Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr. Retard · 12-08-2002, 04:52 AM

Quote:

I've always called myself an agnostic. I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe that there's no God. So is that a position of atheism or agnosticism?

Probably both. The shame is, "atheism" admits roughly of two meanings, and "agnosticism" admits of at least 10 meanings.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-08-2002, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:
It's clear that God's existence has not been proven yet, but some gods' existence has been disproven. For these gods, if the proofs are sound (and I think they are), it is impossible in principle to prove them to exist. But in principle, there are gods whose existence is provable and whose existence is disprovable, and in practice, some gods' existence has been disproven.

It seems to me that 'proving' God(s) is somewhat like tasting yellow or hearing warm. What does it mean to "prove" or "disprove" a construct that is neither testable nor falsifiable?

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Philip Osborne · 12-08-2002, 07:53 AM

Atheism simply constitutes a "disbelief" in the notion of God. Nothing about atheism states with any certainty that "there is definately no God", rather, to be in atheist is merely to say: "given everything I have experienced, I have experienced nothing that would positively indicate the existence of any deity".

To my knowledge, "agnosticism" comes in two forms:

Strong Agnosticism: It is rationally obligatory to withhold judgement on the question of God's existence.

Weak Agnosticism: It is rationally permissible to withhold judgement on the question of God's existence.

These definitions were articulated in Graham Oppy's paper "Weak Agnosticism Defended" (I believe it is available on the II website). As far as I know, most agnostics would probably fall into the latter category. I'm not sure how one would go about defending strong agnosticism.

I take "atheism" to mean, at a minimum, that it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, while "theism" means it is reasonable to believe God does not exist. Using your example above, I think an atheist would say "Nothing in my experience positively indicates the existence of a deity; if such a deity were to exist, I would expect there to be something in my experience to indicate His existence; therefore, it is reasonable for me to believe that God does not exist." Defining atheism as a mere lack of belief, on this conception, would be the same as weak agnosticism.

-Philip

Jayhawker Soule · 12-08-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:
I take "atheism" to mean, at a minimum, that it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, ...

Or that there is no reason warranting such a belief. I don't start with a world crammed with absurd fantasies, and then proceed to eliminate them if required. I start with the natural world and let in that which reason and evidence dictate.

Olorin · 12-08-2002, 09:45 AM

I think this guy sums up atheism quite nicely <a href="http://www.botcw.com/talk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3548" target="_blank">here</a>. An excerpt:

Quote:

To easily discern both types of atheist (as mentioned in entry 1), the qualifiers weak and strong are used. The weak atheist is the atheist who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods, therefore, the weak atheist has no belief, or faith, in the existence of God or gods. The strong atheist is the atheist who denies the existence of God or gods, therefore the strong atheist refuses to acknowledge the existence of God or gods. To justify the strong atheist's position, he/she posits arguments that advocate the non-existence of God or gods, or that there is sufficient reason to believe in the non-existence of God or gods. I will not go into these arguments here.

The weak atheist merely lacks the belief, or faith, in the existence of God or gods. This atheist sometimes justifies his/her position by positing arguments that are intended to counter the theistic arguments advocating the existence of God or gods. However, in many cases justification in such a manner is not necessary. For example, in the scenario where someone has never thought of, or has never been told about (and therefore has no notion of), God or gods, that person lacks the belief in God or gods, and is a weak atheist. Any person who lacks the belief, or faith, in God or gods, is a weak-atheist. A strong atheist, therefore, is a weak atheist who asserts that God or gods do(es) not exist, or that it is reasonable to believe that God or gods do(es) not exist.

It should be noted that an atheist can take the weak position for some god(s), and the strong position for others. In other words, he/she may claim that gods A, B, and C do not exist, and also merely lack the belief in gods D, C, and E.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Olorin ]

12-08-2002, 10:01 AM

Philosophically, there are a suprising number of problems that pop up when an atheist tries to defend the non-existence of God.

Yet it strikes me that there are two extremely powerful arguments against any belief in God, arguments which establish a definite truth-preference towards atheism. Both of them, ironically, appeal to exactly that element of God which prompts so many people to agnosticism: The infinitude and inscrutability of God.

The first argument, and in my opinion the most central, is that the idea of God is a very bad theory. Although many formulations are not internally contradictory, every single one constitutes a gross butchering of parsimony, is empirically vacuous and permits no way to deepen or solidify our knowledge.

This argument does not disprove the theory of God (ie, show it's impossibility) but it does show that of all the possible candidate theories, God is right down there with superstitions that nobody accepts.

The second is a probablistic argument. It depends upon the widely accepted premise that no empirical thruth-preference can be established with respect to God. Therefore, a priori, it's extremely unlikely that the theory is true. It's possible it's true just by a vast fluke or some inscrutable influence, but not bloody well likely a priori.

Harumi · 12-09-2002, 11:06 AM

I think that it can be safely said that an atheist who denies that any God exists is just as unreasonable as a theist who claims that God exists.

Any disagreements?

I am personally a weak atheist. Until the existence of God is proven, I won't believe in any.

My boyfriend has argued that this is also a form of Agnosticism. Is there a difference?

12-09-2002, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Wacky:

The concept of 'God' is self-contradictory.

'God' is not possible: not only does 'God' not exist; 'God' cannot exist.

Keith.

Someone has most probably already posted this, but...

Please explain how it is not possible for God to exist, that God doesnt and God cannot.

Thomas Metcalf · 12-09-2002, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Deistic Heretic:

"Please explain how it is not possible for God to exist, that God doesnt and God cannot."

Suppose God is a square circle. Square circles are impossible, so God is impossible.

Suppose God is a being such that if it exists, the sky is not blue. The sky is blue, so God couldn't possibly exist.

Suppose God is a being that both knows everything and can perform any action. This being both could and couldn't learn at the same time, so it can't possibly exist.

Suppose God is a being such that if it exists, widespread intense gratuitous suffering does not exist. The consequent is false, so the antecedent can't be true.

The last two roughly mirror atheological arguments. I think the former is quite important, philosophically, and the latter will apply to some versions of God. (Relatives of it are more important philosophically.)

12-09-2002, 11:38 AM

God has many meanings. You can only carve out the reasons why the theist God(s) cannot exist. Please explain how the creation of the universe is impossible thus leaving the universe to create itself in utter impossibility.

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

12-08-2002, 07:53 AM	#13
Philip Osborne Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 147	Atheism simply constitutes a "disbelief" in the notion of God. Nothing about atheism states with any certainty that "there is definately no God", rather, to be in atheist is merely to say: "given everything I have experienced, I have experienced nothing that would positively indicate the existence of any deity". To my knowledge, "agnosticism" comes in two forms: Strong Agnosticism: It is rationally obligatory to withhold judgement on the question of God's existence. Weak Agnosticism: It is rationally permissible to withhold judgement on the question of God's existence. These definitions were articulated in Graham Oppy's paper "Weak Agnosticism Defended" (I believe it is available on the II website). As far as I know, most agnostics would probably fall into the latter category. I'm not sure how one would go about defending strong agnosticism. I take "atheism" to mean, at a minimum, that it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, while "theism" means it is reasonable to believe God does not exist. Using your example above, I think an atheist would say "Nothing in my experience positively indicates the existence of a deity; if such a deity were to exist, I would expect there to be something in my experience to indicate His existence; therefore, it is reasonable for me to believe that God does not exist." Defining atheism as a mere lack of belief, on this conception, would be the same as weak agnosticism. -Philip

12-08-2002, 10:01 AM	#16
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Philosophically, there are a suprising number of problems that pop up when an atheist tries to defend the non-existence of God. Yet it strikes me that there are two extremely powerful arguments against any belief in God, arguments which establish a definite truth-preference towards atheism. Both of them, ironically, appeal to exactly that element of God which prompts so many people to agnosticism: The infinitude and inscrutability of God. The first argument, and in my opinion the most central, is that the idea of God is a very bad theory. Although many formulations are not internally contradictory, every single one constitutes a gross butchering of parsimony, is empirically vacuous and permits no way to deepen or solidify our knowledge. This argument does not disprove the theory of God (ie, show it's impossibility) but it does show that of all the possible candidate theories, God is right down there with superstitions that nobody accepts. The second is a probablistic argument. It depends upon the widely accepted premise that no empirical thruth-preference can be established with respect to God. Therefore, a priori, it's extremely unlikely that the theory is true. It's possible it's true just by a vast fluke or some inscrutable influence, but not bloody well likely a priori.

12-09-2002, 11:06 AM	#17
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	I think that it can be safely said that an atheist who denies that any God exists is just as unreasonable as a theist who claims that God exists. Any disagreements? I am personally a weak atheist. Until the existence of God is proven, I won't believe in any. My boyfriend has argued that this is also a form of Agnosticism. Is there a difference?

12-09-2002, 11:29 AM	#19
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Deistic Heretic: "Please explain how it is not possible for God to exist, that God doesnt and God cannot." Suppose God is a square circle. Square circles are impossible, so God is impossible. Suppose God is a being such that if it exists, the sky is not blue. The sky is blue, so God couldn't possibly exist. Suppose God is a being that both knows everything and can perform any action. This being both could and couldn't learn at the same time, so it can't possibly exist. Suppose God is a being such that if it exists, widespread intense gratuitous suffering does not exist. The consequent is false, so the antecedent can't be true. The last two roughly mirror atheological arguments. I think the former is quite important, philosophically, and the latter will apply to some versions of God. (Relatives of it are more important philosophically.)

12-09-2002, 11:38 AM	#20
Deistic Heretic Guest Posts: n/a	God has many meanings. You can only carve out the reasons why the theist God(s) cannot exist. Please explain how the creation of the universe is impossible thus leaving the universe to create itself in utter impossibility.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.