Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[stanfr]

Variations of this topic have been around JREF/ISF for as long as the forum has existed, and will keep coming around because there are always some people who have not yet thought it all the way through. I usually avoid this topic, because I have thought it all the way through (at least, no one has come up with anything I haven't considered about the topic in a very long time), but I've decided to throw in my two cents this time. I want to add something to the topic from slightly different angles than I often see it discussed. It's not deep thought and you won't be enlightened, but depending on exactly what you have thought about in the past, it might be something slightly different. I hope that it's at least mildly thought provoking for a few.

First, I sometimes call myself an atheist and sometimes an agnostic. It of depends on context. The key difference between the two is that an atheist is extremely confident that there is no God, while an agnostic doesn't actually believe in God, but doesn't rule out the possibility. I find that when it comes to specific religions, I'm an atheist.

For example, if I know I am talking to a Christian, and the Christian asks me if I am an atheist, I generally say that I am. The reason I do this is that, with respect to Christianity, I'm an atheist. I am very, very, confident that the Son of God did not become incarnate in the form of a Jewish rabble-rouser. The possibility that I am wrong about this is, in my opinion, not even worth considering. If I said I am agnostic, that could be taken as I am uncertain, and that I don't believe that Jesus is God, but I'm open to the idea.

In general, I'm pretty darned confident that there is no "personal God". i.e. there is no God that listens to prayers and intervenes in human affairs. With respect to a personal God, I would say I am an atheist.

On the other hand, I am open to the idea that the universe could be the product of a conscious mind. I don't see any evidence of that, but I have no other explanation of its existence, and I don't know what the evidence would look like if it were there. It's the old question "why is there something instead of nothing". I have no explanation, so I'm open to the idea that somehow, a conscious decision was at work. (Of course, that demands the question of why that consciousness exists, and that too cannot be answered. Really, this is all pretty well worn ground.)

So, with respect to a general concept of a God, I don't reject the possibility out of hand. I just don't happen to believe it. That makes me an agnostic.

My general attitude toward God goes along with, and has been influenced by, the teaching of the Buddha on that subject. The short version of that topic is that when someone asked the Buddha if there were a God, he pointed out that God, if he exists, would have an infinite mind, and that no man, with a finite mind, could possibly understand such an entity. Not only could you never know what such an entity would want, you couldn't even truly understand what it would mean for such an entity to exist. Therefore, the question doesn't matter, and you should ignore it an live your life in the best way possible.

I would say that the Buddha was an agnostic, not an atheist.

Yep, Im pretty much in agreement with everything you said. And it just highlights the futility of the semantic game the OP wants to play.

 

[ynot]

You are still missing the point that, for the believer, it is precisely the lack of evidence that requires faith to support belief.

So the complete lack of evidence, reason and scientific method to support the existence of gods isn’t in any way evidence for the lack of gods? Is your conclusion that Santa and The Tooth Fairy aren't actually real based on faith? You seem to be saying that all knowledge (except possibly for abstract systems like math) is based on faith. If so then I think you’re stretching the meaning and application of faith extremely thinly.

 

[ynot]

Variations of this topic have been around JREF/ISF for as long as the forum has existed, and will keep coming around because there are always some people who have not yet thought it all the way through. I usually avoid this topic, because I have thought it all the way through (at least, no one has come up with anything I haven't considered about the topic in a very long time), but I've decided to throw in my two cents this time. I want to add something to the topic from slightly different angles than I often see it discussed. It's not deep thought and you won't be enlightened, but depending on exactly what you have thought about in the past, it might be something slightly different. I hope that it's at least mildly thought provoking for a few.

Great! Always good to get fresh contributions. Especially when they’ve been “thought all the way through”. Is that even possible? If so isn’t that a state of dogma rather than enlightenment?

First, I sometimes call myself an atheist and sometimes an agnostic. It of depends on context. The key difference between the two is that an atheist is extremely confident that there is no God, while an agnostic doesn't actually believe in God, but doesn't rule out the possibility. I find that when it comes to specific religions, I'm an atheist.

In the balance of probabilities I'm extremely confident there’s no gods (don’t know why you restrict it to a single “God”). But at the same time I would welcome any new evidence that supported the existence of gods, as I do with any new evidence about anything. Don’t think that’s ruling anything out.

For example, if I know I am talking to a Christian, and the Christian asks me if I am an atheist, I generally say that I am. The reason I do this is that, with respect to Christianity, I'm an atheist. I am very, very, confident that the Son of God did not become incarnate in the form of a Jewish rabble-rouser. The possibility that I am wrong about this is, in my opinion, not even worth considering. If I said I am agnostic, that could be taken as I am uncertain, and that I don't believe that Jesus is God, but I'm open to the idea.

So you’re an atheist regarding some gods but merely an agnostic regarding others? (cherry-picking much?)

In general, I'm pretty darned confident that there is no "personal God". i.e. there is no God that listens to prayers and intervenes in human affairs. With respect to a personal God, I would say I am an atheist.

Yet you continue with the following sentence - Why would you be “open to the idea that the universe could be the product of a conscious mind” yet not open to the possibility of that conscious mind being able to communicate with that which it created? Sorry but I can’t and don’t follow you “fully thought through” logic.

On the other hand, I am open to the idea that the universe could be the product of a conscious mind. I don't see any evidence of that, but I have no other explanation of its existence, and I don't know what the evidence would look like if it were there. It's the old question "why is there something instead of nothing". I have no explanation, so I'm open to the idea that somehow, a conscious decision was at work. (Of course, that demands the question of why that consciousness exists, and that too cannot be answered. Really, this is all pretty well worn ground.)

Also demands the question HOW that consciousness exists (who created the creator and all that. Really, this is all pretty well worn ground.).

So, with respect to a general concept of a God, I don't reject the possibility out of hand. I just don't happen to believe it. That makes me an agnostic.

I don’t reject the concept of a god or gods out of hand either. So with respect, I say you are an atheist in denial. I reject the concept of gods because I don’t accept mere beliefs that claim the concept is true. I would need to know there are gods, I’m not prepared to merely believe there are.

My general attitude toward God goes along with, and has been influenced by, the teaching of the Buddha on that subject. The short version of that topic is that when someone asked the Buddha if there were a God, he pointed out that God, if he exists, would have an infinite mind, and that no man, with a finite mind, could possibly understand such an entity. Not only could you never know what such an entity would want, you couldn't even truly understand what it would mean for such an entity to exist. Therefore, the question doesn't matter, and you should ignore it an live your life in the best way possible.

WOW! I guess Buddha must have thought things right through as well! So you’re a Buddhist (yawn).

I would say that the Buddha was an agnostic, not an atheist.

I don’t see that what Buddha was or wasn’t has anything to do with the topic being discussed in this thread.

You seem to be clearly saying that being an agnostic is a third option that lies between theism and atheism. Is that correct? If so I wonder if some others on this forum will send you to the dunce’s chair.

 

[ynot]

That's not very good fixing.

A belief in "no gods" or a disbelief in the existence of any gods that one cares to mention would put the atheist on a similar (though not necessarily equal) ground as a believer.

However, a "lack of belief" (as if saying, "I have never thought about it") would make atheism seem like a rational (even default) position.

I would say “Lack of belief” is the default position. People aren't born with beliefs, they have to be ”formed”. Atheism is a rational response to the unsubstantiated claims made by theism.

 

[psionl0]

Q.E.D.

 

[ehcks]

I would say “Lack of belief” is the default position. People aren't born with beliefs, they have to be ”formed”. Atheism is a rational response to the unsubstantiated claims made by theism.

I prefer to say that ignosticism is the initial rational response.

You are not born knowing the meaning of words. New words are simply meaningless to you until a reasonably understandable definition is given to you.

Under ignosticism, you do not see a meaning to the word "god" and so you ask for people to give you one. Until they do, the question "Do you believe in god" is a meaningless question, where the word "god" could be replaced with any other word you don't know.

It is still atheism, though. I can't believe in something if I don't even know what it is. What is a god?

 

[stanfr]

Ynot, since you must have knowledge of it in order for it to exist ("I would need to know there are gods...") what is your belief on the origin of the universe? Was there a big-bang or not, and please explain all the details thoroughly. Cause, if you don't know it, it doesn't exist.

 

[ynot]

I prefer to say that ignosticism is the initial rational response.

You are not born knowing the meaning of words. New words are simply meaningless to you until a reasonably understandable definition is given to you.

Under ignosticism, you do not see a meaning to the word "god" and so you ask for people to give you one. Until they do, the question "Do you believe in god" is a meaningless question, where the word "god" could be replaced with any other word you don't know.

It is still atheism, though. I can't believe in something if I don't even know what it is. What is a god?

I have no problem with Ignosticism.

 

[ynot]

Ynot, since you must have knowledge of it in order for it to exist ("I would need to know there are gods...") what is your belief on the origin of the universe? Was there a big-bang or not, and please explain all the details thoroughly. Cause, if you don't know it, it doesn't exist.

You misquote me. I must have knowledge of "it's" existence (not merely it). I have knowledge of the Universe's existence, therefore I know it exists. Regarding the origin of the Universe, I have no evidence/knowledge it ever had an origin, other than that the present Universe came from it's own past.

 

[Brian-M]

I must have knowledge of "it's" existence (not merely it).

Knowledge of it is existence?

(I'll assume you meant "its".)

 

[ynot]

Knowledge of it is existence?

(I'll assume you meant "its".)

You didn't really need to even ask did you?

 

[Brian-M]

You didn't really need to even ask did you?

Ultimately not, but when I first read your response I had trouble parsing the sentence. It would have helped if I'd gone back to look at your original statement to put it into context.

ETA: The word "its" can be either plural or possessive, and I was wondering if you actually did mean "it's", but that didn't make sense either. So did you mean "its" as plural, as in the existence of the multiple gods, or "its" as a possessive, as in the existence that the God created. Then eventually I turned that around to realise you meant "its" as in the existence of god.

 

[tsig]

Neither of those is a statement of knowledge, they are both statements of belief (or lack thereof).

Then:

Belief in god = non belief in god

Or

Belief = non belief.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves.

Totally!

That's why I label myself as postheist, meaning "what the heck are you all talking about?"

I hope I'm not the only one here who, at tender age, found the sentences "I (don't) believe in God" to be senseless and even ungrammatical and could skip catechism so I wouldn't be able to drive mad the man in skirt (Catholic priest, witch doctor) in front of other kids.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Then:

Belief in god = non belief in god

Or

Belief = non belief.

Both are right, for some values of the "=" sign.

I prefer myself

talking to the dead = not talking to the dead

or for short

talking = not talking

which is the formula for "go in one ear and out the other" as the holly Kama Sutra explains well.

 

[Dragoonster]

I'm an atheist. I lack a belief in a god.

I'm also an agnostic. I don't know if there is a god.

Why is this a problem? Why do people get upset? Do these words "atheist" or "agnostic" mean something else? Are they ingrained with some other purpose? If so maybe that's the problem.

And if so just tell me when "I lack a belief in god" and "I don't know if there is a god" are replaced with other words that just mean just that. And carry with them no additional baggage.

 

[RickM]

True. It should have read something like – “Agnostics that claim they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God are atheists by default as they don’t have a belief in the existence of God.”

I disagree with this premise. Current parlance infers the word "agnostic" synonymous with indefinite, neutral, and noncommittal. This would place it in the middle of the belief spectrum with theism and atheism residing at opposite ends. I could argue the point but will let Einstein do it for me, since he considered himself agnostic, yet distanced himself from atheism based on the following:

In a 1930's book, Glimpses of the Great, Einstein states, "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

Further solidifying his philosophy, he wrote in a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."

Lastly, biographer Walter Isaacson recorded the following Einstein quotation: "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."

 

[Meadmaker]

Great! Always good to get fresh contributions. Especially when they’ve been “thought all the way through”. Is that even possible? If so isn’t that a state of dogma rather than enlightenment?

In the balance of probabilities I'm extremely confident there’s no gods (don’t know why you restrict it to a single “God”). But at the same time I would welcome any new evidence that supported the existence of gods, as I do with any new evidence about anything. Don’t think that’s ruling anything out.

So you’re an atheist regarding some gods but merely an agnostic regarding others? (cherry-picking much?)

Yet you continue with the following sentence - Why would you be “open to the idea that the universe could be the product of a conscious mind” yet not open to the possibility of that conscious mind being able to communicate with that which it created? Sorry but I can’t and don’t follow you “fully thought through” logic.

Also demands the question HOW that consciousness exists (who created the creator and all that. Really, this is all pretty well worn ground.).


I don’t reject the concept of a god or gods out of hand either. So with respect, I say you are an atheist in denial. I reject the concept of gods because I don’t accept mere beliefs that claim the concept is true. I would need to know there are gods, I’m not prepared to merely believe there are.

WOW! I guess Buddha must have thought things right through as well! So you’re a Buddhist (yawn).

I don’t see that what Buddha was or wasn’t has anything to do with the topic being discussed in this thread.

I'm sorry.......did you have a point?

You seem to be clearly saying that being an agnostic is a third option that lies between theism and atheism. Is that correct?

Yes, although sometimes the words used get all confused in their meaning. People use them to mean slightly different things, and these debates end up being all about the meaning of words, as opposed to any underlying philosophical position regarding the existence of supernatural entities and/or the creation of the universe and man's relation to it.

I am saying that there are people who definitely believe in God, and there are people who are firmly convinced that there is no God, and there are others who are not certain. Meanwhile, there are people who believe in one particular description of God, and there are people who are firmly convinced that some descriptions of God are false, and there are other people who are willing to admit that one particular description of God might be the right one, but they aren't certain. Meanwhile, within the "uncertain" block, there are many variations. There's the fallen away Christian who says, "I want to believe in Jesus, but I'm just not sure. If only I had a sign." There's the Buddha, who said that such a question is completely unanswerable. There are many other variations on the certainty of belief.

I can't describe all of those positions in just three words. Neither can the dictionary. And if I can't describe those positions in just three words, I certainly can't describe them in just two.

If so I wonder if some others on this forum will send you to the dunce’s chair.

It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[epeeist]

Isn't this yet another idea best expressed with Venn diagrams?

One circle is atheists containing non-overlapping circles (which should really fill the circle, but geometrically you can't do that) for weak atheists (don't believe in God), and strong atheists (believe non-existence is provable). Another circle outside the atheists circle is theists. The circle representing the set of agnostics would overlap portions of both theists (some/many of whom will have doubts or imperfect belief at least from time to time) and weak atheists (those who believe no but question that or have imperfect disbelief from time to time ).

 

[wollery]

Then:

Belief in god = non belief in god

Or

Belief = non belief.

Not even close to what I said.

Care to try again?