Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[Skeptical Greg]

You are touching a very sore nerve that few here, or anywhere, want to examine.

If you are *not* 100% certain that 'god does not exist' -- actual atheism -- you have a difficult philosophical problem:

I am 100% certain, at this moment, that god does not exist.


My certainty, does not affect reality, one way or the other..

 

[KingMerv00]

You are touching a very sore nerve that few here, or anywhere, want to examine.

If you are *not* 100% certain that 'god does not exist' -- actual atheism -- you have a difficult philosophical problem:

you must be either; a dualist, or an idealist.

Interactive Dualism of any flavor is illogical, non-Interactive Dualism is irrelevant, and a choice of idealism would mean the entire worldview based on materialism (of some form) has been and is wrong.

Some state is does not make a difference, since the empiricism of science cannot differentiate materialism-as-Truth from idealism-as-Truth.

I want to be clear. I am very nearly an atheist.

The real problem here is that an infinitely powerful being cannot be falsified. I ask you:

Is there ANY universe that would show the non-existance of an omnipotent being? ANY set of circumstances? ANYTHING at all?

 

[drkitten]

This is why I define atheism to simply be the absence of theism.

Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant definition, all right. Define atheism as the opposite of a term you carefully leave undefined.

Theism is defined by most dictionaries as a belief in a god or gods.

OED: Belief in a deity, or deities
dictionary.com: Belief in the existence of a god or gods

All the issues you raise about the ambiguity of the definition of these terms (deity, god, etc.) are simply copied wholesale. To paraphrase yourself, "Without stipulating which definitions of the word "god" are being referred to, it is meaningless. If I call my cat "god", does that make [theism true]? How about if I choose to refer to the totality of existence as "god"? Or if I choose to refer to the laws of nature as "god"?"

If you're going to pick semantic nits, at least pick legitimate ones, okay?

 

[KingMerv00]

You can certainly choose to reject a label with which you do not agree.

And rejecting the label of 'believer in a god' still leaves more than one position.

Rejecting a label is completely different than controlling what you believe.

 

[KingMerv00]

I am 100% certain, , at this momentthat god does not exist.


My certainty, does not affect reality, one way or the other..

Emphasis mine.

"At the moment" suggests that you could be convinced otherwise and therefore are not completely certain.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism

In fact, to claim absolute knowledge of anything is indefensible. There is not a single thing of which I am 100% sure. No matter how unlikely, you could hypothesize some bizarre case that would create an "exception" to any rule.

So do I have to say "I'm 99.999999999....% atheist, therefore, I'm agnostic? Seems a bit silly.

Originally posted by KingMerv00
ABSOLUTE knowledge of anything would require infinite knowledge.

You're both overlooking Rationalism. You can be 100% absolutely certain that A is A, and take it as an immutable fact. Logic can be used to prove absolutes, even if those absolutes are abstract and can't be readily applied to reality (because of the whole perception problem).

The problem with the Rationalists, though, is that there aren't many utterly true things like this, and you have to work upward and construct a comprehensive view of the universe with these little blocks...still, it was a bloody good effort between Descartes and Spinoza. Points for trying, good game.

 

[KingMerv00]

Re: Re: Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism

Where did this notion that a belief needs to be 100% certain in order to be logically defensible creep in? I'm not 100% certain that there's a phone book in my bottom drawer -- a ninja might have crept in and stolen it in the past fifteen minutes. But I haven't seen any ninja around, and it was there when I used it fifteen minutes ago, and therefore I conclude (logically) that it's still there.

Yup, I was right. It's still there. Well, all right, maybe the ninja replaced it with an identical-looking copy. But I conclude (logically) that I don't need to worry about all this stuff.

Actually you are right.

Logically defensible was a poor choice of words. My bad.

 

[crimresearch]

Rejecting a label is completely different than controlling what you believe.

But preferrable by far to letting others tell you what you believe.

I've reached the point at which I'm willing to accept the total lack of evidence for any god as satisfying the atheist label for myself. YMMV

If a god comes along tomorrow, there is nothing to prevent me from re-assessing my beliefs in light of new evidence, but until then, I'm not going to keep standing at the altar waiting for god to show up.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Purely as personal opinion, I hold the difference between agnosticism and atheism to be one of degree of guts. Agnostics are the ones playing with the fluffy pink handcuffs in the middle of the S&M party.

 

[Bubbles]

You have gone to a lot of trouble to say:

"I believe that the statement 'There is no God' as a statement of dogma (a thing proven to be true) is foolish.

OK. So what?

The statements "I believe that God exists" and "I believe that God does not exist" (let us pretend that we have defined the word 'God' are not unreasonable.

Let us say that I believe that my cat is trying to kill me. That is a belief with implications. There are clearly actions that follow from believing that. Let us say that I believe that a bomb was surgically implanted in my body and, if I am more 10 feet from my cat, I will explode. That belief has certain implications. If I believe both. . . wouldn't that make a great reality show!

The reasonable response to uncertainty is to do your best and get on with your life. Sitting down at a fork in the road because you don't know which is the right path is foolish option!

 

[KingMerv00]

But far more preferable to letting others tell you what you believe.

Agreed.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism

Actually you are right.

Logically defensible was a poor choice of words. My bad.

I think it answers your question, though. Atheism is, broadly defined, the belief that there is enough evidence to address the question "does God (or gods) exist?" in the negative.

Agnosticism is the belief that there is not enough evidence to answer the question. Strong agnosticism is the belief that there will never be enough evidence to answer the question.

Theism, by contrast, is the belief that the question can be answered "in the positive," if that phrase is legitimate.

 

[KingMerv00]

You have gone to a lot of trouble to say:

"I believe that the statement 'There is no God' as a statement of dogma (a thing proven to be true) is foolish.

OK. So what?

The statements "I believe that God exists" and "I believe that God does not exist" (let us pretend that we have defined the word 'God' are not unreasonable.

Let us say that I believe that my cat is trying to kill me. That is a belief with implications. There are clearly actions that follow from believing that. Let us say that I believe that a bomb was surgically implanted in my body and, if I am more 10 feet from my cat, I will explode. That belief has certain implications. If I believe both. . . wouldn't that make a great reality show!

The reasonable response to uncertainty is to do your best and get on with your life. Sitting down at a fork in the road because you don't know which is the right path is foolish option!

Actually, I agree with everything here.

I never meant to imply that acting as if God did not exist was unreasonable. Making that choice is fine. Hell, I did. I am just aware that there is a outside chance (WAY outside) that I might be wrong. No big deal.

To answer you question..."So what?"

This thread is merely an excercise in mental masterbation. It isn't meant to convince anyone of invisible pink unicorns.

 

[Matabiri]

Agnosticism-The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I would argue that, in fact, this position is, if not logically indefensible, at least intellectually unpalatable.

If the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven then that implies that a universe with god is indistinguishable from a universe without god - otherwise you'd be able to identify which you were in, and thus prove (or disprove) god.

If the two are indistiguishable, then Occam's razor suggests that you choose the simpler option - that there is no god - rather than sitting on the fence, at least until other evidence presents itself.

At any case, in such a scenario, the existence or non-existence of god is purely metaphysical and has no physical effect on you or your life.

 

[KingMerv00]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism

I think it answers your question, though. Atheism is, broadly defined, the belief that there is enough evidence to address the question "does God (or gods) exist?" in the negative.

Agnosticism is the belief that there is not enough evidence to answer the question. Strong agnosticism is the belief that there will never be enough evidence to answer the question.

Theism, by contrast, is the belief that the question can be answered "in the positive," if that phrase is legitimate.

If there was a gun to my head and someone made me choose between "God exists" and "God does not exist", I would choose the latter just as fast as my synapses connected.

I suppose my real claim is that absolute knowledge of anything is impossible.

 

[KingMerv00]

Re: Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism

I would argue that, in fact, this position is, if not logically indefensible, at least intellectually unpalatable.

If the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven then that implies that a universe with god is indistinguishable from a universe without god - otherwise you'd be able to identify which you were in, and thus prove (or disprove) god.

If the two are indistiguishable, then Occam's razor suggests that you choose the simpler option - that there is no god - rather than sitting on the fence, at least until other evidence presents itself.

At any case, in such a scenario, the existence or non-existence of god is purely metaphysical and has no physical effect on you or your life.

I agree. Occam's razor is the best option. However, this does not provide absolute knowledge. It is a choice of practicality, not certainty.

 

[Bubbles]

Actually, I agree with everything here.

I never meant to imply that acting as if God did not exist was not unreasonable. Making that choice is fine. Hell, I did. I am just aware that there is a outside chance (WAY outside) that I might be wrong. No big deal.

To answer you question..."So what?"

This thread is merely an excercise in mental masterbation. It isn't meant to convince anyone of invisible pink unicorns.

Of course, one implication of saying that we don't know whether or not God exists is to say that we have no way of calculating the odds that God exists. To say that there is a 99% chance that God does exists or a 99% chance that God doesn't exists is foolish. God exists or he doesn't, and that is that.

Matabiri:

Your first 'if' is highly problematic. We just have the one universe. We don't know whether it has a god or not. It does not follow from that that, if there were two universes, on with a god and one without, that they would be identical. Our subjective ignorance does not change objective facts.

I doubt your assertion that metaphysical questions have no impact on our lives. Beliefs have implications. We are not wholly ration: the implications of our beliefs do not wholly determine our choices, but neither do they not effect them at all. Large rocks fall to the ground regardless of what I believe, but what I believe effects how likely I am to drop them from great height on people's heads!

 

[KingMerv00]

Purely as personal opinion, I hold the difference between agnosticism and atheism to be one of degree of guts. Agnostics are the ones playing with the fluffy pink handcuffs in the middle of the S&M party.

Uhhhh....you can't prove anything. (I'm sure there is a comeback to this....you just wait.)

You take the same POV as my girlfriend (who is atheist).

Do you believe the possibility of an omnipotent being is 0? Does anyone? I say no. Therefore, total disbelief in God is impossible. Occam's Razor makes your life easier but does resolve this issue.

 

[KingMerv00]

Of course, one implication of saying that we don't know whether or not God exists is to say that we have no way of calculating the odds that God exists. To say that there is a 99% chance that God does exists or a 99% chance that God doesn't exists is foolish.

Foolish? Don't you calculate the odds of unlikely things all the time? You plan your day around the idea that you won't be hit in the head by a metorite. This is sensible. Acting as if God doesn't exist is sensible. Acting as if God DOES exist does not strike me as sensible but I could be wrong.

I have seen nothing to suggest God is necessary or even likely. I have decided to behave as if he doesn't exist. My doubts are merely about the nature of knowledge and certainty.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Uhhhh....you can't prove anything. (I'm sure there is a comeback to this....you just wait.)

You take the same POV as my girlfriend (who is atheist).

Do you believe the possibility of an omnipotent being is 0? Does anyone? I say no. Therefore, total disbelief in God is impossible. Occam's Razor makes your life easier but does resolve this issue.

If your girlfriend sneers at the fluffy pinks, you've got a keeper there. Congrats! And remember, double-locking handcuffs prevents nerve damage.

Actually, I do reckon the possibility of an omnipotent being to be zero. It's more likely that something exists and is mistaken for a god (say a really smart alien, or Cthulhu, created the cosmos) than anything could have omnipotence.

Omnipotence is an impossibility, because it would involve paradox. That's actually believer theology as well: Catholic theology holds that God's powers are limited to what is rational, and that not even he can change the past or create paradox. The Church survived by wedding a mystical religion to a rational framework, and the theology doesn't stand if you start bringing irrationality into it. So really, the Catholic god isn't completely omnipotent, either.