Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[fls]

I've never claimed that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist. That's not agnosticism the way I understand it.

Instead, I'm open to evidence. But none is forthcoming. Since you can't prove a negative, the atheistic position is stronger by default.

If agnostic means "show me the evidence", what does gnostic mean?

Linda

 

[phantomb]

What a coincidence! I agree with your straw man argument

Straw man? You don't see that you've essentially redefined agnostic to mean skeptic?

I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence"

Here are a few definitions of agnostic for you:

agnostic |øgˈnɑstɪk| |əgˈnɑstɪk|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

ag⋅nos⋅tic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

Here's one that I think is particularly clear:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

 

[zaphod2016]

Disclaimer: I'm on a philosophy forum at 2am- I am playing "devil's advocate"; not trying to engage a flame war.

For those who many not be aware, the use of the term "agnostic" as someone who views both the position of the theist, and the atheist, as equally indefensible, was coined in the Mid-to-late-19th Century. The person attributed with coining the term was Thomas Henry Huxley.

Thank you for sharing that. I like that quite a bit: "the theist, and the atheist, [are] equally indefensible". When we are talking about using evidence and facts to prove or disprove the issue, I agree 100%.

But translated literally, as already discussed, "agnosticism" is not a statement on belief, but a statement on what is, and what can be, known.

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

3. The god used to exist, but does not exist anymore

4. The god does not exist, but will exist in the future

5. The god can somehow influence the physical world, despite the fact it doesn't exist (i.e. the "placebo" effect of prayer)

Defining God as a super-natural force is the ultimate logical defense, because any attempt to define or test that god is limited to the physical world. So long as God can bend the rules of physics, by definition, it is logically impossible to prove or disprove anything. Credit where credit is due: the catch-22 of faith is quite clever.

The idea that some atheists would be highly critical of agnostics for choosing a neutral position smacks of the kind of "absolutism" that is more often associated with theism.

It also reminds me of debating politics with a hardcore Republican or Democrat. For example: I assume most rational people understand that neither party is perfect, but a "true believer" will defend a failed policy to the death. Personally speaking, I find it makes honest discussion impossible, and I consider it a major turn-off.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the agnostic's position, they can be considered fellow freethinkers, can they not?

I sure hope so. And, for what its worth, I prefer the phrase "freethinker" to either agnostic or atheist. It implies that I have the right to change my mind. I quite like that. Rather than "belong to a club" or "pick a team", I am free to let my mind consider all angles.

Intellectual freedom makes me happy. Then again, you can't allow yourself to become so open-minded that your brain falls out in the process.

 

[Damien Evans]

I'm an agnostic. I know that "atheist" does not describe me and my system of belief. Or rather, does not describe my particular lack of a system of belief.

Atheist doesn't describe you. Ok then, which Gods do you believe in?

 

[Kil]

I was an atheist. Then I became a skeptic, which caused me to reevaluate my position and become an agnostic. Of course, as an agnostic, I am also an atheist.

 

[Richard Masters]

Are you sure about that? Lots of people think they used to exist.

But not anymore. That's why it's pointless to say I'm agnostic in relation to unicorns.

CORRECTION: I misread your post; People still think they existed?

 

[zaphod2016]

But not anymore. That's why it's pointless to say I'm agnostic in relation to unicorns.

Well, I am agnostic in relation to unicorns. And this is why.

As a matter of fact, I'd argue unicorns are much more probable than a super-natural god. A horn is a lot closer to my version of reality than, say, immortal omnipotence.

 

[Richard Masters]

If agnostic means "show me the evidence", what does gnostic mean?

Linda

Being a gnostic, framed this way, would mean that you claim to know or claim to have the evidence, usu. regarding divine phenomena.

I like the original definition of agnostic by Huxley.

But even better is "weak agnosticism".

 

[Richard Masters]

Well, I am agnostic in relation to unicorns. And this is why.

As a matter of fact, I'd argue unicorns are much more probable than a super-natural god. A horn is a lot closer to my version of reality than, say, immortal omnipotence.

Like I said, whether I consider myself agnostic in terms of God or unicorns, has more to do with how useful the term is in each context, than with probability or plausibility.

 

[Richard Masters]

Straw man? You don't see that you've essentially redefined agnostic to mean skeptic?

If you look at the etymology of the word, skeptic is pretty much the same as agnostic, except for the reference to God.

a- without
-gnos knowledge
-ic adjective, demonym

Here are a few definitions of agnostic for you:

The first definition is Strong Agnosticism; the second is Weak Agnosticism.

Here's one that I think is particularly clear:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

That's more consistent with the actual root of the terms so I concur with the Combining Terms section.

 

[phantomb]

If you look at the etymology of the word, skeptic is pretty much the same as agnostic, except for the reference to God.

a- without
-gnos knowledge
-ic adjective, demonym

And yet, they are not the same word. There may exist some definition for agnostic which is the same as skeptic, but it is not widely used here. This is important because my original dispute was with your criticism of everyone in this thread for not using that definition (I originally accused you of making your definition up, but if you insist that it is a widely used definition then I apologize for that). I know that most people here would not agree with your definition because in several previous threads on this exact issue, I passed around that link and asked for feedback about whether or not that was the generally understood definition.

The first definition is Strong Agnosticism; the second is Weak Agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

So they are.

That's more consistent with the actual root of the terms so I concur with the Combining Terms section.

You do? Well isn't that the strangest thing because those exact definitions were actually part of my original posts in this thread and were reproduced almost perfectly by me at the end of those posts.

I can understand why you might not have read my posts as they were long and boring, but if you didn't then you really shouldn't have opened your own post with "I disagree with all the above posts.", because it kind of makes it sound like you'd read over all the above posts and disagreed with them.

 

[phantomb]

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

3. The god used to exist, but does not exist anymore

4. The god does not exist, but will exist in the future

5. The god can somehow influence the physical world, despite the fact it doesn't exist (i.e. the "placebo" effect of prayer)

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that.

 

[fls]

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that.

3. God's existence is immaterial.

Linda

 

[fls]

Being a gnostic, framed this way, would mean that you claim to know or claim to have the evidence, usu. regarding divine phenomena.

Okay, then that still fits with calling myself a gnostic atheist.

I like the original definition of agnostic by Huxley.

But even better is "weak agnosticism".

Yeah, there's a million ways to define agnosticism. What's kind of fun about these threads is that we divide ourselves up into these various camps when it comes to how we want to describe our beliefs, but we all seem to have almost identical beliefs.

Linda

 

[Radrook]

It must be funny when a doctor asks for your family medical history:

"I am not omniscient and do not claim to be, so I cannot answer your question. I can only say that the man who raised me, and who claimed to be my father, though of course I cannot say for sure whether or not he is in fact my biological father because I never saw a DNA test, and even those tests are fallible anyway, allegedly died of lung cancer. I, of course, cannot say for certain whether he did in fact die of lung cancer. Certainly he smoked three packs a day for twenty years, and he told me that his doctor had diagnosed him with lung cancer, and the medical staff at the hospital claimed that cancer was the cause of death, but no autopsy was conducted. Now, as to the woman who claimed to be my mother...."

and at this point, the doctor is calling for a psych consult. But hey, at least you've made clear that you aren't claiming omniscience!

This is about the justifiability of a claim. Many Atheists claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist. Can you or anyone else here show me how to claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist without simultaneously claiming omniscience? Or better yet, how can certainty of the nonexistence of an ID be rationally claimed without omniscience? Since omniscience is required to rule out an ID, then any claim that an ID doesn't exist is irrational and unscientific. You see the claim of certainty that an ID doesn't exist fits the fallacious reasoning category of a conclusion reached based on insufficient evidence. Why? Because sufficient evidence requires that we scour all reality as evidence of certainty and being humans of infinitely limited abilities we lack that power. In fact, we don't even know yet for certainty what the nature of reality is much less what its totality consists of contains or lacks. Proof? Listen to your vaunted physicists with their uncertainties concerning the pre-Big Bang scenario and their speculations about multiple universes and type one and type two dimensions they might contain and the beings and creatures that these might in turn hold.

So when one hears scientists admitting that they don't know what reality is from one corner of their mouths and spouting certainty of the nonexistence of an ID from the other-one cannot but marvel at their inconsistency and hubris.

 

[Richard Masters]

You do? Well isn't that the strangest thing because those exact definitions were actually part of my original posts in this thread and were reproduced almost perfectly by me at the end of those posts.

I can understand why you might not have read my posts as they were long and boring, but if you didn't then you really shouldn't have opened your own post with "I disagree with all the above posts.", because it kind of makes it sound like you'd read over all the above posts and disagreed with them.

Sorry, I assumed people who weren't really disagreeing with me would notice.

 

[Beth]

I've recently decided that I am best described as a gnostic atheist. I don't understand claims of agnosticism (that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist), as it seems to indicate a state of certainty about what can and cannot be known which is at odds with the evidence. So I don't happen to believe in gods, and I think that it is possible to discover whether or not there are gods. I would like to understand why agnostics exclude the possibility out-of-hand, though.

Linda

I think it depends on the definition of god. I'm a strong agnostic on certain definitions of god. Can we ever ascertain whether or note our entire universe is the deliberate creation of an intelligent being that exists in more than or outside of our familiar four dimensions? I don't think that mankind will manage such a feat in my lifetime at any rate. Please note that this definition of god does not imply anything about whether such a creator is benevolent, omniscient, or possesses the power to intervene in our universe or by bending or breaking the laws of nature as we understand them. Nor does it imply that humans are special deliberate creations of that god.

Other definitions of god are easily shown to be inconsistent and therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude those gods don't exist.

Still other definitions are not inconsistent, but not provable either. Panthesism strikes me as that type.

If agnostic means "show me the evidence", what does gnostic mean?

Linda

I've seen the evidence and made up my mind.

3. God's existence is immaterial.

Linda

Of course. Most definitions of god imply that he/she is a spiritual being, not a material one.

 

[fls]

I think it depends on the definition of god. I'm a strong agnostic on certain definitions of god. Can we ever ascertain whether or note our entire universe is the deliberate creation of an intelligent being that exists in more than or outside of our familiar four dimensions? I don't think that mankind will manage such a feat in my lifetime at any rate.

I'm personally disinclined (if only because we seem to be wrong every time we attempt to do so) to make statements about what humankind will accomplish - certainly not to the point of building it into a description of my state of knowledge. I like the idea of wide-open possibilities, and I may even go so far as to say that it is necessary to the advancement of knowledge to assume that there are no limits.

Still other definitions are not inconsistent, but not provable either. Panthesism strikes me as that type.

Yes, it's merely redundant.

I've seen the evidence and made up my mind.

Richard said much the same thing. And considering what you said earlier about concluding that gods don't exist, it seems to remain a useless qualifier.

Of course. Most definitions of god imply that he/she is a spiritual being, not a material one.

Yes, I thought I was excessively clever to make use of the double-meaning.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I'm personally disinclined (if only because we seem to be wrong every time we attempt to do so) to make statements about what humankind will accomplish - certainly not to the point of building it into a description of my state of knowledge. I like the idea of wide-open possibilities, and I may even go so far as to say that it is necessary to the advancement of knowledge to assume that there are no limits.

Whereas I am uncomfortable concluding that no gods exist when some definitions are clearly not determinable at this point and it seems a very reasonable conclusion to me that such knowledge will not be forthcoming in my lifetime. To each their own.

Yes, it's merely redundant.

I don't find pantheism a redundant description because most definitions of 'universe' do not include 'consciousness' as an assumed charactoristic. But perhaps you were thinking of a different word it was redundant with.

Richard said much the same thing. And considering what you said earlier about concluding that gods don't exist, it seems to remain a useless qualifier.

Sorry, I don't follow this. What word/phrase do you think is a useless qualifier and what term is it qualifying.

Yes, I thought I was excessively clever to make use of the double-meaning.

Linda

So did I.

 

[Dunstan]

This is about the justifiability of a claim.

Actually, it's not. This thread is about terminology, specifically what claims are communicated by the terms "atheist" and "agnostic."

Many Atheists claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist.

Very very few claim certainty, in my experience, assuming you mean absolute certainty without possibility of error. And I am not one of them, so I'm snipping most of your "god of the gaps" crap as irrelevant.

Listen to your vaunted physicists with their uncertainties concerning the pre-Big Bang scenario and their speculations about multiple universes and type one and type two dimensions they might contain and the beings and creatures that these might in turn hold.

I prefer my physicists unvaunted.

So when one hears scientists admitting that they don't know what reality is from one corner of their mouths and spouting certainty of the nonexistence of an ID from the other-one cannot but marvel at their inconsistency and hubris.

Sort of like how one cannot but marvel at the inconsistency and hubris of those who claim not only to know that there is a creator of the universe, but to know what he wants?