the line between agnostic and atheist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » the line between agnostic and atheist » the line between agnostic and atheist

the line between agnostic and atheist
Its logical but is it practical?

Page: First 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the line between agnostic and atheist

Topher
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2008
Location: London
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 32

Posted 05/31/08 - 02:12 PM:	#171
Makarismos wrote: If one is not committed to believing in the existence or non-existence of god, doesn’t that preclude them holding a belief in god either way? That is impossible. By definition, you either believe or you don't. If you do not hold a positive belief in X, then by definition you disbelief X. If you're unsure, then clearly you do not believe. Anything other than positive belief is disbelief, and disbelief is atheism. It's nonsensical to say you do not believe, but also do not disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then by double negation, you believe. It's like asking whether you can be a little bit pregnant! To put it more succinctly: if you believe, then you believe... everything else, is disbelief. Your comment is based on the assumption that atheism is a belief position, a positive denial in the existence of god. Understand that there is a difference between saying "I believe god does not exist" and "I do not believe in god". The former is a belief statement, the latter is a statement of non-belief. But both are atheist positions since they are both rejections of theism. Makarismos wrote: You only believe what you think to be true, after all: if you think the question is unintelligible, then surely you don’t hold a belief as to its answer. Right. If you don't hold a belief to its answer, then clearly you disbelief; you're without belief in the claims of theism, and this is atheism. Atheism can, but does not necessarily, entail a belief in the non-existence of god. Most atheists and all the people who call themselves agnostic actually hold the same position: disbelief in the proposition that god exists; unwilling to positively believe in god. Agnostics tend to call themselves agnostic usually due to misunderstanding it as a middle ground position on belief (rather than as an epistemological position), which itself is probably due to the myth that atheism entails positive denial in the existence of god. Also, it's important to note that dictionary's are simply there to provide definitions that people commonly use, hence they will usually carry common error. Dictionary's are not there to provide us with rigorous philosophical or theological justifications for the definitions they carry. Even though 'agnostic' is commonly defined in dictionaries as uncertain; a position between theism and atheism, such a definition logically doesn't make any sense for reasons I've outlined above. In any case, if you do want to refer to a dictionary then the OED is the most philosophically accurate: OED wrote: Here is how the OED defines "atheism": atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god. disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. deny To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition). To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce. Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-... Edited by Topher on 05/31/08 - 02:22 PM. Reason: fixed tags

Evanx
Human Being

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008
Location: The third planet
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 05/31/08 - 02:40 PM:	#172
I wouldn’t dispute Webster’s definition however, Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories, here are but a few recently suggested variations from the Stanford Encyclopedia: Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. Apathetic agnosticism(also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. Agnostic atheism (also called nondogmatic atheism)—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. Makarismos wrote: If one is not committed to believing in the existence or non-existence of god, doesn’t that preclude them holding a belief in god either way? You only believe what you think to be true, after all: if you think the question is unintelligible, then surely you don’t hold a belief as to its answer. Perhaps it only makes sense for those who dispute the validity of the question to claim that answering it either way is silly… To answer your question I would say no. Nor do I think that question is unintelligible, but the task of distinguishing differences between atheism and agnostic positions is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic. So to lump all agnostics into one group is not reasonable, the same as it would be unreasonable to lump all atheist or theist into one group. There are variations within all of these groups. As Topher wrote in the case of agnostics; it is more an epistemological position; it is the position of knowledge vs. belief in the existence of a god, which are distinct. Another example might be that although I consider myself to be agnostic in the sense we do not know currently whether or not any form of divinity exist or doesn’t exist, I can also have an intuitive belief that certain pantheistic views are within the realm of possibility. That said, one could asks can I defend the agnostic position, the answer would be yes, can I defend the intuitive belief no I can not. The difference lies in our understanding of knowledge vs our understanding belief or faith, although this may lead to another thread.
Live free, choose wisely.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 713

Posted 06/01/08 - 01:10 AM:	#173
Kwalish Kid wrote: Offering dictionary definitions is to philosophy what spray cheese in a can is to fine dining. Who are these paragons of reason who know and see all and are able to tell us how we are actually using our words when we ourselves do not know? They know what the everyday use of the word is. They keep the definitions - that’s what they do. When arguing about the meaning of a word - a good starting point is - a dictionary. Or we could make up our own definitions....

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 713

Posted 06/01/08 - 01:26 AM:	#174
Topher wrote: That is impossible. By definition, you either believe or you don't. If you do not hold a positive belief in X, then by definition you disbelief X. If you're unsure, then clearly you do not believe. Anything other than positive belief is disbelief, and disbelief is atheism. It's nonsensical to say you do not believe, but also do not disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then by double negation, you believe. It's like asking whether you can be a little bit pregnant! Despite your incredulity - I simply don’t think the question is ineligible. I do think that "god" may exist in some form, as in something corresponding to what we term "god" is possible and actual. I do not think that "god" exists as per what most descriptions of him/her/it suggest, and in fact think that most descriptions of what we term "god" are so vague as to preclude either a positive or negative answer as to the existence of them. It’s not all black and white Topher . Example question:- Do you believe that green exists? Is it the case that you either believe or disbelieve, and is it illogical to say "yes and no"? I would say the question of gods existence is similar... Edited by Makarismos on 06/01/08 - 01:33 AM. Reason: to give an example

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 4098

Posted 06/01/08 - 09:26 AM:	#175
Makarismos wrote: Do you believe that green exists? Is it the case that you either believe or disbelieve, and is it illogical to say "yes and no"? I would say the question of gods existence is similar... You're making a false analogy between a question of predication and a question of fact; then by doing so commit yourself to equivocating predicates and facts, which is a category error that invalidates your point, Makarismos. God either exists or it does not. The more adequate the god-concept (i.e. the more intelligibly defined) the easier it is to compare evidence for, or implications of, these counterfactual-claims. For "unintelligible" (i.e. undefined) god-concepts the question of its "existence" is senseless; however, in those cases where intelligible (i.e. defined) god-concepts are "defended" (e.g JCI deity), evidence and/or arguments (for and against) can be weighed and judged beyond a reasonable doubt. "Logico-mathematical proof" simply does not obtain where empirical-factual questions are before the bar of reason. Edited by 180 Proof on 06/02/08 - 02:22 PM. Reason: What?!
if X = -X, then -X. "existence" entails specifiable conditions (e.g. evidence, sound argument, search parameters, etc.) void, or perfect symmetry (i.e. no where/when/thing), necessarily is perfectly unstable. THAT there is something at all (i.e. broken symmetry e.g. quantum fluctuations) is "random"; however, WHAT that something becomes (e.g. universes) is not.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 713

Posted 06/01/08 - 10:58 AM:	#176
180 Proof wrote: You're making a false analogy between a question of predicating and a question of fact;... All I'm saying 180, is that an ill defined question does not necessarily have an answer - as indeed you seem to agree. If you ask me if the purple strawman exists I would probaly say "I do not know". I would neither believe in this purple strawman, nor disbelieve in him. The fact that I do not know what is meant by "purple strawman" leads me to say that the question is not even a sensable one. You might then assert that I must either believe in the purple straw man, or else I am not a believer in said: I still don't know. You are right that different "god's" have different descriptions, and different meanings. When you, or anyone else asks me "does god exist", I would assume the question to mean something like "to your mind, does anything exist which might be called god, or relate to something which someone else calls by the name "god"?". This is rather more complicated than "does the JCI Deity exist?". There is a difference between knowledge and belief, to the question I would say: I do not know if god exists and I do not know what is meant by "god" enough to say that I believe or disbelieve.

Topher
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2008
Location: London
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 32

Posted 06/01/08 - 02:40 PM:	#177
Makarismos wrote: They know what the everyday use of the word is. They keep the definitions - that’s what they do. When arguing about the meaning of a word - a good starting point is - a dictionary. Or we could make up our own definitions.... Dictionary's exist only to provide the definitions that peoples use, that's it. They job is not to provide a justifications for the terms they include, thus, they will include philosophically accurate definitions, and colloquial definitions. It is an equivocation fallacy to transport a colloquial use of a term into its philosophical context. Makarismos wrote: Despite your incredulity - I simply don’t think the question is ineligible. I do think that "god" may exist in some form, as in something corresponding to what we term "god" is possible and actual. I do not think that "god" exists as per what most descriptions of him/her/it suggest, and in fact think that most descriptions of what we term "god" are so vague as to preclude either a positive or negative answer as to the existence of them. You're conflating belief with knowledge. Of course, we cannot have evidence or knowledge supernatural things by definition, I agree, so I'm an agnostic, but belief is a separate matter. Do you currently hold a positive belief in the existence of a god? If yes, then you're a deist/theist/etc If no, then you're an atheist By definition, you either belief, or disbelieve. That's tautological.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 713

Posted 06/02/08 - 11:24 PM:	#178
Topher wrote: Dictionary's exist only to provide the definitions that peoples use, that's it. They job is not to provide a justifications for the terms they include, thus, they will include philosophically accurate definitions, and colloquial definitions. It is an equivocation fallacy to transport a colloquial use of a term into its philosophical context. You're conflating belief with knowledge. Of course, we cannot have evidence or knowledge supernatural things by definition, I agree, so I'm an agnostic, but belief is a separate matter. The supernatural as a concept I deny. It implies dualism which I find to be handwaving, smoke and mirrors. Events classed as “supernatural” to me should be accepted as natural, but unexplained so far. Topher wrote: Do you currently hold a positive belief in the existence of a god? If yes, then you're a deist/theist/etc If no, then you're an atheist By definition, you either belief, or disbelieve. That's tautological. You’re simply not listening. Knowledge and belief are separate things: I entirely agree on that point. I, as you, do not know that god exists or not, thus I am agnostic in the same way you are. However I am actually ignostic: I do not think that questions about the existence of god are answerable, because the question is so vague as to be meaningless. If I can’t see a way to answer the question, then why do I have to either believe or disbelieve? Do you believe purple monkey dishwasher, or not! Do you believe that all questions have a belief value and a knowledge value? As for dictionary definitions - If we want to capture the way in which a word is used then they are an authority. I am the first to admit that dictionary’s do not offer a complete, disambiguated version of language: but as any student of philosophy knows, philosophers use terms in non-standard, sometimes un-intuitive ways. This is sometimes a useful way of working, as by offering a definition a scholar of their work can appreciate and understand perhaps more thoroughly and with less ambiguity: this is exactly the reason that you should be careful of transporting words from an everyday context into a philosophical context (an visa versa!). When discussing philosophers, we should use terms carefully – because we speak in everyday language, with a mind to many different, and sometimes conflicting definitions of seemingly everyday words: hence why much of the debate on this forum is around definitions. further: language does not work like a logical equation. We can look at the Latin of many English words, add the two root elements together, and find that the "true meaning" of the word is entirely different than the every-day usage, you attempt something similar. What you attempt to do it to show that the agnostic position can apply to only knowledge, and not to belief: I happen to think this is overstating the case. If one cannot grasp the question, because it involves an entity which in the context of the question is never defined, then it is entirely reasonable to have no position on either one's belief in said vague entity, or ones knowledge of said. One cannot believe in something which one has no clue about whatsoever, and equally, one cannot disbelieve. It is a simple unknown until further explanation is fourth coming. On the subject of god – you must admit that there are many versions. Give me a specific god, and perhaps we can discuss weather that exists or not – but I refuse to answer the nebulous question “does god exist”, or hold a belief on the matter until some clarity is introduced in to the debate.

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 234

Posted 06/05/08 - 01:25 PM:	#179
Keda wrote: Dranu wrote: -Doing duty for duty's sake implies that you already love duty for some reason, for who could love duty in itself without reason to connect it? How could one distinguish types (of desire/of reason) of duty? The reason for love of (reason's) duty seems to be a prior love of reason/wisdom (philosophy if you will). Thus, the ontological proof (just like duty) cannot be called a hindrance. Sorry, but I have no idea what you tried to say here. Sorry I am being so unclear. What I mean to say is that the love/choice to follow reason cannot be made by pure reason (that is circular). I am saying one would only follow the ontological argument (and Kantian duty) if they decided to place reason as ruler above the desires and emotions. It is only convincing after such a choice. I think the way to understand what I am saying is to think about this question: 1.)Why do duty? (and you realize the question needs to be rationally justified, unlike following reason needs to be justified. Therefore, it requires a love of reason prior to loving it). -The reason I am going down this path is I know many (including myself) who would sacrifice reason for the sake of desire and emotion, even at one point when I believed in heaven and hell. The question really is whether one is able to "love reason above desire" if it would be undesirable to love desire. It would only be undesirable by reason, but love of desire would be desirable by desire. However, reason is not something everyone adheres to. priority of the principle self love and princple of duty and thus one would only act according to duty if it is deemed beneficial by the principle of selv love. Pardon my ignorance, but why does that destroy morality if something is thought to be self-benefiting (with uncertainty).

TheRoadNotTaken
Eternal Freethinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2006
Location: United States of America
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 16

Posted 06/06/08 - 04:58 AM:	#180
alliop wrote: Should a line even be drawn? Of course! The question shames the existence of an agnostic/atheist worldview. I, as a proud and vocal agnostic, would object to being lumped with atheists - after all, I have concluded from my experiences that when it comes to difficult and largely unanswerable questions, the right position is a nuanced one. Agnosticism, thus, is a nuanced answer to the question of God - no, I can't say that God does not exist, but nor can I say that God does. Living either as a believer or a disbeliever misses the mark of the conversation; upon death, the existence or non-existence of God fulfills the beliefs of the atheist or believer, but only by accident, not because the person in question ever knew. Agnosticism, therefore, does not make any claim to special knowledge - it is a humbled explanation of the unexplainable.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." -Robert Frost

Page: First 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.