Ask an agnostic...

[Masquerouge]

I don't know of any agnostics who pray or attend worship services "just in case", so as near as I can tell the only practical difference between an agnostic and an atheist is whether one plays offense or defense in these sorts of "prove God doesn't exist" debate threads.

As long as they don't have to resort to a Hail Mary

 

[Fifty]

Dear Agnostic,

Why is it that, in every question of existence besides that of god, you (presumably) assume that the thing does NOT exist until given evidence, yet in the case of god you say you are "agnostic" on the issue (this assumes that you do not have any particular evidence for believing in god).

For example, were I to ask you if an invisible diamond is floating in front of your computer screen right now, you would say "no", not "i'm agnostic on the issue". That is to say, when we are asking whether or not x exists, we assume that it doesn't until evidence is given, rather than saying "I'm agnostic on x". So why is the question of god any different? Shouldn't we say that god doesn't exist until given evidence, rather than "I'm agnostic"?

And if you DO have evidence for god's existence (which would make the agnostic position more plausible), what is it?

And if you've already answered this question, just link me to that post.


Yours Truly,

Fifty Fiftyson

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To me, the word "faith" means several things. One of these is that one may believe in something even though they are not certain it is true - in other words, I act as though X is certain even though it is not. Hence my religious faith - I cannot say for certain that my religious experiences really come from God, and are not my own imagination, but I act as though they are.

Agnostics are more or less in the same boat, only from the other end. They think that God's existence is unlikely, but cannot be 100% certain that there is no God. There is still a small chance that there is not, but they act as though there is not. Thus, they have "faith" in one sense of the word.

 

[Steph]

And if you DO have evidence for god's existence (which would make the agnostic position more plausible), what is it?

If you ask this question, then you don't understand agnosticism.

As an agnostic, I think the existence or non existence of God cannot be proven.

Read the rest of my post for more answer.

The difference with your diamond think, is if the diamond is just invisible, but can be touched for instance, then there is a way to check if it's really there.
Now, if you say there is a diamond than cannot be seen, touched, or detected in any way, then my answer would be similar.

I have no way to know if it true or not, so I could be "agnostic" on the subject. Although supposing it doesn't exist is the more likely hypothesis, as it's something I cannot verify at all, in fact I won't bother with it.

@Eran: I like your posts on religious matter, they seems quite sensible to me.

 

[Perfection]

There is still a small chance that there is not, but they act as though there is not. Thus, they have "faith" in one sense of the word.

A poopy sense in my view. Going with the evidence dispite lack of complete certainty is a completely rational thing to do.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I didn't say it was irrational, I said that it was analogous to my faith - I am not 100% certain of something, but I act as though I am.

 

[Perfection]

I didn't say it was irrational, I said that it was analogous to my faith - I am not 100% certain of something, but I act as though I am.

It's an over-generalization though. It neglects the terrible epistimology you used to arrive at your conclusion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You only think it is terrible epistimology. My point is that I feel that based on my life, it is very probable that God exists. Whether this is the case is irrelevant to the analogy, what matters is that I myself think that it is likely but not certain, but act as though it is certain.

 

[Perfection]

You only think it is terrible epistimology. My point is that I feel that based on my life, it is very probable that God exists.

And how do you arrive at that probability?

Whether this is the case is irrelevant to the analogy, what matters is that I myself think that it is likely but not certain, but act as though it is certain.

The epistimological source I think is very relevant to the discussion though.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Not really, as I was only making an analogy. Like I said, my faith means that I act as though God exists, for certain, when I myself think that it is only probable, and for the purposes of the analogy it is not relevant whether I right am or not, only that I think I am.

 

[Perfection]

Faith is more then that in my view. People claim that faith itself is a reason.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Faith is more than that to me (but not in itself a reason), but that is one of the things it is, and I was just saying that agnostics who say that God might exist, but act as though He/She/it/They don't, are in an analogous position.

 

[Sidhe]

Ok.

If you believe that you can't know,then how can you proclaim the knowledge of "not knowing anything exist?"Isn't God constitute everything so therefore God exist?

I have no idea what you mean? But I'll guess. I can't know that but I can be damn sure that God may or may not exist? There's no therefore about it, consistently speaking, God has as much proof as IPU and FSM, but I don't think debating there existence would make much of a conversation, in other words you could apply your proposition to anything and you still wouldn't get anywhere meaningful.

Yeah, they're so close! They just need to be harangued until they join us!

You could try reason?

Atheists don't require absolute proof, or insist that "we must be right", only that the valid course of action in regard to notions of god is dismissal as rubbish.

Good just as long as you refrain from saying God exists and stick to saying that you don't care, which is the only really atheisticlly weak postion you can make without straying towards faith again.

Well, knowing how shifty those agnostics are, I bet they'd probobly hate them with a burning passion.

How can you hate someone who is neither for or against your argument, it's like Zap Branigan hating the neutrals

Small point. I would argue that the theist is more misguided if only because he allows his beliefs to control his day to day life whereas the atheist does not.

Only if he's wrong.

I consider myself an atheist only because, based on my life experience, I would guess that there are no gods. I do not presume to be right. If I encountered evidence to the contrary this position might change.

If you had to guess, one way or the other, which position would you choose?

I'd chose not to guess, it's a cop out like I said but it gives you peace of mind and more people to converse with at dinner parties without offending anyone

I don't know of any agnostics who pray or attend worship services "just in case", so as near as I can tell the only practical difference between an agnostic and an atheist is whether one plays offense or defense in these sorts of "prove God doesn't exist" debate threads.

That's a neat little statement, I haven't played offense or defense meself I just don't have any answers, sorry, a bit bland but that's agnosticism for you

Dear Agnostic,

Why is it that, in every question of existence besides that of god, you (presumably) assume that the thing does NOT exist until given evidence, yet in the case of god you say you are "agnostic" on the issue (this assumes that you do not have any particular evidence for believing in god).

For example, were I to ask you if an invisible diamond is floating in front of your computer screen right now, you would say "no", not "i'm agnostic on the issue". That is to say, when we are asking whether or not x exists, we assume that it doesn't until evidence is given, rather than saying "I'm agnostic on x". So why is the question of god any different? Shouldn't we say that god doesn't exist until given evidence, rather than "I'm agnostic"?

And if you DO have evidence for god's existence (which would make the agnostic position more plausible), what is it?

And if you've already answered this question, just link me to that post.


Yours Truly,

Fifty Fiftyson

Proof of existence of God is an anathema to agnosticism, it would destroy it more absolutely than atheism.

I can if I like chose to say that there is a diamond floating in front of me, or their isn't, but since it only impinges on your reality in any real sense and has little impact on mine, I can chose to ignore it's importance, it's the same with God. Trying to place more percieved "import" in something that doesn't have evidence over something else is hardly going to sway me. Emotion or faith is irrelevant or imagination for that matter, the diamond is as real to me as God, but I rarely find I have to justify my position about floating diamonds. Essentially Like any good scientist I say if I can't prove it it is not relevant, particularly if their aren't a billion bilievers, as a good scientist though I cannot say it doesn't exist, that is beyond science, all I can say is that there is no proof. I think that explains my view point philosophically and scientifically.

Faith is more than that to me (but not in itself a reason), but that is one of the things it is, and I was just saying that agnostics who say that God might exist, but act as though He/She/it/They don't, are in an analogous position.

I have never acted as if God doesn't exist, that would be irrational and not consistent with agnosticism, that I'd say would be atheism.

 

[Civicide]

Sigh. This again?

I think that most people only describe themselves as "agnostic" because of persistent misconceptions about atheism - that it is, for example, a position that requires "faith" (which is false - atheism is precisely the lack of faith) - who pick a different word that seems less confrontational than "atheism" does and doesn't have all the stigmas attached. I can't tell you how many times I've had a self-proclaimed "agnostic" describe how they have disdain for atheists and then go on to describe a philosophical position that is indistinguishable from my own, and I am as hardcore an atheist as you'll even meet.

I have come to suspect that most self-proclaimed agnostics don't really understand exactly what it is that most self-proclaimed atheists actually believe. Reading through this thread has reinforced that.

 

[Sidhe]

Sigh. This again?

I think that most people only describe themselves as "agnostic" because of persistent misconceptions about atheism - that it is, for example, a position that requires "faith" (which is false - atheism is precisely the lack of faith) - who pick a different word that seems less confrontational than "atheism" does and doesn't have all the stigmas attached. I can't tell you how many times I've had a self-proclaimed "agnostic" describe how they have disdain for atheists and then go on to describe a philosophical position that is indistinguishable from my own, and I am as hardcore an atheist as you'll even meet.

I have come to suspect that most self-proclaimed agnostics don't really understand exactly what it is that most self-proclaimed atheists actually believe. Reading through this thread has reinforced that.

In that case explain the similarity of the position between agnosticism and atheism, I think you'll find that most people here understand perfectly well the simillarities and the differences, so you need not be patronising, dig deep into as much metaphysical blarney as you wish.

I already established my only percieved difference, agnostics say they don't know atheists either say that he doesn't exist because... or something simillar or that becuase there is no proof that he does not exist. There's a sort of grey area between strong agnosticism and weak atheism, where there almost indistinguishable, and it's mostly technicalities a bit like protestantism and catholicism, but I'm not arguing with weak atheists, only people who say that God does not exist.



As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

Bertrand Russel has a few million Good points about agnosticism the above is one.

 

[Civicide]

In that case explain the similarity of the position between agnosticism and atheism, I think you'll find that most people here understand perfectly well the simillarities and the differences, so you need not be patronising, dig deep into as much metaphysical blarney as you wish.

I already established my only percieved difference, agnostics say they don't know atheists either say that he doesn't exist because or something simillar or that becuase there is no proof that he does not exist. There's a sort of grey area between strong agnsoticism and weak atheism, where there almost indistinguishable, and it's mostly technicalities a bit like protestantism and catholicism, but I'm not arguing with weak atheists, only people who say that God does not exist.

The atheist's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists, and I call myself an atheist."
The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists, and I call myself an agnostic."

The root word of "agnosticism" is "gnosis", meaning a knowledge of the divine (one who claims to have it is called a gnostic, one that doesn't, an agnostic). An agnostic is therefore saying that he or she lacks a knowledge of the divine, which he or she believes differentiates him or herself from an atheist. This is untrue. Atheism involves no meaningful gnosis. It is simply a lack of faith, in which a lack of knowledge is implied.

The implication that agnosticism is a meaningful category implies that atheists claim with 100%, mathematical-proof certainty that no god exists, which is of course ridiculous because it is mathematically impossible to disprove a positive existential claim. Different people exist on different areas of the "certainty of faith" scale, of course, which is why atheists sometimes classify themselves as "strong atheists" (maybe, 99.9999999% sure there is no god, about where I'm at) vs. "weak atheists" (maybe, 85% sure there is no god), but to say that "agnostic" is a category that deserves a range on this scale is not consistent with the difference between "gnosis" and "faith".

Most people that describe themselves as "agnostic" do not describe a philosophical position that is at all distinguishable from people that describe themselves as "atheist". Most will use different language to describe that position, but the position is very similar nonetheless.

 

[Adamb0mb]

The atheist's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists, and I call myself an atheist."
The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists, and I call myself an agnostic."

The atheist's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists therefore god does not exist"
The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists."

athiests take their position on faith and draw conclusions from it. an agnostic has not come to a conclusion.

 

[Masquerouge]

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

Bertrand Russel has a few million Good points about agnosticism the above is one.

I like that quote.

 

[Sidhe]

The atheist's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists, and I call myself an atheist."
The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists, and I call myself an agnostic."

The root word of "agnosticism" is "gnosis", meaning a knowledge of the divine (one who claims to have it is called a gnostic, one that doesn't, an agnostic). An agnostic is therefore saying that he or she lacks a knowledge of the divine, which he or she believes differentiates him or herself from an atheist. This is untrue. Atheism involves no meaningful gnosis. It is simply a lack of faith, in which a lack of knowledge is implied.

The implication that agnosticism is a meaningful category implies that atheists claim with 100%, mathematical-proof certainty that no god exists, which is of course ridiculous because it is mathematically impossible to disprove a positive existential claim. Different people exist on different areas of the "certainty of faith" scale, of course, which is why atheists sometimes classify themselves as "strong atheists" (maybe, 99.9999999% sure there is no god, about where I'm at) vs. "weak atheists" (maybe, 85% sure there is no god), but to say that "agnostic" is a category that deserves a range on this scale is not consistent with the difference between "gnosis" and "faith".

Most people that describe themselves as "agnostic" do not describe a philosophical position that is at all distinguishable from people that describe themselves as "atheist". Most will use different language to describe that position, but the position is very similar nonetheless.

Which is why to have any meaningfull discussion at all you need to distinguish an atheist who does not believe in God, from an atheist who says that |God!| cannot exist, weak from strong. Otherwise as you say you might as well call them simmilar but not the same. The distinctions maybe fine but they are fine enough if someone is going to make a strong claim rather than a weak one. Which is why I was talking with Perfection as he is borderline strongly believeing that God does not exist. And so are one or two others, if I couldn't of made the point that this is not logically valid to say that God does not exist, and had people argue the toss, then the thread would of died on page 1.

 

[Civicide]

The atheist's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists therefore god does not exist"
The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists."

athiests take their position on faith and draw conclusions from it. an agnostic has not come to a conclusion.

Wrong.

The "conclusion" from a lack of faith is implicit, and depends on how strongly convinced the person in question is of their lack of faith. Someone who is 95% convinced that there is no god might be comfortable with the statement "god does not exist", while someone only 94.8% convinced that there is no god might not be comfortable with that same statement. That does not make the person who is 94.8% convinced not an atheist, nor does it magically throw them into the "agnostic" category. Being comfortable with the statement "god does not exist" (implicitly meaning, "the probability of a god existing is staggeringly low), is not the same thing as a gnosis.