Ask an agnostic...

[Civicide]

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.

I don't disagree that distinguishing the degree of certainty when it comes to belief, i.e., establishing a "currency", so to speak, of certainty of belief, can be useful. However "agnosticism" is not a useful word to use with regards to making that differentiation, and it is in fact often actively misleading, particularly when used as a completely separate category from atheism. It implies that everyone who describes themselves as an atheist lacks belief with 100% certainty, which is a falsehood (even moreso when that jumps into the argument that atheism involves "faith").

 

[Sidhe]

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.

Agreed as long as you establish their is room for doubt then your claim is more logically consistent, but placing a percentage value on it may seem like a good way of showing how devout someones belief in God's non existence is or vise a versa but it is not logical. Because their is nothing Empirical with which to establish your %. All you have is philosophical musings. And if you can place mathematical value on philosophy then it's no maths I know and no philosophy either

 

[CartesianFart]

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).

No.It is just saying that a person who do not have the wants to assume if there is any evidence for believing in such a "God."For the faithful,the wants to believe or not to believe is already presupposed.

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"?

That is because the person have taken the word and position of agnosticism as the criteria to make the inquiry before the evidence is layed out.

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

Impossible,because the agnostic position itself lies to the meaning of what define agnosticism.The agnostic can not make any utterance at all on what affirm or deny the evidence of God's existence.The agnostic is skeptical on that endeavor for whatever agnostic reason.

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

No answers but i do want clarity on your position on what are you trying to elucidate here.

 

[Adamb0mb]

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.

Wrong.

If the conclusion depends on the specific person then it can not be implied and must be stated explicity for each individual.

Also, someone being "comfortable" with an idea is hardly an endorsement.

 

[Civicide]

Wrong.

If the conclusion depends on the specific person then it can not be implied and must be stated explicity for each individual.

I misspoke slightly; the content of the conclusion may not be implicit, but the existence of some conclusion (even, especially, an uncertain one) most certainly is implicit, else, what is the point of the first half of the statement?

The point isn't to say, someone that lacks faith in god automatically believes with 100% certainty that there is no god; it's to say that someone that believes with less than 100% certainty that there is no god can still accurately be called an atheist. The use of the word "agnosticism" as a middle ground implies otherwise, and is wrong in so doing.

 

[Adamb0mb]

I misspoke slightly; the content of the conclusion may not be implicit, but the existence of some conclusion (even, especially, an uncertain one) most certainly is implicit, else, what is the point of the first half of the statement?

This statement?

The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists."

The point is to distinguish my position from someone with the position: "I have faith that god exists."

someone that believes with less than 100% certainty that there is no god can still accurately be called an atheist.

So someone with any level of uncertainty can accurately be called an athiest?

What about someone who is 50-50 or someone who is 0% certain that there is no god; is there anyway that these people could accurately be called athiests?

 

[Civicide]

The point is to distinguish my position from someone with the position: "I have faith that god exists."

This is trivial; of course any theist position involves gnosis, separating agnosticism from theism. This does nothing, however, to separate agnosticism from atheism.

So someone with any level of uncertainty can accurately be called an athiest?

I didn't say that. I would not say it is accurate to say that someone that is generally faithful, but has occasional doubts, is an atheist. I would not say that it is accurate to call them an "agnostic" either.

What about someone who is 50-50 or someone who is 0% certain that there is no god; is there anyway that these people could accurately be called athiests?

In one of his books ("The God Delusion" I believe), Richard Dawkins proposes a scale that looks something like as follows (I'm recreating from memory)

1) Absolutely 100% certain that God exists
2) Very certain that God exists, but doesn't claim 100% certainty
3) Fairly convinced that God exists, but with occasional doubts
4) Absolutely unconvinced on the existence of God either way
5) Substantially doubtful of the existence of God
6) Very certain that no God exists, but doesn't claim 100% certainty
7) Absolutely 100% certain that no God exists

Most people put theists in group 1, atheists in group 7, and say that 2 through 6 are varying degrees of agnosticism; I (and Dawkins) say this is bunk, since people that call themselves atheists practically never fall into group 7 (since group 7 is logically untenable, given the futility of disproving a god's existence). Dawkins himself (who I don't think anyone would claim is not an atheist) places himself in group 6, very close to 7.

If atheists were actually in group 7, then one might have an argument that their philosophical stance claims a gnosis, that to reject might be called agnosticism.

(It is possible that Huxley fell into this fallacy when he coined the term, though I think Huxley considered "agnosticism" to be more of a justification for an atheist's position, and continually rejected Christian gnosis. He acknowledged that Christians were probably justified in calling him an atheist, and never to my knowledge put that much effort into disassociating his philosophy from that word).

The point is, agnosticism is often set up as a separate philosophical position from atheism, which in so doing presumes that an atheist is making claims that the atheist, in full point of philosophical fact, is not making.

The point where you stop calling someone a theist and start calling them an atheist is not important (except maybe to the person in question, mostly because of the stigmas associated with the word "atheist"), but to insert "agnosticism" as a middle ground is not logical.

 

[Sidhe]

Agreed agnosticism isn't a middle ground, it has no ground by definition because it never can be placed anywhere on any table. And I think atheism is simmilar in this respect, only hard line Atheism is illogical. And only hard line agnosticism is too.

If it was that simple to define a persons outlook by a single word alone, then all threads about the existence of God or not would be meaningless, and no discussion would be worthy, we're not talking etymology here, we're talking finding a rational and consistant path.

Some may argue that theism never finds it, some may argue that atheism never finds it, some may argue that agnosticism never finds it, but IMHO no one may argue with any conviction. And there is no absolute in philosophical debate.

Leave that to mathematics, and they have nothing in the way of concrete either, even proofs are open to debate given complex numbers and dimensional considerations beyond the normal 3.

If there ever comes a time when I can say without fear of contradiction that my view is absolutely correct, that would be the time for me to die.

 

[nihilistic]

1) Absolutely 100% certain that God exists
2) Very certain that God exists, but doesn't claim 100% certainty
3) Fairly convinced that God exists, but with occasional doubts
4) Absolutely unconvinced on the existence of God either way
5) Substantially doubtful of the existence of God
6) Very certain that no God exists, but doesn't claim 100% certainty
7) Absolutely 100% certain that no God exists

...

If atheists were actually in group 7, then one might have an argument that their philosophical stance claims a gnosis, that to reject might be called agnosticism.

Not true, because there is a group 8: Certain that no God exists

There is a difference. 100% certainty precludes probability but not possibility. It's a very, very important difference.

 

[Steph]

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."

Wrong.
Atheist: "I have the faith that god doesn't exist"
Theist : "I have the faith that God exists"
Agnostic "I lack the faith that God exists"

 

[Adamb0mb]

Wrong? As opposed to you? I don't really see the difference between our stances:

Our views on athiests:

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

Atheist: "I have the faith that god doesn't exist"

symmantics, you added the word 'faith' to my viewpoint. And I agree, I used the word 'faith' in regards to athiests in the first reply to this thread.

on agnostics:

Agnostic "I lack the faith that God exists"

The agnostic's position: "I lack the faith that a god exists."

Apparently you agree. So are you saying we are both wrong?

Theist : "I have the faith that God exists"

I agree. I didn't state this explicitly because this seems to be well understood.

 

[Steph]

The difference is on your definition of atheist

atheist "God doesn't exist"
agnostic "I don't know if God exist or not"
theist "God exists"

You define atheist as the absence of faith in the existence of God, when they should be define by their faith in the non existence of God. That's not the same thing.

Is it clearer for you know?

 

[Perfection]

It's more like:

Athiest: "I find the concept of God so absurd I dismiss it as erroneous"

 

[FredLC]

Agnosticism, to me, is a logically consistent position. Atheism is not. Arguements for Atheism (as presented to me) usually follow the same basic pattern. They assert that the world can be explained entirely by scientific/natural means. They then use occams razor to effectively (though not certainly, as there can be no such thing) disprove the existence of god. There is a problem with this arguement, however. We do not know if we can, in fact, make a "Theory of (literally) Everything" that totally and perfectly explains the universe by natural/scientific means. No one has done this, and no one has proven it possible. So occam's razor cannot be applied, the assertion is wrong, and we cannot disprove the existence of God/Gods/whatever. Of course, this will depend on the definition of god, but I suspect that as long as there is no complete theory of the universe then there will exist atleast some sufficiently vague notion of god that could potentially (and in compliance with occam's razor) exist.

If there is a way to disprove (in the sense I refer to above, as of course a universal negative cannot be proven) God another way that is logically consistent, I would like to know it. But as I say, the arguments I hear are almost universally some variation on the above, which I see to be wrong.

Also, I should note that when I see atheists attack agnostics with charges of sophomorism and the like, I see the same arrogance that marks theists. But that's just me.

As I have faced this claim before, I gues I should just repeat what I said last time.

Time to make a stand for atheism here. Let me start with this, than proceed to the general topic:

Originally posted by Gothmog
Just to be clear, athiesm is disbelief in God or denying the existance of God - not simply 'not believing' in God. I edited my above post to reflect that point, which I felt I hadn't been clear about before. So an athiestic stand does imply true knowledge, it is the agnostic stand that does not. Of course the agnostic also believes that no one has true knowledge of the nature of God or 'Creation'. That is where the belief comes in as I cannot know for sure. I assure you that I am as true an agnostic as you will meet.

You know, Gothmog, you are not the first one who says that to me, and not the first one who I challenge with that response. Anyway, I do not accept to have my true stand challenged due to narrow dictionary definitions.

See, the dictionary.com defines atheism this way:

a•the•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.

So, without even entering the realm of how exatcly "disbelieve" differs from "not believing", I have to ask: should I think that I am immoral just because of that silly definition? I don't think so.

Let’s also see the definition of agnosticism.

ag•nos•ti•cism
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

See, if we go for it, in the religious aspect, than in fact there is no mention of the concept being held here, that they refuse to claim knowledge, but they also are allowed to not take all given information with the same value. It's you that added the part that gives it a reasonable stance, because this here puts you in a position where you have to accept the hypothesis “there is God” to the same value of the hypothesis “there is no God”, without room to weight the two opposite views accordingly to their logical value, but only accept them as equal: I don’t know either way, so they are the same… after all, “there can be no proof”.

In that sense, actually, Newfangle would be right in his description of agnosticism. It would be a appeal to ignorance, as it would state a priori that no knowledge of God can ever be found, what, according to the metaphysics definition being held in this thread, would be to think of it as a perfect axiom, and hence, an axiom doomed from it’s inception.

It also would be, as he said, to equate logic with lack of logic, because it demands that you take whatever info and label than “insufficient”, refusing to take a stand, no matter if one side is, despite not proven without a doubt, to be logical virtually beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the dictionary dot com definition of agnosticism would imply all that… but in fact, I don’t think that’s your stand, nor the stand of any of the agnostics here. And I don’t throw it in the thread saying “here is what you really are, get used to it!”. I realize the lack of describing power of those words.

It’s the same with atheism. I do not claim that I know there is no God. I just claim that I don’t believe in it. That’s the definition of atheism I stand for. If you want to call it moderate atheism, be my guest. If you still say that I can’t define atheism like that, because the dictionary say I can’t, well, let’s come up with a new name to define the position I take. Personally, I suggest calling it “intelligentism”, so I can always define me as an intelligent person ; anyway, you get my point… my stance don’t change, regardless of what the dictionary says.

As for the actual point of the thread, I had already went through this with Pontiuth Pilate; I do know that, philosophically speaking, to obtain perfect knowledge is impossible. This is true about the existence of God, but it’s also true about the existence of cockroaches.

What I perceive of agnostics is that they draw an arbitrary line, like “from this on, I begin to feel in doubt”. I, personally do not feel like that. Despite the fact that my senses are limited, and my comprehension of reality is limited, and that I cannot offer a completely virtuous prove of absolutely anything, I do use empirical and logical thinking as tools to separate what is minimally acceptable from what isn’t.

So, we are back to the Gods and cockroaches, and for effect I might add aliens to this mix.

I can’t prove perfectly that there are cockroaches; maybe those bugs are a creation of my mind, no one else actually sees them or think of them, and every time I squashed one, I was simply deluding myself. However, I do think that the characteristics of the bug does not make them illogical in principle, and I feel comfortable to believe in them.

As for Aliens, well, did they come to earth? I doubt it, there is no serious evidence of that (or maybe I’m deluding myself about it ). Anyway, if someone asks me if Aliens exist somewhere out there, I’ll honestly say that I don’t know. If there is life here, there can be somewhere else. I lack data to tell, but they also don’t strike me as illogical in principle. Hence here I can reasonably place myself in a position of doubt. Guess I can define me as an Alien Agnostic, but that’s ok, after all we have settled that I can also define me as intelligent.

Finally, there is God. Accepting him as true is pretty tricky. It involves more than doubling universe’s complexity; invalidating all scientific knowledge we possess (as it’s a factor that can change the results of any experiment arbitrarily, demolishing their prediction value); that the rules of the universe aren’t really rules; that there are man that are better and wiser than any other man (namely Jesus and prophets in Christianity, for example), that the bible is a perfect book that have, hidden in it’s pages, all information humanity will ever need, and a lot other impossibilities and nonsensical information, almost to no end. And most of those consequences remain even when we retreat from an specific God to a obscure omnipotent entity.

So, there we have it. My intellectual honesty forbids me from categorically ruling out the “there is a God” thesis… but the same intellectual honesty tells me that this is a possibility to which I should not give serious value. Hence I feel pretty comfortable to state that I am an atheist, or an intelligent if you will.

As I once said, to place myself in a position of doubt, I require a doubt of greater virtue.

Regards .

Edit: necessary complement from that same thread, before people question it again:

Well, I'm not in the mood to answer a criterious reply right now - don't worry, I eventually will be - so, for now, just one little note:

My picking of the term "intelligentism" had nothing to do with thinking that not believing in God is intelligent; just that, as I could pick ant term I saw fit, I decided for one that is flattering.

I could very well have picked "handsomeism" or "honestism", as they would all have the same value.

Regards .

 

[Fifty]

Fred said everything that I'm thinkin and wishin I could be sayin but is too not good what at readin and writin to artickulate with any good amountsa precision.

 

[Adamb0mb]

The difference is on your definition of atheist

atheist "God doesn't exist"
agnostic "I don't know if God exist or not"
theist "God exists"

You define atheist as the absence of faith in the existence of God, when they should be define by their faith in the non existence of God. That's not the same thing.

Is it clearer for you know?

Whether or not an athiests viewpoint counts as faith is contentious at best. So when I am debating with an athiest, as is the context of the post you quoted, I may omit the 'faith' argument if we are focusing on other aspects of the two schools of thought.

However, I agree with you, as demonstrated in the very first reply in this topic:

Who's faith is more misguided, the athiest for his faith that no god exists or the religous for his faith in god?

We are in agreement. Is it clearer for you now?

 

[GenMarshall]

I am so confused, I dont know what to believe in anymore. Just recently, I relooked into how I rediscovered God and found out its just a bunch of irrationality based on emotions. I am not sure how agnostics deal with this because I still have hope that he does exist somewhere.

 

[IglooDame]

Not true, because there is a group 8: Certain that no God exists

There is a difference. 100% certainty precludes probability but not possibility. It's a very, very important difference.

I'm probably lacking the mathematical background to be clear on what you're saying here - 100% odds of something happening indicates that it still might not happen?

Anyway, on the 1-7 (I'll set aside 0 and 8 for the sake of continuity) scale given, it seems to me that 1-3 are theist, 4 is agnostic, and 5-7 are atheist. I can name a regular in this forum for every group on that scale, including a 1 and a 7.

 

[nihilistic]

I'm probably lacking the mathematical background to be clear on what you're saying here - 100% odds of something happening indicates that it still might not happen?

Well, to encounter it, you probably only need to take probability and statistics 101 or something. Let x be a uniform continuous variable between 0 and 1, and the probability of x = 2/3 is 0, but yet it can happen. If you don't mind a little more math, then you can consider null sets in measure theory, basically (not neccesarily empty) sets that accumulates to 0 area/volume/measure.

 

[IglooDame]

Well, to encounter it, you probably only need to take probability and statistics 101 or something. Let x be a uniform continuous variable between 0 and 1, and the probability of x = 2/3 is 0, but yet it can happen. If you don't mind a little more math, then you can consider null sets in measure theory, basically (not neccesarily empty) sets that accumulates to 0 area/volume/measure.

I did take it, but that was almost two decades ago and while I remember enough to avoid investing in lottery tickets, brain cells storing more esoteric items such as the one above have long since gotten drowned in alcohol or committed suicide from lack of interaction with their buddies.

Anyway, thanks for the links, I'll review them for future use. :xsmile: