What's the deal with agnosticism, anyway?

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by ready29003 *
** merriam webster definition of Athiest
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1571
: one who denies the existence of God

Now we are debating the definition of words, but so be it.

Merriam Webster dictionary defines an Athiest as one who denies the existence of god, not as someone who simply lacks a belief in God.

Athiesm and Thiesm in the way soceity uses them and defines them are not the only two category’s of religious belief. Belief in God is a controversial and hot issue, such as abortion. Their are people who believe abortion is right, and people who believe abortion is wrong, and there are those who do not know.

To many people, belief in God is a moral question. To believe is right and to be an athiest is just as active a position: To be an athiest is to believe there is no God or to “deny” his existence.

To be an agnostic is to neither deny or affirm His existence.

Now many theists may categorize people into two sets: Believers and Non-believers, placing agnostics and athiest’s together, but only because theists tend to be a bit more anal about this position.

There are probably athiests who categorize people into two sets, “sensible rational people” and “fools who either believe in God or are open to such a ridiculous idea”, placing agnostics in the same boat with thiests.

I suppose it depends upon the person if you feel there really are only two meaningful categories related to belief in god, but I find it as absurd. Athiesm, and Thiesm, and agnosticism are each drastically different positions each well deserving of its own distinction.
Matt **

Here’s the definition from your definition.com

athe·ism

1.                                             a.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 
                                               b.The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 
                                         2.Godlessness; immorality. 
   

Link

Disbelief (lack of belief) sums it up real well. I think the second definition indicates the danger of relying too much on dictionaries for philosophical discussions.

It seems not too much to ask of someone to accept ones own label and description of belief or lack thereof. You are either claiming that I have no right to call myself an atheist, or that I must believe something I don’t, either of which is quite rude.

No one is claiming that there is no such thing as agnosticism. As I said, it is orthogonal to belief, being about knowledge. There can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. There can be gnostic (as opposed to agnostic) theists and atheists.

It’s really a shame that you have been brainwashed by the theistic culture into thinking all atheists are irrational god haters or dogmatic believers in no god. If you have been fooled into thinking this is what makes an atheist, I’m not surprised you don’t want to be one, but it is not true. Simply put, god is such an ill-defined term that there can be millions or billions of gods, some possibly having nothing to do with Earth. How can we ever truly believe that none of them exist? However, there is no reason to actually believe in any of them. I see that you are using the capital G God. How about the other ones? Can the theists prove that they do not exist, all of them?

Two examples: it is easy to believe that the god of the inerrant Bible does not exist, since we know the Genesis story is full of hooey. On the other hand, how can you prove or demonstrate that the deistic god does not exist? By his very nature there is no evidence of him. We can just withhold belief, not wanting to believe in things with no evidence.

Many theists, understanding that they don’t have evidence backing their belief, wish to recast the argument into one about a strawman definition of atheist. Don’t be fooled.

[mft1234]

C.S. Lewis compares it to an exam where you get no credit for not answering the question and partial credit for a partially correct answer.

There is no merit in indifference to the truth when the truth is knowable.

[ready29003]

*Originally posted by Voyager *
It seems not too much to ask of someone to accept ones own label and description of belief or lack thereof. You are either claiming that I have no right to call myself an atheist, or that I must believe something I don’t, either of which is quite rude.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Label yourself and define words however you want. I will do the same. We were discussing how to define theist, athiest, and agnostic. We are also discussing the relationship between these terms.

you wrote:

Atheism (or even athiesm) does not mean you think you can prove god exists, just that you have no belief in any god. Someone is either a theist or an atheist - there is no middle ground. (And agnosticism is orthogonal to these.)

I disagree with your insistence that agnosticism is “orthoganal” to belief. You believe something is true. YOu believe something is false. OR you are undecided. These are 3 separate categories and to insist there is no “middle ground” between theism and athiesm is absurd to me.

I am not telling you that you cannot call yourself an athiest, I am talking to you about the definition of these words from my perspective.

No one is claiming that there is no such thing as agnosticism. As I said, it is orthogonal to belief, being about knowledge. There can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. There can be gnostic (as opposed to agnostic) theists and atheists.

YOu are claiming you must be either an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, or an agnostic athiest, or a gnostic atheist.

I am saying it is complete nonsense to tell me that I must either be a theist or an atheist. Because for many people and many dictionary definitions, if I were to label myself as an athiest, that would be saying I “DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD”. Yes I know you don’t see it that way, but many people do…and they do so because that is how many people define the word “athiest”. Yes, to many people athiest is the same as what people here are calling “anti-theist”…or at least it leans that way.

I am agnostic. I don’t know if God exists.
I am not an agnostic atheist.
I am not an agnostic theist.

You label yourself whatever you want. I am neither a theist or an athiest. I am agnostic.

I don’t even know what it would mean to be a gnostic theist or athiest. Someome who believe they have absolute proof of Gods existence or non existence? Who claims to have absolute proof of something so utterly unprovable. If I hear God talking to me in my head is that proof She exists? It seems to me to be more likely evidence of mental disorder.

It’s really a shame that you have been brainwashed by the theistic culture into thinking all atheists are irrational god haters or dogmatic believers in no god.
**

I have no idea why this statement is directed at me. I don’t believe athiests are necessarily either of these things. I merely acknowledge that in common usage and according to how we define the word athiest in the dictionary, it often means to believe there is no God or to deny the existence of God.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by ready29003 *
I disagree with your insistence that agnosticism is “orthoganal” to belief. You believe something is true. YOu believe something is false. OR you are undecided. These are 3 separate categories and to insist there is no “middle ground” between theism and athiesm is absurd to me.

The point of the OP was that “agnostic” does not just mean that one is undecided. Instead, it means that one affirmatively believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. This was the meaning of “agnostic” that I challenged in my OP, since I don’t undertand how somebody can claim that God’s existence cannot be proven, and it is this meaning of “agnostic” that is “orthogonal” to theism and atheism. One can believe or disbelieve in God while simultaneously believing that it is impossible to ever know whether he exists or not.

Theism and Atheism have to do with belief, whereas agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Once can believe or disbelieve in the absence of knowlege, and one can assert the impossibility of knowing something while still believing or disbelieving in it.

Barry

[ready29003]

The point of the OP was that “agnostic” does not just mean that one is undecided. Instead, it means that one affirmatively believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. This was the meaning of “agnostic” that I challenged in my OP, since I don’t undertand how somebody can claim that God’s existence cannot be proven, and it is this meaning of “agnostic” that is “orthogonal” to theism and atheism. One can believe or disbelieve in God while simultaneously believing that it is impossible to ever know whether he exists or not.

Theism and Atheism have to do with belief, whereas agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Once can believe or disbelieve in the absence of knowlege, and one can assert the impossibility of knowing something while still believing or disbelieving in it.

Yo BarryGodzilla,

I am sure there are agnostics who believe you cannot prove the existence of God.
I am sure there are agnostics who believe you can prove the existence of God.

Your OP seemed to me to insist that if you believe it is impossible to prove God exists, then that person might as well be labeled an athiest. Is this correct?

I think your OP definition of Agnostic is the problem here.

you write:

I’m aware of two common definitions of “agnostic”:

An agnostic is somebody who does not know whether or not God exists. They are, essentially, “on the fence” and could go either way if shown sufficient evidence.

An agnostic is somebody who believes it is impossible to ever prove or disprove the existence of God.

I think these two definitions are ill made.

An agnostic is undecided whether or not God exists. That’s it.

The question whether a person believes it can be proven that God does or does not exist is a completely separate question and has nothing to do with the definition of Agnositicism, Athiesm, and Thiesm.

To say that you reject the traditional notion of God but are “agnostic” with regard to this watered-down new agey notion is, in my opinion, the same as saying that you are, in fact, an atheist after all.

My question to you: What do you label people who believe strongly in new agey untraditional notions of God? Athiests? Fools?

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by ready29003 *
**I think these two definitions are ill made.

An agnostic is undecided whether or not God exists. That’s it.**

Go look in a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines “agnostic” as:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

I understand that some people, such as yourself, claim that they are agnostic in the broad sense, i.e., they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God. And, as I said in the OP, I have no problem whatsoever with that form of agnosticism.

However, there is another common definition of agnosticism, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, and that definition is one who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. If you read the rest of this thread, you will see posts from people who actually state that they are agnostics and that this is what they believe. If you are not that type of “agnostic,” well, I wasn’t talking to you in the first place.

My question to you: What do you label people who believe strongly in new agey untraditional notions of God? Athiests? Fools?

I can’t think of a good label off the top of my head. How about simply “people who believe strongly in new agey untraditional notions of God”? I do think such a belief contains a fair amount of delusion and hypocrisy, since it denies all historical references of God and basically requires one to claim that everybody else in the long history of mankind was wrong when it comes to the nature of God, but that’s just me.

The point of my OP, which I’ve repeated numerous times, was to ask those people who claim that the existence of God cannot be known how they can justify this statement. If one believes in any of the traditional concepts of God, then it would seem to be very easy to know if he exists, since he is described as having attributes and abilities which could be verified.

And if one believes in a “new agey untraditional notion of God” who, by definition, is immaterial, does not interact with the material world at all, does no miracles, has never appeared to man, etc., and who, therefore, cannot be proven to exist, how can one justify ignoring all past descriptions of God and believing that this is the “real” nature of God? Isn’t it just a cop-out so as to not have to worry about having to prove the validity of one’s beliefs?

As an example, there have been plenty of descriptions of UFOs and alien abductions over the years. If I were to claim that I believe in such things, I would need to be prepared to justify my belief to skeptics. However, to avoid having to justify my beliefs in UFOs and alien abductions, I could just claim that the UFOs that I am talking about are immaterial saucers that can’t be seen and which leave no evidence of their existence whatsoever. And the alien abuctions that I am talking about occur strictly on the astral plane (i.e., people’s souls are abducted, but not their physical bodies).

Skeptics are now unable to dispute my beliefs, since I have redefined the terms in such a way that proof or disproof is impossible. Yay, me! Unfortunately, in order to do so, I’ve also had to assert that all other descriptions of UFOs and alien abductions throughout history were wrong and that I, alone, know the “truth.”

In other words, those who believe in “new agey untraditional notions of God” and claim that they are “agnostic” because this notion of God can neither be proved nor disproved may be correct in their assertion of agnosticism, but I would say that they aren’t really talking about “God” in the first place.

Regards,

Barry

[ready29003]

Two dictionary definitions of agnostic:
Type 1. One who believes God is unknown and probably unknowable.
Type 2. One who neither believes or disbelieves in God.

Your OP was pondering whether one should just call a Type 2 agnostic an athiest.

Yet there are two dictionary definitions of Athiest.
Type 1 athiest: One who denies the existence of God. (Which would not include type 1 or 2 agnostics)
Type 2 athiest: One who does not believe in God. (Which would include both type 1 and 2 agnostics)

So…back to your OP. Regardless of a persons new agey beliefs, if a person is a type 1 agnostic i suppose it is valid to call them an athiest if you are strictly using the type 2 definition of Athiest. Of course if you wish not to be misunderstood, you would have to clearly explain you are using Athiest in the form of the type 2 definition.

Anyone who chooses to label themselves as an agnostic, I am pretty sure will be offended that you insist on labeling them an athiest, but according to one dictionary definition, it is not wrong.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by ready29003 *
**I have no idea what you are talking about here. Label yourself and define words however you want. I will do the same. We were discussing how to define theist, athiest, and agnostic. We are also discussing the relationship between these terms.
I disagree with your insistence that agnosticism is “orthoganal” to belief. You believe something is true. YOu believe something is false. OR you are undecided. These are 3 separate categories and to insist there is no “middle ground” between theism and athiesm is absurd to me.
**

Your problem is that keep insisting that atheism is belief that there is no god. Though atheism includes this belief, it also includes the lack of belief in any god. Perhaps you don’t see both definitions of disbelief.

Main Entry: dis·be·lieve
Pronunciation: -'lEv
Function: verb
Date: circa 1644
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief - dis·be·liev·er noun

Rejecting belief is strong atheism. Withholding belief is weak atheism. If you are undecided, you clearly do not believe, and are thus an atheist, a weak one. (You can also be sure that a god exists, but be undecided about its characteristics - then you are a theist, but might not have any religion.)

As godzillatemple mentions, usage now includes a second definition of agnostic to mean a very weak atheist. This is understandable considering the perjorative nature of the word atheist, but it is not very useful. Theists don’t seem to get as angry at someone who says they haven’t made up their mind, they don’t know, as they do at someone who clearly says he has no belief.

**
I am not telling you that you cannot call yourself an athiest, I am talking to you about the definition of these words from my perspective.
**

Well, no, but you are saying that by calling myself an atheist I am believing something absurd. How do I know that there is no god in charge of some other planet? How do I know that none of the infinite number of possible gods exist? It makes sense to lack belief in any of them, but it does not make nearly as much sense to actively believe they do not exist.
I actually do think that hard atheism is a more supportable position than theism, though.

**
YOu are claiming you must be either an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, or an agnostic athiest, or a gnostic atheist.

I am saying it is complete nonsense to tell me that I must either be a theist or an atheist. Because for many people and many dictionary definitions, if I were to label myself as an athiest, that would be saying I “DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD”. Yes I know you don’t see it that way, but many people do…and they do so because that is how many people define the word “athiest”. Yes, to many people athiest is the same as what people here are calling “anti-theist”…or at least it leans that way.
**

Dictionary definitions of atheism, like the one I posted, include belief in no god and lack of belief (disbelief) in god. Yes, it is quite incorrect to say that you hold the former belief, but it seems that you do hold the latter one.It’s just as incorrect to say that I hold the former belief. “a” means lack of. An amoral person has no morals, as opposed to an immoral person. Theism - belief in some god. Atheism - lack of belief in some (any) god. And it does not mean anti-theist in any way. That’s just like when theists say that atheists are atheists because they hate god! It is hard and absurd to hate something you have no belief in. I don’t lack belief in the truth of LOTR because I hate Sauron.

**
I don’t even know what it would mean to be a gnostic theist or athiest. Someome who believe they have absolute proof of Gods existence or non existence? Who claims to have absolute proof of something so utterly unprovable. If I hear God talking to me in my head is that proof She exists? It seems to me to be more likely evidence of mental disorder.
**

What does agnosticism have to do with proof? Actually I am a gnostic atheist (and it seems that godzillatemple is also.) I think that if any god existed (except perhaps a deist god) it would be possible to have knowledge of that god. I think it would be possible to “prove” the existence of that god to the same level we “prove” the existence of our spouses or cars. I don’t think you can disprove the existence of gods in general. You can “disprove” the existence of certain gods to a good degree of certainty - for instance I’m pretty sure the god of the inerrant Bible does not exist.

It is very hard to discuss gods unless you clearly define which god you are discussing. The God of one branch of Christianity is different from the God of another, not to mention being different from the Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or Cargo Cult God.

Say someone describes a god to you. You might say, in certain cases, that this god is self contradictory and certainly does not exist. In other cases you might say that there is not enough evidence to state that the god either does or does not exist. From your self-description, in no case would you say that you believe in this god. In many cases you’d say that you don’t believe that this god does not exist.

If that is a fair assessment of your position, then you have the characteristics of a weak atheist. You also have the characteristics of one of the definitions of agnostic godzillatemple gave. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Apos]

An agnostic is undecided whether or not God exists. That’s it.

Yeah, that must be why the word was coined to mean “without knowledge” right (a - gnostic)?

Your OP seemed to me to insist that if you believe it is impossible to prove God exists, then that person might as well be labeled an athiest.

They may or may not be an atheist: they could believe in a god nevertheless their belief in an inability to know. But they are definately, IMHO, mightily confused, given that claiming to know the something can’t be known requires an omniscience that contradicts the claim to not know!

[Apos]

I am neither a theist or an athiest. I am agnostic.

Binary situations permit no such middle. Either you have a god belief, or you don’t. If you are undecided as to whether god exists, then you cannot positively assert that god exists, hence you lack belief in god.

All your banter about the “common usage” of “atheist” aside (I’d do a bit more research into MW), try walking up to someone and telling them that you don’t believe in god (since you don’t), and see what they call you. I’ll bet you that even if they CLAIM that atheist means “to believe there is no god” they’ll still happily call you an atheist as soon as they find out that you don’t believe in god, despite the fact that you don’t actually fit what they claim is their definition.

[Nightime]

Binary situations permit no such middle.

I still don’t think that it is a binary situation.

If it was, nobody would believe anything. Any amount of doubt would render you a non-believer.

Think there is a possibility that your whole life is a dream? Then you don’t believe the world exists.
Clearly some doubt is allowed for a believer.

But how much? If you think there is a 60% chance that God exists, and a 40% chance that some telepathic alien is responsible for God’s supposed handiwork, are you a theist? What if you live your life according to God’s word? What if, despite your belief that it could be an alien, you have faith that it is God?
Your definition of theist is far too narrow - I believe that is the real problem. Theist must include people who only believe that God is probable, but who follow his words and have faith.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**I still don’t think that it is a binary situation.

If it was, nobody would believe anything. Any amount of doubt would render you a non-believer.
**

Hardly. There are many theists who have doubt, but still believe. Belief can be rational or irrational, but it is still belief.

**
Your definition of theist is far too narrow - I believe that is the real problem. Theist must include people who only believe that God is probable, but who follow his words and have faith. **

Whose words? Are you excluding non-Christians from theism? Would Moses, who did not need faith to believe, not be a theist? Is a man who believes, yet who never worships, not be a theist? Is a sinning believer not a theist. There are plenty of them, after all.

Apos is quite correct - either you have god belief, or you do not.

[robertliguori]

Binary situations permit no such middle. Either you have a god belief, or you don’t. If you are undecided as to whether god exists, then you cannot positively assert that god exists, hence you lack belief in god.

Conversely, if you are undecided as to whether or not god doesn’t exist, you cannot positively assert that he doesn’t, hence you lack belief in the nonexistence of God.
If you insist on trying to understand the world through the view of formal logic, try this: to an agnostic, the statement “God exists” would not return a truth value, same as “This electron is HERE NOW” or “This statement is false”.

[Apos]

Conversely, if you are undecided as to whether or not god doesn’t exist, you cannot positively assert that he doesn’t, hence you lack belief in the nonexistence of God.

Indeed.

If you insist on trying to understand the world through the view of formal logic, try this: to an agnostic, the statement “God exists” would not return a truth value, same as “This electron is HERE NOW” or “This statement is false”.

Agnostics would return “no” truth values for both “do you believe in God” AND “Do you believe there is no God.” Sowould many atheists.

[professorbiscuit]

As far as I understand it, any opinion on the existence of god (or the existence of anything), should be able to give yes/no answers to these questions. Could an agnostic give any answer to (4)?

1. Do you believe in anything?

If yes, then you are a nihilist. If no, then…

2. Could God exist?

If no, then you are an atheist. If yes, then…

3. Do you believe in God?

If yes, then you are a theist. If no, then…

4. Is it possible that the existence of God could ever be proven?

[Apos]

2 is not a properly formed question for defining an atheist.

And 1 is backwards. If yes, then you are NOT a nihilist.

[professorbiscuit]

You are entirely correct about 1 being the wrong way around. But surely an atheist would have to reply no to question 2. Otherwise he/she is open to the suggestion that there is a god. Then they are not an atheist. I fail to see how it is improperly formed.

[Apos]

I am an atheist, and I won’t respond no. I am open to the idea that there is a god. I just don’t believe in one, or see any good reason to believe it. I’m not expected to be an expert on the entire structure of existence to the point where I can know what is or is not possible, just to call myself an atheist. All I need to know is that I don’t believe in a god.

[Nightime]

Hardly. There are many theists who have doubt, but still believe. Belief can be rational or irrational, but it is still belief.

You didn’t answer my question.

Is someone who believes that there is a better than 50% chance that God exists, and follows all the words, commandments, expectations, etc, of that God, a thest? Or are they not?

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by professorbiscuit *
**You are entirely correct about 1 being the wrong way around. But surely an atheist would have to reply no to question 2. Otherwise he/she is open to the suggestion that there is a god. Then they are not an atheist. I fail to see how it is improperly formed. **

Atheism is a statement of lack of belief, not possibility of existence. In any case your question 2 is ill formed because “God” is not defined. Without this, it is hard to even answer the question - not that the answer has anything to do with atheism anyway.