a person who says "I don't care if xxx exists, I've got more pressing problems for now" classifies as a theist or an atheist?
edited after JoBentley's answer: Suspension of judgment is often part of agnosticism
Last edited:
Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- philosophy semantics theism
edited after JoBentley's answer: Suspension of judgment is often part of agnosticism
I'm not gonna get into semantics here.
If you ask three people what color the pen is and one says red, one says blue, and one says "I don't know" all three have given perfectly valid responses but we all get that the person abstaining from answering isn't doing exactly the same thing the other two are doing. Whether or not "I don't know" is an answer, a response, or whatever isn't the point.
Agnosticism of as often as not an attempt to make "I don't know yet" equal to actually given an answer, or almost as common and worst still declaring that no one gets give an answer because you've declared it "unknowable."
If you ask three people what color the pen is and one says red, one says blue, and one says "I don't know" all three have given perfectly valid responses but we all get that the person abstaining from answering isn't doing exactly the same thing the other two are doing. Whether or not "I don't know" is an answer, a response, or whatever isn't the point.
Agnosticism of as often as not an attempt to make "I don't know yet" equal to actually given an answer, or almost as common and worst still declaring that no one gets give an answer because you've declared it "unknowable."
My english is limited and I may have misunderstood a couple of the constructs in your sentence. I've observed myself the behaviour you describe, but I'm reluctant to generalize. For instance, some people are "temporary" agnostic when initially criticising the religious environment where they have been grown up, a sort of inertia, and that is a case of "I don't have an opinion, yet". Why not?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
That answers a different question that wasn't asked. The question is, "Do you believe that god(s) exist?" The available answers are: A, (not) A.
It doesn't matter whether you're B, C, or D. You aren't A. There are also subsets of A. You might be Christian (A1). There are then subsets of A1. You might be Methodist (A1#) or Baptist (A1@).
People who actively believe that no gods exist are a subset of atheists. People who lack belief in any gods without having an affirmative position on their lack of existence are a subset of atheists. People who believe in even one little god are a subset of theists. People who believe in the pantheon of gods are a subset of theists. People who believe in the triune god are a subset of theists.
Why are some atheists so afraid of applying the word to themselves that they have to co-opt another word?
Because a person doesn't have enough knowledge. Belief is a separate issue. That's why there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
I don't know (psychological?). Whatever the reason, I think meaning is use. I don't think natural languages can generate timeless sets. I don't think you are suggesting there are "platonic" categories of atheist etc. words have to conform to. The "fuzzy" (more comprehensive) not attributed meaning that bothers you seems to be in use since more than a century, I'm reading citations in this sense in the OED referred to by Mojo, IEP, wiki etc. Now I know that when I use "agnostic" speaking with you I'll always have to specify theist or atheist. With everybody else I know, it worked differently, apparently the realm was different.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
No, it's the same for any supernatural belief. It doesn't matter if you believe in big ghosts or pink ghosts or whatever. Parsing an irrational belief into categories does nothing to make it more likely.
It seemed to me that he was discussing use, his first post is #52 "3. The true meaning of a word doesn’t exist."
From that one, I'll jump directly to #192.
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
Okay, let's use the chair analogy and see how many possibilities that we can come up with.
1.) I saw a chair in the room.
2.) I didn't see a chair in the room.
3.) I read a document that described chairs.
4.) I believe that documents exist that describe chairs.
5.) Someone else told me that they saw a chair in the room.
I haven't begun to cover all the possibilities. There are things like associative belief and contingent belief and exclusionary belief, etc.
For example, is it the same to say that life could exist on one of Jupiter's moons and saying that life does exist on one of Jupiter's moons or saying that you believe that certain observations would make it more or less likely?
As it is commonly used, belief is either the same as giving a personal assertion what something is "I believe this will work," or is a statement of prediction "I believe this will go on sale". However, it can also be used as a statement of opinion, "I believe that's the right thing to do." In this type of usage, it is synonymous with "think".
I think this will work.
I think this will go on sale.
I think that's the right thing to do.
When used with God these make very weak statements, such as:
I think God cares.
Often when people make a strong statement about belief they will phrase it differently, such as:
I'm certain this will work.
I'm positive this will go on sale.
I think that's absolutely the right thing to do.
This type of phrasing still allows for experiential error. In other words, this is right unless my experiences have given me the wrong idea. This is not as strong as denying all uncertainty such as:
I know this will work.
This will go on sale.
That was the right thing to do.
Let's try substituting God:
I'm certain God cares.
This is still quite weak. Let's try the stronger form:
I know God cares.
This sounds almost like an attempt at self-persuasion.
However, statements of core values are usually not phrased this way.
I believe in freedom.
The most important thing to me is my family.
I would be lost without you.
Notice that these can be substituted with God.
I believe in God.
The most important thing to me is God.
I would be lost without God.
Notice that these sound much more typical. This suggests that statements of belief about God are not as positive as some would claim unless they use a phrasing typical of core values.
1.) I saw a chair in the room.
A.) I believe this is the only chair that exists.
B.) I believe other chairs exist that I haven't seen.
C.) I don't know if other chairs exist.
B.) I believe other chairs exist that I haven't seen.
C.) I don't know if other chairs exist.
2.) I didn't see a chair in the room.
A.) I believe that no chairs exist.
B.) I believe chairs exist that I haven't seen.
C.) I don't know if chairs exist.
B.) I believe chairs exist that I haven't seen.
C.) I don't know if chairs exist.
3.) I read a document that described chairs.
A.) I believe chairs exist because of the document.
B.) I believe other chairs exist that were not mentioned in the document.
C.) I don't know if other chairs exist.
D.) I don't believe other chairs exist because they weren't mentioned.
E.) I don't believe other chairs exist because the document stated that they didn't.
B.) I believe other chairs exist that were not mentioned in the document.
C.) I don't know if other chairs exist.
D.) I don't believe other chairs exist because they weren't mentioned.
E.) I don't believe other chairs exist because the document stated that they didn't.
4.) I believe that documents exist that describe chairs.
A.) I believe chairs exist because of my belief in these documents.
B.) I believe other chairs exist even if they are not mentioned in the documents.
C.) I don't know if chairs exist.
D.) I will believe chairs exist unless I find out that these documents don't exist.
E.) I will believe chairs described in these documents exist and other chairs exist unless these documents say that other chairs don't exist.
B.) I believe other chairs exist even if they are not mentioned in the documents.
C.) I don't know if chairs exist.
D.) I will believe chairs exist unless I find out that these documents don't exist.
E.) I will believe chairs described in these documents exist and other chairs exist unless these documents say that other chairs don't exist.
5.) Someone else told me that they saw a chair in the room.
A.) I believe this chair exists because someone told me.
a. I believe this is the only chair that exists.
b. I believe that no other chairs exist.
c. I don't know if other chairs exist.
B.) I don't believe what someone told me about chairs.b. I believe that no other chairs exist.
c. I don't know if other chairs exist.
a. I don't believe that chairs exist.
b. I still believe that chairs exist.
c. I believe in that person's chair but not others.
d. I believe in that person's chair and others.
e. I believe in that person's chair but don't know about others.
f. I don't know if I believe this person.
C.) I don't know if anyone has seen a chair.b. I still believe that chairs exist.
c. I believe in that person's chair but not others.
d. I believe in that person's chair and others.
e. I believe in that person's chair but don't know about others.
f. I don't know if I believe this person.
...
I haven't begun to cover all the possibilities. There are things like associative belief and contingent belief and exclusionary belief, etc.
For example, is it the same to say that life could exist on one of Jupiter's moons and saying that life does exist on one of Jupiter's moons or saying that you believe that certain observations would make it more or less likely?
As it is commonly used, belief is either the same as giving a personal assertion what something is "I believe this will work," or is a statement of prediction "I believe this will go on sale". However, it can also be used as a statement of opinion, "I believe that's the right thing to do." In this type of usage, it is synonymous with "think".
I think this will work.
I think this will go on sale.
I think that's the right thing to do.
When used with God these make very weak statements, such as:
I think God cares.
Often when people make a strong statement about belief they will phrase it differently, such as:
I'm certain this will work.
I'm positive this will go on sale.
I think that's absolutely the right thing to do.
This type of phrasing still allows for experiential error. In other words, this is right unless my experiences have given me the wrong idea. This is not as strong as denying all uncertainty such as:
I know this will work.
This will go on sale.
That was the right thing to do.
Let's try substituting God:
I'm certain God cares.
This is still quite weak. Let's try the stronger form:
I know God cares.
This sounds almost like an attempt at self-persuasion.
However, statements of core values are usually not phrased this way.
I believe in freedom.
The most important thing to me is my family.
I would be lost without you.
Notice that these can be substituted with God.
I believe in God.
The most important thing to me is God.
I would be lost without God.
Notice that these sound much more typical. This suggests that statements of belief about God are not as positive as some would claim unless they use a phrasing typical of core values.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
It seemed to me that he was discussing use, his first post is #52 "3. The true meaning of a word doesn’t exist."
From that one, I'll jump directly to #192.
Thank you.
I have mentioned several times my reasons. Some people has not a good memory. They systematically forget answering to my questions. Sometimes this forum seems a deaf's discussion.
Firstly, I don't find any profit in changing the previous terminology by someneologisms as "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist", and so on.This make difficult the reading of classical texts at least.
Secondly, the new terminology doesn't make easier to solve the classical problem between atheists and agnostics, that is to say, if we can rationally justify the belief that gods don't exist. (Rational knowledge is justified belief in my present terminology).
I have stated my point several times. We can maintain the justified belief that gods don't exist. I have given my arguments many times (comment 169, #4-#5.1., for example), but nobody has even try to give any consistent refutation.
David Mo
Philosopher
0. A problem of meanings is a semantic one.
1. You can match theism and atheism (against) the agnosticism because both make an assertion: They affirm or deny a state of facts.
2. You can match atheism and agnosticism (against theism) because they don't affirm a determinate state of facts (gods).
3. You can equate theism and agnosticism because they don't accept a justification of the belief that gods don't exist.
4. It depends on your criteria of comparison.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Okay, I am a skeptic. So when you say you have a justified belief, I take it that you don't accept circular arguments and dogmatic assertions, right?
If that is the case, you will in practice run into the problem of the criteria of justification for which nobody in recorded human history has been able to avoid a circular argument, dogmatic assertion and/or infinite regress.
Now it may be that you are special and you have figured out a way to solve the problem of knowledge and avoid Agrippa's Trilemma, but I doubt it.
In practice you do without the supernatural simply by stating I don't need to believe in that and I take for granted that the universe is fair.
Now I will accept that you can give a justified belief for the fact that the supernatural doesn't exist, if you can give a justified belief for the fact that you are not a brain in vat.
Now in practice it has not actually significance because whether you believe that you are a brain in a vat or don't believe it, will not determine whether you are a brain in a vat or not.
In other words if you believe in cause and effect, you will be caused to believe that you see this text in front of you, regardless of the fact that you are you or that you are a computer program started 25 seconds ago and it will be stopped in the next 25 seconds.
So I believe that the universe is fair, but you won't get me to claim that I can justify that. Rather I hold it in the context of JTB as a core assumption or dogmatic assertion for which there is no justification, because it is the basis of JTB.
So why do you use that much energy on something which is known to be impossible; there is no knowledge possible without running into Agrippa's Trilemma. I.e. there is no absolute knowledge, all knowledge as knowledge is conditional on assumptions and ignores the induction problem in practice.
For you to know whether the universe is fair or not, you have to be the universe, which means that you will not be you, so in practice as long as you are you that are certain aspects of the universe which you assume.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You've still forgotten to answer the questions I've asked. What are you extrapolating from to determine that the god I described didn't exist? Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? Define "zombie".
With your new terminology, you want to measure rational/irrational as a third dimension. That's ok, you just need to define your terms. Keep in mind that others aren't bound to using your novel definitions and redefinitions.
You haven't justified your positive disbelief in the god I described. Your belief is, by your own definitions, irrational.
You simply stamp your foot when you don't like the refutations.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? And your declaration is false. Atheism doesn't make an assertion.
No, that is false. You've redefined atheist to mean that. Atheist, according to the most inclusive definition, means lacking belief in gods.
Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?
You've mentioned three different dimensions in this one sentence - belief, knowledge and justification. Would you like to add eye color or left/right handedness?
And your redefinitions.
David Mo
Philosopher
I am pleased to know this.
I will give you a justification when you justify me that you are not a hallucination generated by a bubble in the vat.
Meanwhile I will continue to discuss with people that believe that they are human persons. It is a good point of departure and it is also good for my mental health.
Excuse me, but I am not used to speak with hallucinations.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Rational, it is...
Someone: It is rational to claim that we can know that God doesn't exist.
Someone else: It is rational to claim that we can't know whether God exists or God doesn't exist.
Hi David Mo.
Can you be a skeptic for a moment?
How do you explain and please don't explain away how it is possible for these 2 persons both to claim that they are rational?
Someone: It is rational to claim that we can know that God doesn't exist.
Someone else: It is rational to claim that we can't know whether God exists or God doesn't exist.
Hi David Mo.
Can you be a skeptic for a moment?
How do you explain and please don't explain away how it is possible for these 2 persons both to claim that they are rational?
David Mo
Philosopher
I don't find this would be useful for our debate.
This is better. I have not redefined anything. I have token my definitions from some classical texts, specialized encyclopaedias and English dictionaries.
David Mo
Philosopher
Rational, it is...
Someone: It is rational to claim that we can know that God doesn't exist.
Someone else: It is rational to claim that we can't know whether God exists or God doesn't exist.
Hi David Mo.
Can you be a skeptic for a moment?
How do you explain and please don't explain away how it is possible for these 2 persons both to claim that they are rational?
How stubborn a hallucination can be!
Are you a bubble or a human being?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What is it that you would like to know about agnostic theists and agnostic atheists?
But your redefinition of "agnostic" isn't useful for our debate. Your redefinition of "atheist" likewise isn't the most inclusive, as has been shown. Why would you want to force others to stop using the most inclusive definition of atheist?
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,951
Are you feeling alright? You might need some sleep.