Mageth

"Not denying the possibility" doesn't, IMO, require you to label yourself as an agnostic, and fits with most people's definition of atheism.

I'm an atheist, not an agnostic; I lack belief in a god, any god. However, I don't totally rule out the possibility of a god (even though I don't think it's likely).

Look <a href="http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml" target="_blank">here</a> for a good discussion of the subject and some definitions.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Magethlaro ]</p>

Gurdur

@ Apikorus:

Thanks for your reply - and many thanks indeed for the compliment!

I have also read quite a few of your posts (on the rabbinical side of things) and have been greatly impressed - would you mind if I ask especially for your input on <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000981" target="_blank">this question of mine here, please?</a>

Enough of being off-topic - back to the topic of this particular thread.

I'm very wary of all attacks on agnostics, even where I don't agree personally with the agnostic positions, since:

• I can see their points
• I've got bigger things to worry about.

What really annoys me is when the agnostic / atheist debate is cast into emotionalist tones (please note I am talking about the topic generally, and not you!), and when agnostics are often portrayed as pusillanimous tergiversators - this seems to me to be:

• untrue
• lacking in decency and honesty
• shooting oneself in the foot - surely atheists have enough problems (á la that infamous Political Discussions forum ) without trying to pick on the much-maligned agnostics as well?

I freely acknowledge that after stating that sometimes premises and logical processes are a question of personal choice, not of 'rationality' - after all of that, I'm not going into the subject, but rather tackling the manner in which the subject is presented.
Call me a kvetcher or even broad-church!

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Apikorus

Pusillanimous sets the synapses a-firing, but truth be told I've never heard of a "tergiversator". I have faith that Google will find out for me in 0.024 seconds.

I don't find agnosticism untenable nor agnostics pusillanimous or dishonest. My argument is principally with people who claim atheism is intellectually dishonest because it makes a claim which cannot be proven. I regret not having chosen a a less provocative title for the thread, though.

I'll take a look at your question and respond if I have anything useful to say.

Guttersnipe

The majority of the problem is over a misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. My theologians and even philosophers define atheism as {certainty that God does not exist}. But most atheists will not claim to possess certainty at all, but rather a lack of good reason to warrent belief. Formal representation=

P1)There is a lack of good reason to believe in God.
Therefore)God does not exist.

If this argument were deductive, it would be invalid. But it is not deductive, it is inductive. And induction cannot grant certainty - it merely makes the conclusion probable.

By defining one's position as 'A lack of good reason to believe in God', one is merely being more specific and preventing the common theistic rebuttal "Prove God does not exist". That way, one need not spend time trying to explain that falsifiability need not be made to conclude that God does not exist.

Gurdur

Again, thanks, Apikorus; my apologies for not answering your response about my comments about the use of the term 'rational' a bit more clearly - I thought back and decided I was being far too oblique, so I'll answer more straightforwardly here.

It seems to me, without actually detailing each particular argument, that in the end such questions devolve to a choice of values - a decision that has little to do with rationailty or irrationality - in the choice of which further argumentative roads to use, and the relative weighting of premises.

The problem with the use of 'rational' is its pejorative second meaning.
Watching bd-from-kg attempting in the Morality forum to call all theists 'insane', for example, for me is a good lesson in how not to do things; just how many theists are going to be impressed if I march up to them and denounce them as 'insane'?

To give another example:

• It is purely rational to be utterly selfish
  (well, more or less, though on other occasions I might not be as tolerant )
• It is also purely rational to be altruistic at times, and to acknowledge altruism as a social force

Both positions can be rational, which doesn't mean that they are both correct - it all depends on further values and premises.

Thus when the term 'rational' enters into the Great Sub-Divide debate putatively between agnostics and atheists, the part of me that years and years and years ago got very, very, very fed up with Trotskyists (*) rises up and starts fulminating.

Tergiversate = to betray, BTW.

(*) I can tell you very funny stories about Trotskyists.

Apikorus

Gurdur, surely irrational elements, such as personal preferences, may inform rational decisions (e.g. do I buy rice pudding or chocolate pudding?).

I understand that accusing someone of harboring an irrational belief in God when he just knows that Jesus himself has spoken to him would not go over too well. But the alternative, which would be to accuse him of being hallucinatory, likely won't score points either.

When I say that there is no rational reason to believe in God/gods, I am saying that, choosing from an array of familiar God models, the common reality that any person and I agree on (the physical world, say) does not require one to posit the existence of God.

Incidentally, my point-and-click research tells me that "tergiversate" means "make conflicting or evasive statements; equivocate".

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Gurdur

Precisely.
Nope, you're right, both actions are liable to failure; which is why I prefer the third option of presenting the said believer with sets of explanations for the feelings and other evidence that can explain things satisfactorily without recourse to putative deities.
In other words, I recognize the rationality of my opponent - I simply present him/her with other premises and evidence.

This devolves back to the topic at hand with the question about what to do in the absence of all conclusive evidence - and that IMHO is a pragmatic question, rather than a strictly rational one.

Gurdur

um, my English is old-fashioned and peculiar (it's a very long story as to why).
Tergiversate did mean to betray or to turn traitor (18th - 19th century usage).
To equivocate is a meaning added later.

Pardon my idiosyncratic attidude to English.

99Percent

Gurdur: Misuse of the term "rational". It can be quite rational to believe in putative deities; it depends what evidence you possess. Simply branding theists as irrational won't win no cupcakes.

Misuse of the word "putative". So it depends on how you define "diety" then? Theist are irrational unless you want to appeal to the emotional side or twist definitions.

it's OK to be irrational?

Sure it ok, if you want to have fun, but when we are discussing serious stuff I think its wrong to be irrational. Obviously.

Hypothetical exchange between an atheist and an agnostic:

Atheist: "Do you believe in God?"
Agnostic: "Define 'God'"
Atheist: "It is the aliens that live in the fifth planet from Sirius and enseminated the earth with life."
Agnostic: "Might exist or not."
Atheist: "Ok, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, infinitely good"
Agnostic: "Does not exist because it is an irrational definition"
Atheist: "Ok, God is nature"
Agnostic: "Yes, it exists because I can experience it"

So I think the agnostic position is rather not accepting the existence of God with the normal definitions of "God". I would completely disagree with an "agnostic" that said that God that is perfect, infinitely powerful, creator of the universe, blah blah, may or may not exist. In this case I would stand in Apikorus' position with all his pejorative labeling of irrationality.

99Percent

Theist can be generally "cornered" into accepting that the belief in God is certainly irrational and that is why they know that their belief in God is really a matter of faith.

A theist who is intellectually dishonest is the one who affirms God exists through rational explanations, "evidence" and logical conclusions, instead of accepting that it in fact it is faith that propels him to believe in God.

An agnostic cannot have any faith, though.