Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-05-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL53

This is all fine and well. Under this scheme I would be a (2). But I find the word "agnostic" useless. You either believe - for whatever reason(s) - or you do not believe. That's it. (Ignoring, of course, those that have never been exposed to the question, or those who are rocks or cats.

)

AF, how would you rate yourself on this poll?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post2486007

(I'm going to post this poll again, in the EOG forum, with a longer time limit.)

When confronted with the proposition, "X exists", for some X, it is perfectly legitimate to claim, "I do not know." You are not stuck with saying that it exists or it does not exist.

For example, X = "An artifact built my a non-human extraterrestrial intelligence within 1000 light years of Earth."

The question is whether or not X exists.

I don't know.

I really don't.

Anybody who comes to me and says, "You either believe (that X exists) - for whatever reason(s) - or you do not believe. That's it." . . . No, those are not the only two options.

As for the poll . . .

It is a difficult question to answer because you use a very strange definition of "know."

I place the proposition, "God does not exist" in with the same categories as "Invisible pink unicorns do not exist", "The Tooth Fairy does not exist", and "Santa Clause does not exist."

(I am still looking into this flying spaghetti monster option. I would normally say "no", but the pirate argument has me intrigued.)

I am quite comfortable with saying that I know all of these things.

However, my definition of "know" is not the absolutist definition you seem to require for #5.

So, I do not know whether #4 or #5 will give the most accurate representation of my views.

However, when I took your poll, I put myself down under your last option.

JGL53 · 09-05-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alonzo Fyfe

When confronted with the proposition, "X exists", for some X, it is perfectly legitimate to claim, "I do not know." You are not stuck with saying that it exists or it does not exist.

For example, X = "An artifact built my a non-human extraterrestrial intelligence within 1000 light years of Earth."

The question is whether or not X exists.

I don't know.

I really don't.

Anybody who comes to me and says, "You either believe (that X exists) - for whatever reason(s) - or you do not believe. That's it." . . . No, those are not the only two options.

You are confusing "know" with "belief" - and I am using the word "know" in it's absolutist sense - as a christian might say "I know god exists".

I.e., to use your example, if confronted with the proposition, "X exists", for some X, it is indead perfectly legitimate to claim, "I do not know." If the question had been "Do you believe X exists" - the answer would be “yes�? or “no�?, you believe or you do not believe - knowledge is not the question. Regarding belief, there are only two options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alonzo Fyfe

...As for the poll . . .

It is a difficult question to answer because you use a very strange definition of "know."

I place the proposition, "God does not exist" in with the same categories as "Invisible pink unicorns do not exist", "The Tooth Fairy does not exist", and "Santa Clause does not exist."

(I am still looking into this flying spaghetti monster option. I would normally say "no", but the pirate argument has me intrigued.)

I am quite comfortable with saying that I know all of these things.

However, my definition of "know" is not the absolutist definition you seem to require for #5.

So, I do not know whether #4 or #5 will give the most accurate representation of my views.

However, when I took your poll, I put myself down under your last option.

I'm sorry - I guess I should have explained. People, and I include myself in that group, use the word "know" all the time - like it was an absolutist claim - but of course it will always be contextual.

Regarding the ultimate abstract philosophical questions - the ontological ones, especially - use of the word "know" implies absolute knowledge. If it doesn't, then one should use the explanatory phrase "belief beyond any reasonbable doubt".

So, under my criteria, apparently you are a #4.

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-05-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL53

I.e., to use your example, if confronted with the proposition, "X exists", for some X, it is indead perfectly legitimate to claim, "I do not know." If the question had been "Do you believe X exists" - the answer would be “yes�? or “no�?, you believe or you do not believe - knowledge is not the question. Regarding belief, there are only two options.

Then you are equivocating between "I do not believe that 'X exists' is true" and "I believe that 'X exists'" is not true".

You have just escaped from a burning building. A fireman asks you, "Is there anybody else in there?"

What do you answer if you do not know?

If you say, "No," the fireman is going to think that you are saying that the building is empty.

However, you claim that you would answer "no" even if you have no idea whether there is another person in the building or not.

My view is that the best, most meaningful answer to the question is, "I don't know."

There are, again, three options to these types of questions -- not two.

"Yes, there is somebody in the building."
"No, the building is empty."
"I don't know whether there is anybody in there or not."

"Is there a god?" (like "Is there anybody else left in that building?") has three possible answers.

Yes. (theism)
No. (atheism)
I don't know (agnositicism)

Dick Springer · 09-05-2005, 02:43 PM

I believe that there is no god in any sense in which the word is generally used. Following an example cited by Bertrand Russell, I also believe that there is no tea kettle orbiting Mars. I think I am about equally unlikely to be wrong on either of the two questions, but the possibility does exist. Since I believe that there is no god, I am an atheist.

Brian63 · 09-05-2005, 02:43 PM

The nomenclature I prefer is similar to Alonzo's, and is the one espoused by Theodore Drange in:

Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism

I think too much emphasis is put on labels though. We can just say explicitly what our beliefs are---"I believe that God exists" or "I think there is insufficient evidence to decide either way" or "I think God does not exist" without worrying much about what terms we should use to call them.

Brian

josephpalazzo · 09-05-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper

In a recent entry on the Raving Atheist blog, titled "Sweeney, Unambiguous," RA rails against agnosticism as untenable, and embraces comedian Julia Sweeney's public statement that she transitioned from agnosticism to atheism. First, RA quoted Sweeney:
I don't think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. I consider myself to be both an agnostic and an atheist. So I didn't really like some of the comments made in this RA piece, and I thought that he might be wrong:
I don't know, is this really the case?

RA gave this "definition," which I didn't agree with:

I don't think this is what most agnostics think, is it?

Then RA said:

I know so many people like me who self-identify as "agnostic atheists." We refer to an absence of direct knowledge (gnosis) and an absence of affirmative belief in any gods. How does our position fit in with RA's characterization of the agnostic stance?

I had a problem with a (possible) multi-use phrase here:

My first reaction to this was "nuh uh," because I associate the phrase "negative atheism" to be a synonym for "implicit" or "weak" atheism, a simple absence of belief. (I associate the phrase "positive atheism" with the "explicit" or "strong" stance, which makes a claim that no gods exist. Trust me, I didn't like the name of this forum when it was initially created...)

Both of these phrases have multiple meanings, though, so is RA correct in labeling the refutation of theistic arguments as "negative atheism"?

RA goes on to describe another concept he disagrees with:
Is this really what "non-theological agnosticism" really is? Or is RA incorrect?

He summed up with this note, in italics:
Cool, something I can agree with.

What I don't agree with is the idea that one must shed agnosticism and embrace atheism, insofar as deciding what your philosophy and stance is. I think that one can “be both.�?

However, I do think that nonbelievers should refer to themselves as atheists, because referring to yourself only as an agnostic fails to let people if you do or do not possess theism. So, like RA, I’m glad that Sweeney uses the proper word to tell people that she is not a believer.

My opening post is long, and I asked a lot of philosophical questions, and I’d appreciate the answers from our more informed IIDBers. I almost posted this thread in Philosophy, but I chose to post in PA&SA because also want to discuss the broader issue of public perception of nonbelievers, and our choices of the words we use to label ourselves.

One reason why atheists call themselves agnostics is because they fear the bad “image�? associated with the A-bomb, the word “atheism.�? To combat the bad perception, I ask people to come out of the atheist closet. I encourage people to embrace the word “atheist�? and, unless they actively believe in the existence of any deities, or in a supernatural Supreme Being, I think that all people should call themselves atheists. If they also think that we can’t know if any such beings exist, then they can preface their atheist label with “agnostic.�? If we nonbelievers all came out and called ourselves atheists, then people would see that we aren’t all the things that atheists are stereotyped as being. If we have visibility, we can earn respect. It’s harder for people to discriminate against a minority when they have personal interactions and relationships with members of that minority. You are a walking, talking example of what an atheist is.

So in a way, I agree with Raving Atheist in principle, but not for the same reasons he cited. This could be due to my lack of education on the deeper philosophy of nonbelief and the terms used in describing it. Like RA, I am glad that Julia Sweeney, a nonbeliever, calls herself an atheist. But I don’t think that agnosticism is indefensible, I just think it’s different, and misunderstood.

I really didn’t care for this RA essay, despite agreeing with RA on the surface. Are his arguments sound? Is his information correct? Is he right? Am I right? And shouldn’t the agnostics ALSO call themselves atheists unless they possess belief in a god or gods?

The old Adage: divide and conquer.

How about: atheist, Period.

Mathew Goldstein · 09-05-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper

In a recent entry on the Raving Atheist blog, titled "Sweeney, Unambiguous," RA rails against agnosticism as untenable, and embraces comedian Julia Sweeney's public statement that she transitioned from agnosticism to atheism....

Atheist propaganda against the competition from agnosticsm appears to be the motivation behind the Raving Atheist article. It isn't a good article. I also disagree with it, although from a somewhat different angle.

I believe there is(are) no god(s). I don't find third way agnosticism compelling because I think theism is unjustified. I don't call myself an agnostic atheist because both theism and atheism are by definition beliefs and therefore incomplete knowledge agnosticism (as opposed to third way agnosticism) is implied. People who insist their theism or atheism are proven facts with the certainty of, say, the fact that skin is made of many individual skin cells that each have mitochondria and ribosomes should maybe qualify their atheism with "dogmatic" or something like that. The rest of us don't need to qualify our theism or atheism with an agnostic label since by default definition they are beliefs, not proven fact presumptions.

What muddles this is the implicit atheism that refuses to acknowledge its disbelief as a belief. Yes, atheism is arguably a minimilist position vis-a-vis belief. But explicit atheism shares that minimilist approach in the sense that it can be and usually is rooted in the view that theism is unjustified. So I see no point in insisting such disbelief is not a belief. After all, we believe that theism and atheism are not more or less equally plausible which is why we are atheists and not third way agnostics. So it is 'no beliefs' implicit atheism that I think is confusing and is contributing to creating this definitional murkiness and confusion.

dettus · 09-05-2005, 04:33 PM

The problem is that people elevate the god concept to something more than any other unsupported belief.

My position on the existence of gods is the same position of the existence of a tea kettle orbitting Mars.

Are agnostics agnostic on the belief that there is a tea kettle orbitting Mars? If not, then the question is, why do agnostics believe that the god concept is any different than the concept of a tea kettle orbitting Mars? Or the invisible dragon, or the flying speghetti monster? What makes the god concept any different than these other obsurdities?

JGL53 · 09-05-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alonzo Fyfe

Then you are equivocating between "I do not believe that 'X exists' is true" and "I believe that 'X exists'" is not true".

You have just escaped from a burning building. A fireman asks you, "Is there anybody else in there?"

What do you answer if you do not know?

If you say, "No," the fireman is going to think that you are saying that the building is empty.

However, you claim that you would answer "no" even if you have no idea whether there is another person in the building or not.

My view is that the best, most meaningful answer to the question is, "I don't know."

There are, again, three options to these types of questions -- not two.

"Yes, there is somebody in the building."
"No, the building is empty."
"I don't know whether there is anybody in there or not."

"Is there a god?" (like "Is there anybody else left in that building?") has three possible answers.

Yes. (theism)
No. (atheism)
I don't know (agnosticism)

No, I must continue to disagree with you. So, on your example of a mundane situation: I escape from a burning building, and a fireman asks me "Is there anybody else in there?"

If I saw someone there as I left, I answer "Yes.". If I don't know for sure, but I have some reason to suspect strongly that there very well may be, I say exactly that to the fireman. If I had had time to look in every room before I ran out, and I saw no one, I would relate exactly that, using language like "I looked in every room and saw no one - as far as I know there's no one still in there.".

I think that covers all bases. I don't think your analogy holds up between this quite understandable mundane situation with clear alternatives as to how to describe and handle it, and the concept of an invisible immaterial super powerful person - or disembodied mind.

On the question of knowledge, the answer is that we don't know (absolutely), simply because absolute knowledge seems beyond humans. Those who disagree - and believe in revelatory knowledge, or have a personal experience they interpret as evidence, but can't be shared by definition, or are Objectivists or narcissists or whatever - well, they can be ignored until they met their burden of proof. - Likewise with those who believe in elves living under mushroom caps in the deep forest.

So, re knowledge of god, the choices are:

1. You know. (gnostic)
2. You don't know. (agnostic)

Re belief in god's real existence, the choices are:

1. You believe. (theist)
2. You don't believe. (atheist or, if you prefer, non-theist)

These are two separate questions and both have either/or, yes/no answers.

This is really not that difficult to understand - just cogitate on it all for a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dettus

The problem is that people elevate the god concept to something more than any other unsupported belief.

My position on the existence of gods is the same position of the existence of a tea kettle orbiting Mars.

Are agnostics agnostic on the belief that there is a tea kettle orbiting Mars? If not, then the question is, why do agnostics believe that the god concept is any different than the concept of a tea kettle orbiting Mars? Or the invisible dragon, or the flying spaghetti monster? What makes the god concept any different than these other absurdities?

This is a very good point - in fact, it is THE point. Why do we allow the question of "knowledge" to even raise its ugly head? We don't do this, as you say, with tea kettles orbiting Mars.

- There is no evidence of tea kettles orbiting Mars. There is no good reason to even give this idea consideration. It is an absurd and ridiculous idea, on its face. Just saying that you "don't know" if there are presently tea kettles orbiting Mars, or that the jury is out or whatever, is as ridiculous in its essence as the claim that you "believe as a matter of faith that tea kettles are orbiting Mars�?. What a load of bullcrap.

- There is no evidence of the existence of a god. There is no good reason to even give this idea consideration. It is an absurd and ridiculous idea, on its face. Just saying that you "don't know�? of the existence of a god, or that the jury is out, or whatever, is as ridiculous in its essence as the claim that you "believe as a matter of faith in the existence of a god�?. What a load of bullcrap.

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-05-2005, 07:53 PM

JGL53:

Your taxonomy still categorizes my cat, and the rock in my garden, as atheists -- since they do not believe that a God exists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-05-2005, 02:43 PM	#14
Dick Springer Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Scarborough, ME 04074 Posts: 1,892	I believe that there is no god in any sense in which the word is generally used. Following an example cited by Bertrand Russell, I also believe that there is no tea kettle orbiting Mars. I think I am about equally unlikely to be wrong on either of the two questions, but the possibility does exist. Since I believe that there is no god, I am an atheist.

09-05-2005, 02:43 PM	#15
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	The nomenclature I prefer is similar to Alonzo's, and is the one espoused by Theodore Drange in: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism I think too much emphasis is put on labels though. We can just say explicitly what our beliefs are---"I believe that God exists" or "I think there is insufficient evidence to decide either way" or "I think God does not exist" without worrying much about what terms we should use to call them. Brian

09-05-2005, 04:33 PM	#18
dettus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: where apologists for religion are deservedly derid Posts: 6,298	The problem is that people elevate the god concept to something more than any other unsupported belief. My position on the existence of gods is the same position of the existence of a tea kettle orbitting Mars. Are agnostics agnostic on the belief that there is a tea kettle orbitting Mars? If not, then the question is, why do agnostics believe that the god concept is any different than the concept of a tea kettle orbitting Mars? Or the invisible dragon, or the flying speghetti monster? What makes the god concept any different than these other obsurdities?

09-05-2005, 07:53 PM	#20
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	JGL53: Your taxonomy still categorizes my cat, and the rock in my garden, as atheists -- since they do not believe that a God exists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.