** CyberPundit** I dont see whats so dubious about it. How much certainty would you need to see to prove that an entity is infinite and timeless, could you see 51% of his infintie form? could you observe 51% of his age? If some giant light-being descended from the clouds and started hurling lighting left and right I would assume this was some superior being but I could never be assured he had any infinite aspects as I am a finite observer. Superior beings to human could certainly be observed but not supreme beings.
(Apos and I discussed this last fall, and never saw eye-to-eye. Oh well. I’ll make the claim that since this is an issue of identity, it is problematic to impose a given definitional system on the world, even if that definitional system is internally consistent. (Comprehensiveness is another criteria.))
Some standard references
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
Also, here are some discussions that I have not studied in detail:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/index.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/h_j_blackham/agnostic.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/agnostic.html
Here’s a definition from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
IMHO, Cambridge’s treatment stinks. Specifically, there are a preponderance of weak atheists on this board who are comfortable calling themselves atheists as a shorthand: this seems to conflict with the so-called standard definition claimed by Cambridge.
I call myself an empirical agnostic, though some insist that I’m a weak atheist.
Actually, it generally means “without.” Amoral isn’t “not moral” it’s “without morals.”
I agree. Although, I don’t think the dictionary definitions ARE internally consistent: i.e. they leave big confusing holes of comprehensiveness and muddle key issues like knowledge and belief into one.
And I’ll also note that even if many people claim that atheism means “believes that there is no god,” the way they USE the word is more consistent with “no belief in a god.” Most people, upon hearing that I do not believe IN a god, are happy to call me an atheist… even if they’ll put up a big fuss later about how atheist means “you believe that there is no god.” I wish they’d make up their freakin minds.
Knowledge vs. belief is the difference: they describe DIFFERENT THINGS. I’d say that’s a pretty important distinction.
I’m a “weak” agnostic AND a “weak” atheist.
This many replies and no one has brought up the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH)?
Agnostic: “I have no way of knowing if there’s an IPU standing over there–if she is there, she’s invisible. So I don’t know if she’s there or not.”
Weak atheist: “I have been offered no convincing evidence that an IPU is standing over there, so I don’t believe there is one.”
Strong atheist: “I’m sure there is no IPU standing over there, since, among other things, one cannot be pink and invisible at the same time.”
This is how I’ve always thought of it.
Dr. J
No, an agnostic would say “The question cannot be answered, now or ever”. A weak atheist would say either “The term ‘God’ is not sufficiently defined”, or “There is not enough evidence to answer the question definitively”.
Or, if you choose the “common” usage of agnostic, the way it is often popularly used, it would be “I haven’t decided whether I think it’s true or false”.
All this talk of certainty versus probability should surely have triggered this response by someone before now:
One can never be 100% certain of anything.
It is not impossible that logic, mathematics and the observable universe are mere nonsense figments fed to us by Descartes’ elusive “deceiver”. (For one to ascribe more than the tiniest atom of possibility to this scenario would be unreasonable, but to ascribe zero possibility would be plain wrong.)
Personally, I ascribe a non-zero probability to the existence of god/s. However, I can think of no demonstration that would convince me that I was not merely experiencing the effect of technology which could, Matrix-like, manipulate my very neurons into believing I was in the presence of the divine (unless, of course, conviction was simply placed there by the same external but non-supernatural agent).
Strong atheist: There is reason to believe there is no God, therefore I do not believe there is a God.
Weak atheist: There is no reason to believe there is a God, therefore I do not believe there is a God.
Do you believe there is a God?
Theist: Yes.
Atheist: No.
Agnostic: Other answer.
I think if you accept the labels other people make up for you, you deserve what you get.
I’ll guarantee you that no “weak atheist” came up with the term “weak atheist”. It sounds like you’re no really convinced of your own position. Or you’re anemic. There is an implied disapprobation that no amount of justification is going to eliminate. No self-respecting atheist would call him- or her-self a “weak atheist”.
(This is why there are “pro-choice” and “pro-life” positions, but no “anti-choice” or “anti-life” positions. If you let your opponents choose your label, you’re screwed. Look at what happened when the Bolsheviks called themselves by that name, even though they weren’t the majority party. The Mensheviks were doomed after that.)
I’m agnodtic, myself. And not a “weak” agnostic. In a savvy world, there is no such thing.
Somewhat incidental to this discussion, but still: I’m not convinced that probabilities actually make any sense when discussing whether there is a God or not. If you are going to assess probabilities then you need a probabilistic event. The existence of God is not a probabilitist event - it either exists or it does not. You may be able to say that the evidence (or lack of it) makes you 95% convinced that there is not a God. But you cannot say that there is a 95% chance that God does not exist. If there is a random variable in the latter statement, I’m not seeing it.
That’s why your discussions centering around whether or not God exists with a 100% or 0% or any other probability keep running into difficulties. You have to be careful with probability - you can’t just bandy it around willy-nilly. The associated problems disappear when you rephrase it as being 100% or 0% convinced of His existence.
pan
I claim the “weak atheist” label for myself. It accurately distinguishes a position on the spectrum of beliefs about God. I am quite certain that my ego can stand up to any insunuations present in the adjective “weak”.
The only thing that bothers me is when other people insist that their understanding of atheism is the only one that makes sense and therefore I must be . . .
[ul][li]I do not believe in God.[/li][li]I make no positive assertion that God does not or cannot exist.[/li][li]I deny the truth of the assertion that it is necessarily impossible for a human being to gain knowlege of God’s existence.[/ul][/li]
That’s it. If you don’t like the label “weak atheism”, then find a different label that accurately describes my position. But don’t expect your label to be widely used since “weak atheism” already has wide distribution. And don’t lump me in with “agnostics” or “strong atheists” just because you are too certain of your own understanding to differentiate between the positions.
What position? (sigh)
There is no “atheist” position that I am “convinced” of. It is the theist position that I remain unconvinced of.
I just use “atheist.” Or, if people complain, then “non-theist” works well. In fact, “non-theist” might just be a good solution to the whole ball of nonsense.
But perhaps you are unfamilar with the use of terminology like “weak” and “strong” in discussing issues. In connotation, they are actually the reverse of what you seem to think they are: strong claims are those that go to great lengths. Weak claims are limited in scope.
Unfortunately, things are not so easy for the agnostic on this score, with this question. There isn’t really any other answer other than yes or no. If the person isn’t willing to affirm a belief in god, how can they avoid a “no” answer? Many people think “I don’t know” works as an answer, but as an answer to THIS question, that “I don’t know” applies not to the existence of god, but rather to the persons own mind. That is, to answer “I don’t know” to this question is to say “I don’t know the contents of my own thoughts, and can’t account for my own beliefs. I don’t know what I’m thinking.”
The observation that weak atheists and empirical agnostics share the same answer to the question, “Do you believe in God?” is true but misleading, as they answer the question, “Does God exist?” differently.
Taxonomy aside, they also emphasize different issues. Weak atheists argue that insufficient evidence for a Deity leads them to provisionally believe that none exists. Agnostics stress the importance of withholding judgment in the face of insufficient evidence or when the subjective costs of error are unacceptably high.
It isn’t subtle at all — it is dramatic and fundamental: B(~G) versus (~B)G.
Oh, I agree. But for someone who is not schooled in formal logic, and who only looks at the English representation, they seem very similar (if not identical).
I mean, in common usage, the phrases
“I don’t think I’d like another beer.”
“I think that I wouldn’t like another beer.”
…are synonymous.