In general we have theism, atheism and agnosticism. I think that, technically, the only valid choice is agnosticism. The reason I think this is that, notwithstanding the strength of one’s belief, no-one really knows whether or not there is a god. As an analogy I can look at the car at the opposite end of my street and I can certainly believe that there is a snow-shovel, a spare tire, a jack, and a tire iron in the trunk; or I can believe that there is nothing in the trunk. Regardless, without looking in the trunk, I have absolutely no idea what is or is not in that trunk. Similarly, I have no real knowledge that there is or is not a god. (I am an agnostic who drifts into atheism btw)
This is way too mystical to prove, but here’s what I suspect would happen if the ultimate nature of how we experience ourselves and world around us is ever convincingly discovered:
Most believers in God would conclude that God is far different than they had thought, but nonetheless exists.
Most atheists would conclude the universe is far different than they previously imagined, but it’s still true that there is no God.
Agnostics would think they were right all along.
(The above can hardly be original, but I don’t know who to credit.)
I consider myself a post-theist, which means that human problem solving makes the need for a deity (real or not) unimportant. So there are other options. Apatheism is another belief along those lines.
There is a deity
There isn’t a deity
There may be a deity, may not
It doesn’t matter whether there is or not, as our goals and needs are not impacted by a deity.
Many atheists believe in no god in the sense of a Being, that has power to act in the world, like the many that have been imagined throughout human existence. They can, however, believe there is some type of Organizing Principle that determines the direction of development. Seems like a “valid” position.
If you recast your question to apply only to atheists who believe there could not possibly be an overall Organizing Principle, then yes, I guess you could say that that’s as faith-based as religion.
I agree, of course, but this is based more on my own world view than any certain knowledge (;)). I think that, in the end, while the majority of the evidence certainly (to me) points to no God or gods (at least as humans have conceived them in their various religions), it’s an infinite universe, and, well, SOMETHING started the ball rolling for this one. If it was two 'branes colliding, well, that could be ‘God’ I suppose…plus, unless it’s turtles all the way down there had to be an ultimate starter of the bubble universes thingy ‘somewhere’ at some ‘time’ that got it all rolling.
Sadly, we will all (the human race that is) probably never really know. Our species will, I hope, have a long and fruitful existence, spreading out among the stars (perhaps) someday…but in the end, it won’t matter, and at some far distant (I hope) future the last of us or our descendents will shuffle off and the universe will wind down and that will be it.
Sure. I think it’s totally reasonable to believe that, in the multiverse somewhere, there IS a unicorn (or an invisible pink dragon) in the OPs trunk. The thing is, until you open it an see, you just can’t be sure…
Your argument is false under a reasonable definition of “god”. A “god” which is so impotent that its existence has no measurable effect on the world is no god at all. A “god” worthy of the name would leave evidence of its existence, and so the absence of such evidence is evidence of its absence, the same way that having no evidence that there is an elephant in my living room is sufficient to conclusively say that there isn’t one.
If that’s directed at me, I’d say that whatever the force or entity that started the whole multiverse ball rolling OR the one that started our own universe ticking is pretty powerful, whether it’s sentient or not. I’m willing to say that such a force could be construed as a ‘god’, though I don’t personally think of it that way.
At any rate, I think ‘I don’t know’ is a more realistic position than the certain knowledge on the other ends of the spectrum where folks are certain one way or the other, and that’s basically what the OP was asking. Of course, I feel that way because I happen to hold that world view, so I freely concede that MMV.
[QUOTE=Grumman]
I am not. If lightning strikes my house, it wasn’t an act of the “God of Storms”', just a storm.
[/QUOTE]
And maybe when/if we ever understand how our universe got started as well as we do ‘just a storm’ we will be able to definitively rule out a God or gods. Until then I’m at least willing to entertain the notion that it COULD be…or that the force that did it is so awesome and beyond our understanding that for all practical purposes it was godlike.
(I’m just arguing to argue though…actually, I agree that a force of nature, no matter how large is still just a force of nature in the end, and not what humans think of as God or the gods ;)…the point being that right now, today, we just don’t know, so I’m totally comfortable being an agnostic and saying ‘I don’t know’ when, well, I don’t know.)
But I don’t think I’ve ever heard theism and atheism defined in terms of knowledge rather than belief. If they were defined as “someone who knows there is/isn’t a God,” you might have a point.
Technically, no one really knows that we weren’t created 15 seconds ago with memories and history intact by an all-powerful entity, but it’s not worth thinking about until some real evidence comes in supporting the idea.
Technically, no one really knows that we aren’t a program running in a giant super computer, but it’s not worth thinking about until some real evidence comes in supporting the idea.
Technically, no one really knows that don’t go to the Big Rock Candy Mountain when we die, but it’s not worth thinking about until some real evidence comes in supporting the idea.
Here’s what I do know, however-If enough people did believe in any of those concepts, I’m sure someone would invent a special word for those didn’t know if that particular thing was true, but continued to waste their time thinking about it even though no real evidence came in supporting the idea.
Or they could just use the word “agnostic”, I guess.
Define god. Until you define your terms, you're going to get nowhere, people "arguing" when the premises are never made clear. If you mean a white guy with a beard who lives on a cloud, then I agree with you. But I'll take the best definition I've come across (w/ credit to Joseph Campbell (too lazy to double check w/ a cite, but oh well)): God, outside the tabernacle, taken to be (the word, that is, "God") a pointer in the transfinite (that which is between the known and unknown), (pointing) to the infinte (that which is beyond knowing) (clues for this are the usual terms in definitions of god, like transcendent, supernatural, object of faith...). Given that definition, the examples in the OP fall apart as meaningless, as well as putting the OP's resulting conclusion (that you can know the unknowable) to its obvious logical death. To venture into the "beyond knowing" is a pretty good definition of faith.
But snow shovels, spare tires, etc. are things that actually exist, regardless of whether they exist in a particular car’s trunk. You are not agnostic about snow shovels; you’ve seen them, probably used them, etc. Now . . . is the question whether there’s a god it that car’s trunk, or is there a god at all? Do you have any empirical data even suggesting that there COULD be such a thing? Is there any evidence whatsoever? Is there any more evidence for the existence of a god than for the existence of the tooth fairy? If you’re agnostic about the tooth fairy, it’s safe to assume you’re agnostic about virtually everything, that any truth is unknowable. Is that what you believe, or are you willing to take a stand based on the total lack of evidence? Man up!
What if someone claims there’s an airplane in the trunk? Not a model toy, but a full-size Boeing 777.
What if someone claims there’s an interdimensional portal in the trunk?
What if someone claims there’s an fairy in the trunk who gets very mad at people who try to open the trunk. Oh, and also she’s invisible, so even if you do open it, you still won’t be able to see her.
Are those claims just as reasonable as a tire or a jack?
The thing is, until you open it an see, you just can’t be sure…