there should be a better word than agnostic because I tend to agree with you that the agnostic/gnostic labels are well suited to an external rather than internal perspective, but until I hear an alternative I guess I’ll stick with it in spite of it’s apparent limitations.

88

lowero: Perhaps you’re right in calling me on what does seem to be quite a good example of a straw man fallacy, or maybe I just tried to put some words in your mouth in response to your attempt to do exactly the same in the preceding post, although, to be fair, you added a winky.

89

Oops, that was not a deliberate misspelling of your user name; my apologies.

90

—It may seem strange to you, but to me it is not strange at all.—

It doesn’t just “seem” strange to me: I’ve presented countless arguements as to why it is a very strange and awkward collection of terms.

—While I understand your statement that if you don’t believe IN god, then you are a non-theist (or atheist) in your terminology. I’ve come to the conclusion that to me, atheist implies a negative belief, not the absence of a belief.—

Okay, so how about the term non-theist (which means exactly the same thing to me, but perhaps would be easier for you).

I personally think it sad that atheists would have to give up the word “atheist” in the face of successful misrepresentation of non-belief (as an angry rejection of a god one “knows” to be true), especially since whatever term we use instead could just as easily get similarly slandered.

—My own little head does not seem to contain a belief on this topic.—

If that is so, how can you possibly have a belief in god? Would it not be fair to say that you lack a belief in god?

91

@apos

“Belief is a positive action. An affirmative step”

an atheist BELIEVES that there is NO GOD. atheism is a negative belief.

both atheists and agnostics DO NOT BELIEVE in God. but the agnostic doesn’t have to BELIEVE THE NEGATIVE though.

the word agnostic as we currently use it originated with Thomas Huxley but it is similar to a greek word meaning belief that it is impossible to know. i am not sure that is what Huxley meant. i have read the entry in britannica on agnosticism and they give two meanings but it is still unclear to me Huxley’s position.

i decided i was an agnostic in 7th grade and simply meant “I DON’T KNOW” i went to a catholic high school because public schools were crumby in my neighborhood and had to put with religion. some people get pushy about it. that’s when i developed apatheism. straight D’s in religion.

i have had two christians on the street ask me if i thought i was going to heaven if i died right then. i told one i didn’t believe in heaven and he just stood there with his mouth hanging open. plenty of christians are too dumb to want to spend eternity with.

dictionaries state that believe means to accept something as true without absolute proof. the 1st problem with this definition is the absolute. what is the difference between a proof and an absolute proof? it implies that there are degrees of proof. there are degrees of probability, a proof is absolute so there is no need to say so. 2nd, in reality it is difficult to impossible to have proof we are stuck judging probabilities. so belief is illogical even to its definition.

Dal Timgar

92

Millions and millions…?

Hey, I thought only 144,000 will be saved (12 x 12 x 1000). Or at least that’s what is carved on the back of my head.

Can all those Jehovah’s Witnesses be wrong?

93

—an atheist BELIEVES that there is NO GOD. atheism is a negative belief.—

This is, apparently YOUR definition of atheist. However, this does not square with what many atheists have to say about themselves. Nor does it square with the inconsistent way anyone USES the term, however they may claim to define it.

—both atheists and agnostics DO NOT BELIEVE in God. but the agnostic doesn’t have to BELIEVE THE NEGATIVE though.—

Agnosticism isn’t about belief. It’s about knowledge. That’s what “gnosis” is, and it’s what Huxley was talking about when he coined the term: that he couldn’t support any claim of “gnosis” about god. Hence angostic: one who is without knowledge. Of course, Huxley went father than that: instead of just talking about his own knowledge, he actually believed that it wasn’t possible to have empirical knowledge of god (because of what he considered the nature of god).

—i decided i was an agnostic in 7th grade and simply meant “I DON’T KNOW”—

That is indeed what has become the most common meaning of the word, and it is the definition I certainly use most commonly (in part because I can’t make sense of the strong agnostic position: how can one know anything, including the knowability, of something they claim they don’t know anything about?)

—i told one [christian] i didn’t believe in heaven—

But does that mean that you believe THAT there is no heaven?

The reason I think that the distinction is important (and should get drawn at the point I advocate) is that when people want to discuss something, they usually want to know if they can take certain things for granted.

For instance, if Christians want to discuss whether or not your soul is going to heaven, then this discussion requires the common premise that heaven exists. If you can’t take that premise for granted, then it doesn’t matter so much whether or not you don’t believe, or believe not. The important point is that you don’t believe the premise: you aren’t convinced of it (whether because of lack of evidence or because you are convinced that there is no heaven).
So, to have a meaningful and productive discussion, you and the Christians are going to have to start further back: with more fundamental premises that you can both agree to.

—plenty of christians are too dumb to want to spend eternity with.—

Heck, plenty of non-christians are too dumb to want to spend earhtly time with. Of course, I don’t even quite believe that: people can think and say dumb things, but that’s hardly a reason to conclude that they are dumb, end of story.

94

Apos: I am heartened that you agreed with my first point, that definitions do not contain intrinsic importance and should be judged by their usefulness (within a particular argument) or their usage (if you don’t want to explicitly define your terms). Our agreement here should make things simpler.

Central Point:
There are a number of possible positions regarding belief in (say) an IPU.

  1. One can believe in that the IPU exists.

  2. One can disbelieve in the IPU; this person believes the IPU does not exist.
    a) Strongly (Hard)
    b) Based on the preponderance of evidence (soft).

  3. One can have absence of belief that the IPU exists. (~1)

  4. One can have absence of disbelief that the IPU exists (~2).

2 --> 3 ; 2 is a subset of 3.

By your definitions 2 & 3 are atheists. For the purpose of this discussion, that’s ok: it would appear that I am an “Apos-atheist”. (“Not a theist” might be clearer though, IMHO.)

I would assert, however, that somebody who says they don’t believe in IPU implies #2 in practice.

That is, while it is strictly true to say I don’t believe in G-d, it is more precise to say that I withhold judgement regarding the existence of G-d.

No. I was trying to make a statement about my beliefs regarding Alpha Centuri. I did not ask whether Alpha Centuri had a certain characteristic. I asked whether I believed that Alpha Centuri had a certain characteristic.

Now, following the excruciating taxonomy above, I could say that I have absence of belief regarding Alpha’s temperature. That is,

I have no idea whether the above temperature is between 5000-10000 degrees. (True).

I do not believe that the above temperature is between 5000-10000 degrees. (Also strictly true, but I assert that this statement implies that I think the temperature falls outside that range. To eliminate this ambiguity, I prefer to state that I am agnostic on this question. That is a clearer, less misleading, characterization of my belief.)

I was presumptuous. You appear to be an “Apos atheist”. Whether you are a flowbark-agnostic, a flowbark-soft atheist or even a flowbark-hard atheist is unclear to me. Perhaps you want to say, “Well, I’m not a hard atheist, but I’m not a theist either.”*

I maintain, however, that my taxonomy is less misleading, more precise (though more elaborate) than yours. I also maintain that it is more consistent with popular usage.

Then what do you do with [Apos]-agnostic theists?

Interesting question. If I understand you correctly, an Apos-agnostic theist, believes in G-d, but also believes that certain knowledge of the Supreme Deity’s existence is impossible.

Well, one variant of the above I would call a “soft Theist”. That is, such a person believes that G-d probably exists.

But what about the person who has strong faith in the Creator, has very little doubt regarding His existence AND believes that certain knowledge is impossible? My answer: I don’t understand this position completely.

What if the person has little doubt but doesn’t believe that externally demonstrable knowledge is achievable? I’d call that person a mainstream theist, frankly.

I don’t want my original point lost though. I withhold judgement regarding the existence of G-d because I lack an understanding of consciousness. I suspect that if I lived 100-200 years from now, I could resolve this matter to my satisfaction.

*How can “I don’t know” be a statement ABOUT one’s beliefs? *
I’ll come back to this later, if necessary.
*Apropos nothing, here is a 5-fold negation:
I do not take it thus.
I do not take it otherwise.
I advance no counter-hypothesis.
I do not disagree with your point of view.
I do not confirm these negations.

95

—By your definitions 2 & 3 are atheists. For the purpose of this discussion, that’s ok: it would appear that I am an “Apos-atheist”. (“Not a theist” might be clearer though, IMHO.) —

Well, it isn’t just me that defines the terms that way: most atheists do too. At the very least, you’ve got to grant us the use of a technical definition.

Indeed, as I pointed out the major reason why “atheist” has the connotation of “belief not” is largely because of, in the Christian world, centuries of slander and scapegoating beggining with the apostle Paul and then most forcefully developed by the theologian Maritan. Notably, “atheist” in eastern countries never developed this connotation.

And, as I noted, “non-theist” is a perfectly acceptable replacement for “atheist.”

—I would assert, however, that somebody who says they don’t believe in IPU implies #2 in practice. —

No, and actually, this particular point is not just about definition: you really should NOT go around pretending that not believe implies believe not. Nothing could be more confusing than that, not to mention that it’s simply not a valid inference. This is a very important point, because far too many people DO make this assumption, and it is a VERY effective device for equivocation in debates about truth and beliefs.

—That is, while it is strictly true to say I don’t believe in G-d, it is more precise to say that I withhold judgement regarding the existence of G-d. —

They are both true: one is a statement about your beliefs, the other, perhaps, is a statement about why you don’t have those beliefs.

—No. I was trying to make a statement about my beliefs regarding Alpha Centuri. I did not ask whether Alpha Centuri had a certain characteristic. I asked whether I believed that Alpha Centuri had a certain characteristic.—

That’s exactly what I criticized: you asked yourself a question about your beliefs: and then answered it with an answer about your knowledge.

—I maintain, however, that my taxonomy is less misleading, more precise (though more elaborate) than yours. I also maintain that it is more consistent with popular usage.—

Despite the fact that it is a confusing jumble of terms based on different distinctions, assesing things on different levels of classification (instead of the same level) that can’t even classify the majority of non-theists?

“Popular usage” sort of depends on who you ask. Should we ask atheists what they mean when they call themselves that (they know better than anyone else what they mean by their own classification)? Should we ask theists, many of whom have a stereotype of what atheists are like? Should we consult dictionaries, some of which simply, probably out of laziness, repeat this ancient stereotype (in addition to preserving all sorts of other oddities of poison definition concerning religious matters)? There is no clear popular usage.

—Interesting question. If I understand you correctly, an Apos-agnostic theist, believes in G-d, but also believes that certain knowledge of the Supreme Deity’s existence is impossible.—

No: there is no waffling to be had on this point. There are people who fit the conventional (and uncontroversial) definition of agnostic, and are also theists. These people are very common, and cover both types of agnosticism (don’t know vs. can’t know).

—Well, one variant of the above I would call a “soft Theist”. That is, such a person believes that G-d probably exists.—

No. There is no “probably” about it in most cases. They have faith, unwavering, in god. They just don’t claim to have knowledge of god, or even claim that no such knowledge is possible (their god cannot be found via the intellect, but has to be accessed via the spirit)

—But what about the person who has strong faith in the Creator, has very little doubt regarding His existence AND believes that certain knowledge is impossible? My answer: I don’t understand this position completely.—

I’d familiarize yourself with some modern Christian theology, as well as just asking people. You might start out by reading some Dewey.

—I don’t want my original point lost though. I withhold judgement regarding the existence of G-d because I lack an understanding of consciousness. I suspect that if I lived 100-200 years from now, I could resolve this matter to my satisfaction.—

In other words: you think that the inexplicability of consciousness is one major avenue by which you could be convinced to become a believer, and cease being a non-theist? :slight_smile:

96

—By your definitions 2 & 3 are atheists. For the purpose of this discussion, that’s ok: it would appear that I am an “Apos-atheist”. (“Not a theist” might be clearer though, IMHO.) —

Well, it isn’t just me that defines the terms that way: most atheists do too. At the very least, you’ve got to grant us the use of a technical definition.

Indeed, as I pointed out the major reason why “atheist” has the connotation of “belief not” is largely because of, in the Christian world, centuries of slander and scapegoating beggining with the apostle Paul and then most forcefully developed by the theologian Maritan. Notably, “atheist” in eastern countries never developed this connotation.

And, as I noted, “non-theist” is a perfectly acceptable replacement for “atheist.”

—I would assert, however, that somebody who says they don’t believe in IPU implies #2 in practice. —

No, and actually, this particular point is not just about definition: you really should NOT go around pretending that not believe implies believe not. Nothing could be more confusing than that, not to mention that it’s simply not a valid inference. This is a very important point, because far too many people DO make this assumption, and it is a VERY effective device for equivocation in debates about truth and beliefs.

—That is, while it is strictly true to say I don’t believe in G-d, it is more precise to say that I withhold judgement regarding the existence of G-d. —

They are both true: one is a statement about your beliefs, the other, perhaps, is a statement about why you don’t have those beliefs.

—No. I was trying to make a statement about my beliefs regarding Alpha Centuri. I did not ask whether Alpha Centuri had a certain characteristic. I asked whether I believed that Alpha Centuri had a certain characteristic.—

That’s exactly what I criticized: you asked yourself a question about your beliefs: and then answered it with an answer about your knowledge.

—I maintain, however, that my taxonomy is less misleading, more precise (though more elaborate) than yours. I also maintain that it is more consistent with popular usage.—

Despite the fact that it is a confusing jumble of terms based on different distinctions, assesing things on different levels of classification (instead of the same level) that can’t even classify the majority of non-theists?

“Popular usage” sort of depends on who you ask. Should we ask atheists what they mean when they call themselves that (they know better than anyone else what they mean by their own classification)? Should we ask theists, many of whom have a stereotype of what atheists are like? Should we consult dictionaries, some of which simply, probably out of laziness, repeat this ancient stereotype (in addition to preserving all sorts of other oddities of poison definition concerning religious matters)? There is no clear popular usage.

—Interesting question. If I understand you correctly, an Apos-agnostic theist, believes in G-d, but also believes that certain knowledge of the Supreme Deity’s existence is impossible.—

No: there is no waffling to be had on this point. There are people who fit the conventional (and uncontroversial) definition of agnostic, and are also theists. These people are very common, and cover both types of agnosticism (don’t know vs. can’t know).

—Well, one variant of the above I would call a “soft Theist”. That is, such a person believes that G-d probably exists.—

No. There is no “probably” about it in most cases. They have faith, unwavering, in god. They just don’t claim to have knowledge of god, or even claim that no such knowledge is possible (their god cannot be found via the intellect, but has to be accessed via the spirit)

—But what about the person who has strong faith in the Creator, has very little doubt regarding His existence AND believes that certain knowledge is impossible? My answer: I don’t understand this position completely.—

I’d familiarize yourself with some modern Christian theology, as well as just asking people. You might start out by reading some Dewey.

—I don’t want my original point lost though. I withhold judgement regarding the existence of G-d because I lack an understanding of consciousness. I suspect that if I lived 100-200 years from now, I could resolve this matter to my satisfaction.—

In other words: you think that the inexplicability of consciousness is one major avenue by which you could be convinced to become a believer, and cease being a non-theist? :slight_smile:

97

There is one point missing in this discussion, and that is which god people believe or do not believe in.

God is a poorly defined term. Even within Christianity there are varying definitions. The fundamentalist may believe in the god of the inerrant Bible, others believe perhaps in a god who did not create the world in six days.

We are all differently weak and strong atheists with respect to different gods. I am a hard atheist w.r.t. the fundamentalist god (since there is ample proof the Biblical creation story is wrong) but I cannot believe that a god of some other planet someplace in Andromeda does not exist. I can certainly lack belief in this god, but it is absurd to go beyond that.

That is one of the reasons the accusation that atheists believe in no
god is absurd. Of course, if you define god as self-contradictory,
believing in his nonexistence is easy, as it vanishes in a puff of logic.

98

*Well, it isn’t just me that defines the terms that way: most atheists do too. At the very least, you’ve got to grant us the use of a technical definition. *

Ok, I’m not sure about this. I gleaned the terms “soft atheist” and “hard atheist” from an atheist website. Equivalent terms are “strong atheist” and “weak atheist”.

A discussion of atheism and agnosticism can be had here:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

I have no problem with you calling yourself an atheist. I don’t even have a problem with you calling me an atheist (though I wouldn’t choose this description). What I have a problem with is obliterating the distinction between

“those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.” (empirical agnostics, like flowbark)

and

practitioners of ," “Weak atheism”…[or] simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God."

Let me know if you have serious disagreements with the website that I linked to. My taxonomy was is very similar to their’s.

*This is a very important point, because far too many people DO make this assumption, and it is a VERY effective device for equivocation in debates about truth and beliefs. *

When we are discussing truth and beliefs, I will bear this in mind. My only point is that in most contexts (outside of this one, I grant you) to say “I don’t believe that…”, is pretty more equivalent to, “I disbelieve that…”

99

My taxonomy is very similar to their’s.
…
When we are discussing truth and beliefs, I will bear this in mind. My only point is that in most contexts (outside of this one, I grant you) to say “I don’t believe that…”, is more or less equivalent to, “I disbelieve that…”
…
Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend.

100

Let’s substitute “ET” for God.

There are some ETists who believe they have made contact, corresponding to theists who are sure they’ve talked to God.

There are some ETists who have faith that aliens exist somewhere, but admit that they cannot prove it.

There are some a-ETists who have no belief in aliens, but might admit that they are possible.

There could be some strong a-ETists who believe that aliens do not exist - perhaps for some religious reason.

There could even be agnostic ETists who say that we will never find out because of speed of light limitations.

Many theists who use a first cause argument are like an ETist who says that the vast universe means that some ET surely must exist somewhere, and he has three feet and webbed feet. This corresponds to those who say that God must exist because of the first cause argument, then make a leap into saying that this god must be that in the Bible, not the God of Fomalhaut V.