Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Navigator]

Sure. Why not? If you don't know if there are deities or not, you're an agnostic. One can be an honest agnostic (ie, one who either acknowledges the limits of their knowledge or believes the data insufficient to answer the question), a dishonest agnostic (ie, one who refuses to make a stance to evade some other issue), a rational agnostic (ie, one who holds their beliefs based on data and logic), an irrational agnostic (ie, one who is an agnostic because a magical blue elf told them in a dream that the answer is unknowable), and so on.

If there weren't a word for this stance we would not be having this discussion, period. We all decide what to put our efforts into, and how much time to devote to answering the myriad of questions we are faced with. Most of them we choose to not hold an opinion on. Some of those reasons are good, some bad, some honest, some cowardly, etc. We should expect the same range here.

I have no interest in fashion. I have no idea what fibors my shirt is made of--could be cotton, could be polyester, could by nanocarbon for all I know. I just don't care, so I don't learn it. In contrast, I care a great deal about whether aluminum foil offers any advantages to plaster casings on fossils, but there's insufficient data upon which to base an opinion (due to some unfortunate cultural trends). In both cases, I don't know. Is there any reason that prevents the existence of deities from being unknown for the same reasons? No mechanism has ever, to my knowledge, been proposed.

I agree.

If you don't know, the reason might be that you don't care to know, or that you do care to know but there is no way you have found in which the knowledge can be obtained.

 

[Dinwar]

Perhaps it would help if you look at this from a different perspective.

The intellectually honest default isn't "I don't believe", it's "I don't know". Without data, to draw ANY conclusion is a violation of intellectual honesty.

Some data is necessary to sway you one way or the other. If it's sufficient, you can believe something. If not, you can not believe it. "Sufficient" is a term we all define for ourselves, so no firm criteria can be established here; however, it IS possible to remain unswayed on some topic.

Do you disagree with any of the above, in terms of general arguments? Meaning, in arguments as such do you find anything objectionable about the above?

 

[Dinwar]

I agree.

If you don't know, the reason might be that you don't care to know, or that you do care to know but there is no way you have found in which the knowledge can be obtained.

I would add that you may care to know, and the knowledge may be there, but you are not (yet, hopefully) adequate to the task of evaluating that knowledge. Otherwise, I'm fully in agreement with you here.

 

[Mashuna]

The debate above is why I prefer Ignostic.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless.

 

[Navigator]

If we just ask people what they mean/think/believe and accept their explanation, there won't be a need to try and force their opinion into predesigned, but not neccesarily applicable boxes.
Especially since the words (a)theist and (a)gnostic apparently mean lots of different things to lots of people.

Arguing about the 'right' definition of a word, that should be used in all cases, is useless.
Agree on a definition with the person you're discussing these issues with, and then you can discuss the implications of your answers.
Saying "according to MY definition of X you're not actually a member of X, but of Y" is not a way to win a debate, but to avoid it.

Words can be tricky things. I think in any conversation it might be best to make sure one is one the same page as the other as in the use of any particular words -especially those words/expressions which can have multiple meanings or be used interchangeably. Like "I believe" and "I know".

Language is supposed to be about communication (at least I think so) but how it is used often seems to work against actual communication. Muddies the waters rather than making things clearer.

 

[Navigator]

I would add that you may care to know, and the knowledge may be there, but you are not (yet, hopefully) adequate to the task of evaluating that knowledge. Otherwise, I'm fully in agreement with you here.

Double post

 

[Navigator]

I would add that you may care to know, and the knowledge may be there, but you are not (yet, hopefully) adequate to the task of evaluating that knowledge. Otherwise, I'm fully in agreement with you here.

I agree... an 'ignostic,' as Mashuna says.

I would say that such type knowledge takes time and careful consideration and testing even if it is more 'knowledge of the mind' rather than solely physical phenomena, such as knowledge regarding the bones of extinct species (and associated information) - as is your department and specific skill.

But in relation to the subject of deities - specifically the existence of, if you don't know, the reason might be that you don't care to know, or that you do care to know but there is no way you have found in which the knowledge can be obtained.
Or more specifically, that whether you care to know or not, the appears to be no known way to know.

 

[Dinwar]

I agree... an 'ignostic,' as Mashuna says.

Not exactly. Mashuna's definition relies on the definition of terms. What I'm describing is a situation where the terms are well-defined, but the person simply hasn't had time to process everything yet. No one would expect an undergrad geology major to have an opinion on the rift under Las Vegas, nor would they blame the student for not knowing--they haven't had time to adequately accumulate knowledge necessary to address the problem, let alone actually address the problem. In contrast, if I understand the definition Mashuna quoted, an Ignostic is more akin to someone saying "I hold no opinions on evolutionary psychology, because the definitions of terms are too plastic to allow for me to form an understanding of either side." (That's not my opnion of EvoPsych, it's just the first thing to pop into my head.)

I would say that such type knowledge takes time and careful consideration and testing even if it is more 'knowledge of the mind' rather than solely physical phenomena, such as knowledge regarding the bones of extinct species (and associated information) - as is your department and specific skill.

Knowledge is knowledge. I, along with a surprising number of paleontologists, agree that philosophy has its place in the sphere of human knowledge.

 

[ynot]

How is "I don't know" the same as "No"? that's the heart of our disagreement, and one you persist on avoiding. It's getting tiresome.

Or could it possibly be one you persist in misreading and wrongly interpreting?

 

[Dinwar]

Or could it possibly be one you persist in misreading and wrongly interpreting?

So you will not answer. I will not waste further time on you.

Anyone else have a contribution to make? Right now, there are two sides to this debate:

Side 1 states that the options are "I believe in one or more gods", and "I do not believe in one or more gods". "I don't know" is taken as lack of belief.

Side 2 states that "I don't know" is a distinct category, and cannot be assumed to mean that one lacks belief.

I am obviously in Side 2. I am asking for some reasonable justification for conclcuding that "I don't know" is the same as "I do not believe".

 

[Nonpareil]

There might be a problem with this line of thinking. Imagine a universe with no higher cognitive life (or computers) in it.

For something to exist, it must be demonstrable to someone. i.e.:
A universe with no life in it so therefore there is no one to which it is demonstrable to.
If its existence is not demonstrable by any means, then there is no meaningful way to say that it exists, and it therefore doesn't exist.

When I say "demonstrable", I mean "given the existence of an observer". If an extrauniversal traveler happened upon your hypothetical universe, he could see that it exists.

Note that I only say demonstrable, not "has been demonstrated" or even "will be demonstrated at some time in the future". I only mean that, given an observer with sufficient knowledge, there must be a way to show it to be true.

Fair enough, I agree. But what you are doing is this: I define existence so that it must be known to exist, otherwise it doesn't exist.

No. I am saying that it must be able to be shown to exist. Whether or not anyone ever actually does it is irrelevant.

Take that up with Nonpareil. She/he knows that it is impossible for a God to exist.

I am male.

And no, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. I said it is possible to know whether or not a god exists, that I believe the more likely answer is "no", and as a tangentially related aside, I would not consider any such entities encountered as "gods" worthy of worship, above human judgment, or anything similar.

I did not say that the existence of a god (as commonly defined) is impossible or necessarily established as false at this point in time, though it certainly looks unlikely and is as close to definitively unnecessary as it is possible to be.

 

[ynot]

Perhaps it would help if you look at this from a different perspective.

The intellectually honest default isn't "I don't believe", it's "I don't know". Without data, to draw ANY conclusion is a violation of intellectual honesty.

Some data is necessary to sway you one way or the other. If it's sufficient, you can believe something. If not, you can not believe it. "Sufficient" is a term we all define for ourselves, so no firm criteria can be established here; however, it IS possible to remain unswayed on some topic.

Do you disagree with any of the above, in terms of general arguments? Meaning, in arguments as such do you find anything objectionable about the above?

So theists that admit they don’t have any knowledge of a god or gods, and admit they believe in a god or gods anyway, are dishonest liars? Don't you think "deluded' might be more appropriate.

 

[Dinwar]

So theists that admit they don’t have any knowledge of a god or gods, and admit they believe in a god or gods anyway, are dishonest liars?

They certainly violate the conditions for intellectual honesty.

Don't you think "deluded' might be more appropriate.

No. Unlike you, I make an attempt to refrain from such abusive terminology (no, "intellectually dishonest" is not abusive--it is a technical term).

I said it is possible to know whether or not a god exists, that I believe the more likely answer is "no",

A bit tangential to your post, but I do want to point out that this is pretty much proof that I was right when I said that atheists don't believe in gods.

The challange those who believe the thread's title are faced with is finding a way to fit "I don't know" with your quote above.

 

[Navigator]

Not exactly. Mashuna's definition relies on the definition of terms. What I'm describing is a situation where the terms are well-defined, but the person simply hasn't had time to process everything yet. No one would expect an undergrad geology major to have an opinion on the rift under Las Vegas, nor would they blame the student for not knowing--they haven't had time to adequately accumulate knowledge necessary to address the problem, let alone actually address the problem. In contrast, if I understand the definition Mashuna quoted, an Ignostic is more akin to someone saying "I hold no opinions on evolutionary psychology, because the definitions of terms are too plastic to allow for me to form an understanding of either side." (That's not my opnion of EvoPsych, it's just the first thing to pop into my head.)

My bad - I did not know why the term was being used, I just thought it was cute.

Knowledge is knowledge. I, along with a surprising number of paleontologists, agree that philosophy has its place in the sphere of human knowledge.

Knowledge is Knowledge.

As such, there is knowledge which is unchangeable (fact) and knowledge which is ongoing - accumulated and showing something, but not everything of something.

Or, is fact, knowledge or something else related to knowledge?

Just asking...in a philosophical manner...

 

[Brian-M]

Because I use words rationally. The options aren't "belief" and "nonbelief". The options are "belief", "nonbelief", "no opinion". I have explained how the first option relates to the first two.

Shouldn't that be "belief", "nonbelief" and "disbelief"?

"No opinion" would be a subset of "nonbelief".

Belief:

"Do you believe X is true?" "Yes."
"Do you believe X is false?" "No."​

Nonbelief:

"Do you believe X is true?" "No."
"Do you believe X is false?" "No."​

Disbelief:

"Do you believe X is true?" "No."
"Do you believe X is false?" "Yes."​

 

[tsig]

They certainly violate the conditions for intellectual honesty.

No. Unlike you, I make an attempt to refrain from such abusive terminology (no, "intellectually dishonest" is not abusive--it is a technical term). A bit tangential to your post, but I do want to point out that this is pretty much proof that I was right when I said that atheists don't believe in gods.

The challange those who believe the thread's title are faced with is finding a way to fit "I don't know" with your quote above.

That's some fancy special pleading.

 

[Dinwar]

Or, is fact, knowledge or something else related to knowledge?

As an Objectivist, I doubt my answer would be palletable to most here.

Data are what they are; they are immutable. The thing can change, and you can be wrong, but the thing is what it is at the time you analyzed it.

Concepts can change, but modification doesn't invalidate earlier thought, at least not necessarily. Sometimes it does--evolution threw Creationism into the dustbin of scientific history (yes, Creationism started as a valid scientific theory--they even proposed tests, and found data matching their predictions). Other times, not so much--Newtonian physics is an application of quantum mechanics and relativity at a particular scale, as I understand it. Or, to use an example from my own field, new species necessitate new cladograms, but that doesn't mean the old one was invalid. It was fully valid, for the data it represented. The new one is similarly limited.

An opinion (and beliefs are merely opinions dressed up in liturgical garb) can be based on fact, in which case it is an informed opinion (there are degrees here, from expert to neophyte). An opinion can also be based on nothing, in which case it is an uninformed opinion or a mere opinion (I know professors who will take points off for use of the term "opinion" in any context but "mere opinion", but I'm no so pedantic). These are not my names; I learned them as an undergrad. So it's not just my view of things here--this is the standard model, which the advocates of the thread's title are trying to overthrow.

So we have two different axis to work with: knowledge, and opinion. You can know or not, or not know if you know or not; you can hold an opinion, not hold it, or abstain entirely.

 

[ynot]

So you will not answer. I will not waste further time on you.

Anyone else have a contribution to make? Right now, there are two sides to this debate:

Side 1 states that the options are "I believe in one or more gods", and "I do not believe in one or more gods". "I don't know" is taken as lack of belief.

Side 2 states that "I don't know" is a distinct category, and cannot be assumed to mean that one lacks belief.

I am obviously in Side 2. I am asking for some reasonable justification for conclcuding that "I don't know" is the same as "I do not believe".

Please explain (to others of course) how it’s possible to have a belief that you don’t know you have.

This thread (mine by the way) is about belief not knowledge. You seem to be denying that belief is even an option.

 

[Dinwar]

Shouldn't that be "belief", "nonbelief" and "disbelief"?

"No opinion" would be a subset of "nonbelief".

I won't get into a discussion of the terms; use whatever terms convey the meaning I obviously intend.

As for "no opinion" being a subset of "nonbelief", I still say no. "No" is a defnitive answer. "I don't know" is an option that you have not included.

Do you believe antioxidents prevent cancer? Some say yes, some say no--I say "I don't know, I haven't seen any studies." That's not a no, or a yes; it's saying that my knowledge is such that I cannot meaningfully answer the question.

 

[tsig]

Not if you have a shred of integrity or honesty.

You're new to this, aren't you? We don't need to LISTEN to theists--we know we know their holy books better than they do (after all, Dawkins said it!), so we can just tell them what they believe! And if they disagree, we can simply tell them that they're wrong, and that REAL [insert sect name here]s believe what we say! It saves time all around, since after all theists are mentally deficient and need to be cured.

Bitter? Sure am. But that's just about the state of religious "debate" on this forum.

Are you looking for a debate or a following?