Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EverLastingGodStopper · 09-04-2005, 05:52 PM

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Sweeney, on her transition from agnosticism to atheism:

I just became a stronger agnostic, and then I started to realize that everyone who was saying they were agnostic really hadn't thought about it that much. Still, I went with agnosticism for a long, long time because I just hated to say I was an atheist -- being an atheist seemed so rigid. But the more I became comfortable with the word, and the more I read, it started to stick.

Source: SF Gate interview

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:

Quote:

Agnosticism is, in fact, the least tenable theological position, completely inferior to atheism* and in some instances less defensible than theism. Sweeney is correct that agnosticism for the most part constitutes a failure – and commonly a studied refusal – to think about the God question that much.

I don't know, is this really the case?

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

Quote:

In short, an agnosticism based upon the notion of the incomprehensibility or undefinability of god simply avoids the question. And the fact that ants find humans incomprehensible, does not strip humans of definite powers and attributes, or, more importantly, make humans gods.

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

Then RA said:

Quote:

The atheist attack on the modern god is generally two-fold. The first prong again generally centers on the definition given and demonstrates that the god proposed is logically impossible due to contradictions among its various attributes; some of the standard arguments are set forth in my Basic Assumptions and elsewhere. These arguments demonstrate that the term “god�? is akin to a “square circle�? or “married bachelor.�?

The agnostic has no adequate response to these arguments. They are purely analytical, “arm-chair�? refutations of god which allow no resort to empirical inquiry or speculation. The agnostic cannot suggest that maybe, in some far corner of the universe (or perhaps invisibly in the room) the god in question exists, any more than he can suggest the same of a square circle or married bachelor. The only real avenue open is to address the arguments, to demonstrate whether they are valid or invalid. But in doing so, the agnostic will be forced to commit to either theism or atheism.

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:

Quote:

The second most common atheistic attack on god is “negative atheism,�? which focuses on refuting the theistic arguments in favor of god, including the ontological, teleological, cosmological and moral proofs.

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:

Quote:

Non-Theological Agnosticism. Another form of agnosticism which occasionally surfaces in the course of theological debates is actually an extreme form of skepticism with no special relevance to the god question. It is simply the denial of reality, the denial of certainty regarding the existence of anything, coupled with the assertion that if nothing is certain, there cannot be certainty regarding the existence or non-existence of god.

Is this really what "non-theological agnosticism" really is? Or is RA incorrect?

He summed up with this note, in italics:

Quote:

* As used here, the term “atheism�? refers to what is know as “strong�? or “positive�? atheism�?, i.e., the claim that the existence of god can be affirmatively disproven and that all statements regarding god are false, self-contradictory, incoherent or meaningless. It is to be distinguished from “weak atheism,�? which is simply a disbelief, or lack of belief, in god, without the assertion that god’s existence can be disproven. The distinction is important in the context of this discussion because most agnostics are also weak atheists--people who believe that god’s existence cannot be proven or disproven but feel that it is highly improbable Some agnostics are also theists, believing in god although they do not believe that god’s existence can ever be proven.

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?

1veedo · 09-04-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

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 just told a friend about the misconception a couple days and he started calling himself an atheist. He always thought atheist meant believes God doesnt exist. I was just talking about the very same thing at scienceforms.

http://scienceforums.net/forums/show...t=14107&page=1

Look down at post 14 and then on page 2.

Quote:

I think agnostics is a cop-out. I convinced a friend calling himself "agnostic" to start telling it how it is; the truth is that it's the same thing as "week atheism." You can ask an agnostic over and over again, "Do you believe in this God? How about this one?..." and never once will the agnostic say "yes."

Quote:

But there are people that give themselves the adjective that are not. Like my weak atheist friend I was talking about. Agnosticism and atheism are the same given the common streat definition. It breaks down to, basically

Belief = theist
Lack of Belief = agnostic or weak atheist
Disbelief = "strong" atheist

The extra "there is no proff against" on top of the already "there is no proof for" does not make up agnosticism. The default atheism implies that one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. Atheism is a lack of belief, nothing more. Strong atheism goes a steap further saying that there is evidence against the idea of God, which can be a position of faith. People that find themselves having no faith assume they should call themselves agnostic because they think it's "in between." This kind of agnosticism = atheism.

That's all I was saying.

Sometimes I get anoyed by these people because they like to say that "science is agnostic."

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzurePhoenix

Agnosticism is the best, most scientifically honest route.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellbender

I agree. It has been said many times over that science is in itself agnostic.

There have been entire threads like this before. Science is atheistic because science does not believe in God! They basically like to say that science does not believe in God but it does not disbelieve in God so therefore it's agnostic, like science is somehow in-between atheism and theism.

"You've got it all wrong, this is called week atheism..." :banghead:

Kydka · 09-04-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1veedo

I just told a friend about the misconception a couple days and he started calling himself an atheist. He always thought atheist meant believes God doesnt exist. I was just talking about the very same thing at scienceforms.

http://scienceforums.net/forums/show...t=14107&page=1

Look down at post 14 and then on page 2.Sometimes I get anoyed by these people because they like to say that "science is agnostic."There have been entire threads like this before. Science is atheistic because science does not believe in God! They basically like to say that science does not believe in God but it does not disbelieve in God so therefore it's agnostic, like science is somehow in-between atheism and theism.

"You've got it all wrong, this is called week atheism..." :banghead:

Good post.

Alethias · 09-04-2005, 09:46 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but i always thought agnosticism meant "I don't really know whether or not God exists".

My 'atheist' position is that any of the existing well-known definitions of 'god'--at least all the ones i've ever heard--have mutually exclusive elements and are therefore impossible.

But i'd be perfectly willing to accept a god as existing if it didn't have mutually exclusive attributes, and was verifiable as existing through valid repeatable scientific experimentation.

My 'intuition' is that this will never happen. If a being came along that could be defined as god, if it didn't fit the traditional definitions of god, it would be given a different title or name. And believing in its existence wouldn't be necessary if it was proven to exist.

It seems to me that religion is dependant on a definition of god that is impossible to fulfill, combined with a total lack of any evidence. Take these away and you take away the need for religion. :thumbs:

Richard1366 · 09-05-2005, 09:46 AM

Why oh why do we get so tied up in definitions.
If you are a theist then you believe in a god or gods.
If you dont believe in a god or gods then you are a non-believer or non-theist, in other words an atheist.
I don't think that any of us who openly call ourselves atheists would remain atheists if it were absolutely proved, beyond any doubt, that there is a god/gods. (What this proof might entail, I can't imagine, however.)
So many definitions of an agnostic include the words "skeptical", or the phrase, "impossible to know". There are many things that I can be skeptical about, (the check's in the mail) and there are many things that are impossible to know, (how many books have been written) and about these I can be called an agnostic but not when it comes to gods.
Either you do believe or you dont believe, calling yourself an agnostic when talking about the existence of supernatural beings is like saying you are a little bit pregnant.

I must admit that "agnostic" usually sounds better, but I really think that is a cop-out.

1veedo · 09-05-2005, 10:07 AM

I think agnosticism doesnt fall in the whole theism-atheism mess. If it really is "I believe it's impossible to know" then how does that effect whether or not you believe in something? Some theists believe in God but think it's impossible, recognise there is no evidence. Some atheists disbelieve and are not agnostic. Some atheists simply do not believe but will go on and on about how "It's possible but there is no evidnce" In this sense an agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. Believing in something has nothing to do with whether or not you're 100% sure about it.

Do you believe there are 1934579 books written?
Answer: No, why? Because I don't know how many books have been written!
Logical Answer: No, because the chances that it's that partitcular number are very small.

I think it can make a great analogy. How about 1 book.
No, because I can prove there are at least two books writen.

Science is atheistic, not agnostic. Sure, science cannot prove that God doesnt exist, but it definitely cannot prove that he exists! Maybe agnostic atheism -- but there is no evidence for the existence of God. Period.

dettus · 09-05-2005, 10:16 AM

I didn't really consider myself an atheist until freshman year in college. I had considered myself an to be agnostic. I pretty much have the same 'strong atheist' stance as I did then, I was just unaware of the differences in terms. For me it was sorta just enough to not be theist. Being non-theistic was a big enough break in tradition. The meanings of agnostic and atheist weren't even a consideration.

So one time in freshman year I was talking to a young woman and when I mentioned I was agnostic she said, "an agnostic is just someone who is afraid to be a full fledged atheist." And it's as if I had an epiphany. It wasn't what I believed that changed but rather a better way to describe myself. In my mind she is right. By calling myself agnostic I wasn't really stating my position on the existence of gods.

Anyway I'm a 'strong atheist'. And for me it means that the god concept is no different than the invisble dragon in my garage concept. Basically that if the concept isn't falsifiable than it really carries no weight. And when it comes right down to it the god concept is just an appeal to the majority and tradition.

So for me, agnosticism is a cop out. It's as if you have a soft spot for the god concept even though you might agree that the invisible dragon in my garage is just absurd. I think people misuse the term agnostic when they really should be saying atheist.

EverLastingGodStopper · 09-05-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

Maybe I'm wrong, but i always thought agnosticism meant "I don't really know whether or not God exists".

Technically no one really knows.

And I agree that the word "agnostic" is often misused, that's my main problem with it. I think it's a defensible position, when defined with accuracy, and not as a statement of being noncommital.

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-05-2005, 11:41 AM

I posted this in a different forum, but it is relevant here as well.

I am sorry to say that the definition of "atheist" as one who "lacks a belief that a god or gods exist" strikes me as a particularly useless definition.

On that definition, my cat is an atheist. At least, I have no particular reason to believe that he has a belief that a god or gods exist. The name applies even to the rock sitting in my garden.

Technically, it is not an illegitimate definition. There is a category of things that lack a belief that a god or gods exist, and it is permissible to give them a name.

However, that which puts me in the same category as my cat and the rock in my garden simply does not strike me as being particularly useful. It is not a term that I would ever care to use very often. And, where I see that term written or hear it spoken, it is not often (if ever) that I assume the writer or speaker to have this definition in mind.

Honestly, I do not understand why one would want to distinguish philosophies in this way. I cannot think of any other case or sense where people hold that "not having a belief that X" for any X is in any way significant.

As I see it, a simpler taxonomy is quite sufficient.

For X = "a god or gods exist":

(1) The person who believes that X is true or almost certainly true is a theist.

(2) The person who believes that X is false or almost certainly false is an atheist.

(3) The person who believes that X is something that he cannot almost certainly say is true or false is an agnostic.

JGL53 · 09-05-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alonzo Fyfe

....
As I see it, a simpler taxonomy is quite sufficient.

For X = "a god or gods exist":

(1) The person who believes that X is true or almost certainly true is a theist.

(2) The person who believes that X is false or almost certainly false is an atheist.

(3) The person who believes that X is something that he cannot almost certainly say is true or false is an agnostic.

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.)

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

09-04-2005, 09:46 PM	#4
Alethias Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 7,198	Maybe I'm wrong, but i always thought agnosticism meant "I don't really know whether or not God exists". My 'atheist' position is that any of the existing well-known definitions of 'god'--at least all the ones i've ever heard--have mutually exclusive elements and are therefore impossible. But i'd be perfectly willing to accept a god as existing if it didn't have mutually exclusive attributes, and was verifiable as existing through valid repeatable scientific experimentation. My 'intuition' is that this will never happen. If a being came along that could be defined as god, if it didn't fit the traditional definitions of god, it would be given a different title or name. And believing in its existence wouldn't be necessary if it was proven to exist. It seems to me that religion is dependant on a definition of god that is impossible to fulfill, combined with a total lack of any evidence. Take these away and you take away the need for religion. :thumbs:

09-05-2005, 09:46 AM	#5
Richard1366 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,260	Why oh why do we get so tied up in definitions. If you are a theist then you believe in a god or gods. If you dont believe in a god or gods then you are a non-believer or non-theist, in other words an atheist. I don't think that any of us who openly call ourselves atheists would remain atheists if it were absolutely proved, beyond any doubt, that there is a god/gods. (What this proof might entail, I can't imagine, however.) So many definitions of an agnostic include the words "skeptical", or the phrase, "impossible to know". There are many things that I can be skeptical about, (the check's in the mail) and there are many things that are impossible to know, (how many books have been written) and about these I can be called an agnostic but not when it comes to gods. Either you do believe or you dont believe, calling yourself an agnostic when talking about the existence of supernatural beings is like saying you are a little bit pregnant. I must admit that "agnostic" usually sounds better, but I really think that is a cop-out.

09-05-2005, 10:07 AM	#6
1veedo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pinch (Charleston), WV Posts: 654	I think agnosticism doesnt fall in the whole theism-atheism mess. If it really is "I believe it's impossible to know" then how does that effect whether or not you believe in something? Some theists believe in God but think it's impossible, recognise there is no evidence. Some atheists disbelieve and are not agnostic. Some atheists simply do not believe but will go on and on about how "It's possible but there is no evidnce" In this sense an agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. Believing in something has nothing to do with whether or not you're 100% sure about it. Do you believe there are 1934579 books written? Answer: No, why? Because I don't know how many books have been written! Logical Answer: No, because the chances that it's that partitcular number are very small. I think it can make a great analogy. How about 1 book. No, because I can prove there are at least two books writen. Science is atheistic, not agnostic. Sure, science cannot prove that God doesnt exist, but it definitely cannot prove that he exists! Maybe agnostic atheism -- but there is no evidence for the existence of God. Period.

09-05-2005, 10:16 AM	#7
dettus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: where apologists for religion are deservedly derid Posts: 6,298	I didn't really consider myself an atheist until freshman year in college. I had considered myself an to be agnostic. I pretty much have the same 'strong atheist' stance as I did then, I was just unaware of the differences in terms. For me it was sorta just enough to not be theist. Being non-theistic was a big enough break in tradition. The meanings of agnostic and atheist weren't even a consideration. So one time in freshman year I was talking to a young woman and when I mentioned I was agnostic she said, "an agnostic is just someone who is afraid to be a full fledged atheist." And it's as if I had an epiphany. It wasn't what I believed that changed but rather a better way to describe myself. In my mind she is right. By calling myself agnostic I wasn't really stating my position on the existence of gods. Anyway I'm a 'strong atheist'. And for me it means that the god concept is no different than the invisble dragon in my garage concept. Basically that if the concept isn't falsifiable than it really carries no weight. And when it comes right down to it the god concept is just an appeal to the majority and tradition. So for me, agnosticism is a cop out. It's as if you have a soft spot for the god concept even though you might agree that the invisible dragon in my garage is just absurd. I think people misuse the term agnostic when they really should be saying atheist.

09-05-2005, 11:41 AM	#9
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I posted this in a different forum, but it is relevant here as well. I am sorry to say that the definition of "atheist" as one who "lacks a belief that a god or gods exist" strikes me as a particularly useless definition. On that definition, my cat is an atheist. At least, I have no particular reason to believe that he has a belief that a god or gods exist. The name applies even to the rock sitting in my garden. Technically, it is not an illegitimate definition. There is a category of things that lack a belief that a god or gods exist, and it is permissible to give them a name. However, that which puts me in the same category as my cat and the rock in my garden simply does not strike me as being particularly useful. It is not a term that I would ever care to use very often. And, where I see that term written or hear it spoken, it is not often (if ever) that I assume the writer or speaker to have this definition in mind. Honestly, I do not understand why one would want to distinguish philosophies in this way. I cannot think of any other case or sense where people hold that "not having a belief that X" for any X is in any way significant. As I see it, a simpler taxonomy is quite sufficient. For X = "a god or gods exist": (1) The person who believes that X is true or almost certainly true is a theist. (2) The person who believes that X is false or almost certainly false is an atheist. (3) The person who believes that X is something that he cannot almost certainly say is true or false is an agnostic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.