JP2

Just to fill you in, I wrote the following in response to a self-proclaimed "agnostic" on another board who was, throughout the topic, high on his moral horse with regards to his belief system, dismissing both atheism and theism alike as dogmatic statements of faith. I wrote this mainly as a means to remove him from his metaphorical soap-box and to further justify what he was saying rather than as a definitive representation of my thoughts on the matter.

The post was mainly in response to one specific thing he said:

However, as I said, this authoritative dismissal of both atheism and theism is represntaive of the general tone of all his posts up until this point. Anyway, this was my response. Any comments about the validity of anything said here are welcome:

Personally, I am struggling to come to grips with your interpretation of agnosticism.

A lot of agnostics believe that they are more "enlightened" in a sense, because they refuse to subscribe to any "dogmatic" system of belief - i.e. any theistic system or, conversely, any atheistic system. The logic (correct me as I'm wrong) is that, as we are unable know with any degree of certainty how the universe began, that we can then use that as a launching pad to suggest that knowledge in either sense (the existence or non-existence of God) is impossible. Quite simply put, the agnostic position is one that denies the possibility of knowledge.

So in a sense (a very philosophical sense) I do agree with this notion of "untranscendable subjectivity" - that is to say the impossibility of objective or absolute knowledge. However, the agnostic position (particularly your version of it) seems to be suggesting that atheism requires as much faith as a position of theism which, as I see it, is missing the point somewhat.

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". Thus there is no faith in this position anymore than there is faith in most other negative, ontological/metaphysical statements. Scepticism (or lack of faith) is the opposite of faith. For me to say "that chair does not exist" is to make a negative ontological claim, and marks a position of scepticism rather than a position of faith. You may argue that it requires faith to deny the existence of that chair, but then I'd argue how? Such a negative ontological claim requires the denial of faith in our senses, not faith in anything specific. To deny the existence of that chair - or of that God - requires the exact opposite of faith, namely scepticism.

The point of all this is merely to show that it requires no faith (or no faith in any particular piece of knowledge) to become an atheist, and thus the position of agnosticism - insofar as agnosticism is the rejection of possibility of knowledge with such regards to such things - is not really all that different from atheism. As I say, no atheist claims to "know", or have "faith in" the fact that God doesn't exist, because it takes no knowledge or faith to make a negative ontological claim. In fact, we're all born atheists: it's the default position. From this perspective then, we can see how atheism and agnosticism are really the same thing: both make negative-ontological claims, both deny the existence of a God.

The only real difference I can identify between the two modes of thought, is that atheism simply marks the present disbelief in a deity, without attempting to predict future circumstances that would either bolster or refute this stance. That is, an atheist may still concede the possibility of an existence of God, although he will also say that any evidence that points towards the existence of a God is still forthcoming. An agnostic however states that there is no way of knowing whether God exists or not. Thomas Huxley - the man who coined the term "agnosticism" - introduced it as a means of suggesting that we know nothing of first cause, and that first cause is, in-itself, entirely unknowable. Therefore, the agnosticism presented by Huxley (as the man who coined it) is one who rejects any possibility of knowing whether or not God exists. It's not a "sitting on the fence" stance as many believe, but rather a rejection of all knowledge, both theistic and scientific, that would allow us to know how the universe began with any certainty. Therefore, as I see it, agnosticism is a more extreme - possibly more dogmatic - form of atheism rather than a more mild form as many may suspect.

Remember, the agnosticism proposed by Huxley didn't just say that we have no knowledge of First Cause, it stated that it is completely unknowable. Your position may well be different from this, Arbiter, but then I would argue that you aren't really an agnostic then, merely an atheist.

Wackyboy

I'd have to say that I'd agree with the agnostic to which you are responding, although I haven't read what he/she said.
I think it's safe to say that God can not be proven and God can not be disproved. As such to make an affirmative or negative statement about the existence of God would be to make a statement of faith.
It could be argued that it takes more faith to believe in God than to not believe in God, but I don't think it can be argued that it does not take some faith to believe that there is no God.

One other thing is that you are attempting to change the definition of atheist. An atheist believes that there is no God, an agnostic believes that he or she does not know if there is a God or not. Dictionary.com defines "atheist" as, "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".

Of course it's quite possible that we are talking right past each other and defining "faith" and "proof" differently too.

Just my two cents,

Wackyboy

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Wackyboy ]</p>

quip

Are you sitting in this chair while making that claim? The point here being, there is a big difference between being skeptical of the existence of God and being skeptical of a chair’s existence.

The universe we live in is supposed evidence of an existing God. You are within this universe. Now if you are within (sitting) in this chair and making the same claim, your claim would transcend mere skepticism.

Keith Russell

Wacky:

The concept of 'God' is self-contradictory.

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


Keith.

Philosoft

Then you would also agree with an atheist. Read on.

<strong> Only by virtue of definition.

<strong> Incorrect. In order to make a statement at all, we must indicate a particular definition of 'God' and a particular definition of 'exist.' If we cannot reconcile 'God' with 'exist,' we are logically justified in saying "God does not exist." This is atheism, nothing more.

<strong> Dictionaries describe usages; they do not give objective meaning. You will not find much support around here for the stronger definitions of 'atheism.' Also consider the likelihood that an atheist was consulted when that definition was penned.

Tenpudo

The way I understand it, there are further subclassifications for Atheism: Strong and Weak.
Strong Atheism: "I believe that God does not exist."
Weak Atheism: "I do not believe that God exists." (this is what you refer to as atheism in general).
I have also seen agnosticism divided into strong and weak cases-- Weak Agnosticism: "I do not know whether God exists," and Strong Agnosticism: "It is impossible to know whether God exists." I do not know if there is a specific name for the postition that the notion of "God" is incoherent/unintelligible.

Philosoft

I have always called it noncognitivism. I have also seen it referred to as igtheism.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Wackyboy:

"I think it's safe to say that God can not be proven and God can not be disproved. As such to make an affirmative or negative statement about the existence of God would be to make a statement of faith."

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.

Arrowman

Wackyboy:

You refer to "God" (ie the Judeao-Christian God) as something which can never be disproved. This is the same mistake I used to make. I applied a different standard of evidence and proof to the god I was brought up with, as opposed to al lother gods and supernatural entities.

Are you an agnostic in relation to Santo Clause? I doubt it. I am sure you would positively assert that SC does not exist. Your reference to "God" is special pleading.

God (the J-C God) is allegedly
- Omnipotent
- Omnbenevolent
- Omnipresent
- Omniscient
and yet by its own words in the Bible and the evidence we see today
- was not able to overcome chariots with iron wheels.
- punishes children for the transgressions of their parents.
- lost track of Adam at one stage in the Garden of Eden.
- until about 2,000 years ago intervened overtly in human affairs but has not been seen since.
- does not respond to prayer in any consistent manner.

By its own definition, the J-C god cannot exist. Conversely, everything about that god is entirely consistent with it having been invented by humans. Occam's Razor.

As is further explained in my post on the "Is atheism irrational?" thread, [strong] atheism is indeed a valid position. So is agnosticism.

Humble Heathen

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?