Thermal
August Member
That's a good argument, but for a different discussion. You ate assuming what I am saying based on..what others have said in the past in other discussions.
But I'll get off your lawn.
Define “Agnostic”
- Thread starter ynot
- Start date
That's a good argument, but for a different discussion. You ate assuming what I am saying based on..what others have said in the past in other discussions.
But I'll get off your lawn.
Perhaps you are thinking too much for my mother.
I'm also reminded of "D," a friend's father who also had not interest in topics of a religious or spiritual nature. D collected stamps and read historical maritime novels, but apart from that had a solid reputation of not only brushing off religious discussions but very little intellectual curiosity.
The majority of us at the ISF are an intellectually curious people, and the kind who must understand life. We, if we haven't already, come to our elder years with an accumulation of wisdom, or at least some decided views about the big questions and matters of God and religion. D had nothing.
I think he represents a lot of people who are not thinkers. Grappling with intellectual questions is too tiresome and difficult for them. Introspection gives them a headache.
My mother as well was not a thinker, and one to articulate a personal spirituality or morality.
She'd not care whether she was an "apatheist."
In spite of my username matters of personal ethic and philosophy are very important to me. The contexts in which I share and discuss them are limited, and I'm not inclined to push my views, so I might appear to some people to be apathetic about religion.
The last years of my mother's life, she had no motivation to continue. She was quite ready to die. I guess she wasn't apathetic about her mortality. She had a stated preference. She wanted her passing to be quick without weeks of nursing or hospice care. It was.
Anyway, consider that there are a lot of people on this planet who just don't have the intellectual curiosity to pursue the "big questions." Most of those are fine with mouthing the given answers from their childhood. Or some like my mother and D are fine having no positions about religion. They aren't even Agnostics.
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
False dichotomy.
There is a grey area.
First objective reality as having reality independently of the mind is metaphysics, metaphysics is philosophy and that is nothing but Woo. So if that was what you meant by claiming objective reality, you are doing Woo. Right back at you!
If you mean that reality is objective in practice, the no. There is the evidence for that:
You: Reality is objective.
Me: No.
The reason I can say no, is because that no is subjective and that no is a part of reality. Reality is not objective nor is it subjective in practice. Some process are relative to humans objective and others are subjective.
You have to learn to think through your claims and test them. It is in practice Woo to claim that reality is objective just as it is Woo to claim that reality is subjective.
So let us play this quote again:
Me: No! That I believe in this no is a part of reality, yet it is only there because I believe in it. It, the no, is part of reality, because you are reading it. QED
Objective reality is Woo.
With regard
Last edited:
You're arguing that the God question doesn't have to have its hair split to Narnia and back and while also trying to say those people who are doing it are justified because of "nuance."
If the distinction isn't valid the people making it can't be validated.
You're still acting like the distinction being forced in this one case doesn't mean anything while still ostensibly agreeing that the distinction doesn't matter.
"The distinction doesn't matter, but it's doesn't mean anything if people still insist on making" isn't valid.
Because the entire term has an ulterior motive, one you've seemingly bought into and by using it we're playing a game of another players choosing and I refuse to do that.
Here I'm gonna break down my entire problem with arguing the details and "nuance" of opinions about the existence of God, and probably cross post it over to the "What is Atheism" thread because it's the functionally same thing.
Theist have strong motivation to make sure discussions about the existence of God never operate on the same rules as other discussions because talking about God differently becomes one of the proofs that God is different, which thing strengthens their argument that he has to be talked about differently, which requires even more pointless hairsplitting which strengthens their argument further and 20 goto 10.
And this works because people, like you're doing, don't understand that language inexactly describes reality it doesn't create it literally and argue that "Well these two words have some technical dictionary difference so they have to be describing some valid distinction we have to acknowledge" and we don't. You can call the bottle of tomato based condiment in my fridge catsup or ketchup, it's still the same thing. Those two distinct words don't force us into a real world practical distinction we have to acknowledge.
By forcing non-theistic people to argue their stances and opinions across this huge swath of distinctions without difference theist have made it so we're arguing nothing.
I and the language I use is not beholden to nuance that other people are making up just so their argument is harder to argue against.
"Is a baby an atheist or an agnostic?" That's the dumbest question ever asked. We don't hairsplit any distinction between "Negative opinion and lack of ability/context to from an opinion yet" in anyway equivalent to that anywhere else. We don't have crisis of faith over whether a baby is a Democrat or a Republican or if there lack of ability to form an opinion puts them into some magical third special category.
As we sit here and hairsplit meaningless minutia about level of disbelief and strong v weak disbelief... context which are 100% meaningless when discussing anything else, we just force ourselves into position where nothing we say has any meaning or strength behind it.
And I refuse to do it. "There is no God." I refuse to rewrite that to frame it the theisticly preferred version.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
I don't care if there is a God or not. I have found out, that I don't know if there is a God or not and that I can have a life without believing in God.
So again I don't care if there is a God or not.
As to the theists and what not, who need to box me in as though I am religious, then here is the God, that I don't believe in.
God is all powerful, but bored. She created Satan and asked Satan what she should do for fun. Satan said: "Since you are the source of everything and all powerful, create a materialistic universe without souls, heaven and hell and the humans in it will die, when they die.
God answered: I like it. Let there be light!
Stop claiming knowledge, evidence or what ever for something you don't know. You don't know if there is at least one god and or not. So live your life as you!
With regard
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
No, I answered a yes or no question in a deliberately curt manner.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Yes, but you gave no evidence. So what you claim can be dismissed:
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
You are capable of reason, logic and evidence. Then use that on the subject of subjectivity or be considered a believer, who doesn't use reason, logic and evidence.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Let's rewind a bit.
The op asked us to define Agnostic/Agnosticism; My reply which was mixed with humor is two-fold; Being agnostic only applies to the level of knowledge about a given proposition.
Agnosticism to be is invalid fence setting when the subject is god(s) being the question being asked is often "Do you believe in a god or gods, That is a yes or no answer and as I said anything but a yes makes you an atheist. On a personal level, I think it exists because some folks don't like the label.
Then as a 'gotcha' asking me if I believe in love I answered that No because I was curious to Thermals reply and where they would go with their argument.
Love isn't, however, Is not subjective it's chemical reactions and base attractions that we as humans have added a lot of fluff around, That may seem like a bitter way to view it and I'm fine with using all the fluff language, but it is what it is.
If you're asking me about the philosophical concept of subjectivity; Descartes almost had it right; Instead of I think therefore I am' it's more aptly
'My brain is getting oxygen and firing neurons, therefore, I can think'.
I hope I understood your point.
Thermal
August Member
Just a note: it was not intended as a gotcha. I was trying to determine how you evaluate a nebulous concept that is common to most people. The curtness, as you call it, of your reply was well taken and so naturally not pursued.
I'll get back off the lawn now.
Gnostic/agnostic are the stuff of knowledge and theist is the stuff of belief. The former should never be applied to the latter. A theist that claims they know their god exists is conflating belief and knowledge.
Agnostic = A label that should never be applied to belief in god(s) (aka - theism).
Agnostic = A label that should never be applied to belief in god(s) (aka - theism).
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
It is your right, but that is leaving the battlefield to the enemy. You will have your reasons, I suppose.
David Mo
Philosopher
Agnostic's problem is to explain what concept of truth he has that prevents him from refuting the existence of gnomes, fairies, invisible dragons or gods. The second problem is that it is opening the door for the irrationalist to admit "possible" entities.
I would not say that the agnostic is an intellectual coward, as Abaddon says, but on many occasions he is similar.
I insist, the problem is what concept of truth we handle.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
And that, Joe, is exactly why I had been asking you, repeatedly, to re-read my post #63.
What you’re protesting here is a strawman. Not one deliberately pushed here, I’m sure, but probably the result of your not having followed what I was saying in that post of mine. (And again, I’m not saying this to denigrate you in any way. Quite possibly the fault, if any, is mine, for not having been able to articulate my point clearly enough.)
Given your past expression of indignation at my pointing you toward that post, I won’t repeat that request of mine. But what I will do is copy here, word for word, the definition of Agnosticism that I had put in there. Here :
This last part -- “lacking this information and evidence, one takes the default position that there is no God” -- is the particular "nuance" I was referring to.
I hope my meaning is now clear? I don’t know how to make this any clearer than this! You don’t have to agree with this definition for Agnostic (yet -- we'll get to that part after this, in the next section : one point at a time) : but I just want you to understand what I’d tried to convey there, what I meant by “nuance”.
I’m agreeing with you that “the God question doesn’t have to have its hair split to Narnia and back”. And no, I am NOT saying, as you seem to think, that “those people who are doing it are justified because of ‘nuance’”. That isn’t what I was saying at all, and the contradiction that you see there does not, in fact, exist. I hope you now see the strawman you were expending your energy contesting?
Huxley was no theist. In a time and age when it was both unfashionable (within the larger society, albeit it may indeed have been fashionable within select niches) as well as difficult, in practical day-to-day terms -- when compared with today, that is -- not to be a theist, and to publically declare one’s non-theism, he was, at such a time, a non-theist. My understanding is that at that time, the term “atheist” carried distinct overtones (carried a “nuance”, in fact, if you don’t mind my using that word again), the sense that is best articulated today by the term “hard atheist” -- and, not caring for that particular nuance, he coined that word, Agnostic.
My understanding is that the word Agnostic, as Huxley intended it, is no different from what we today would describe as Soft Atheist, and what you yourself would like to convey by the word Atheist.
(And your own etymology-consistent definition of Atheism I am myself fully in agreement with, by the way – that is, both etymologically and functionally, your meaning, your use of the word Atheism for the position I spelt out above [for which same sense others use the word Agnosticm, and yet others the term Soft Atheism] is consistent. My only point is that these words do, in practice and in fact, carry different meanings to different people, and that difference [in what they mean in practice to different people] cannot be wished away. And must be dealt with. Unless one chooses to simply disengage with those who use individual words in senses differently from how we would like them to. And to disengage with people merely because of differences about semantics -- which to me seems to be your underlying position and intention [but do please correct me if you believe that to be a strawman of my own, if you think I have misinterpreted your intention, misunderstood your broader position] -- that seems silly to me.)
Sure, it’s fine with me if you carry on (or repeat) this argument in that thread. I’ve read that thread too. Your own views seem consistent with the OP’s, there. I didn’t post there myself, on that other thread, because I’ve nothing more to add beyond this one point that I’m making. (And obviously, while I’m addressing this post to you, others -- including the OP -- are welcome to engage with this if they so wish, either here or in that other thread.)
I understand what both of you (both you and the OP, as well as one or two others) are saying. You’re saying that the word Atheism is ample to describe the position I’d described above. You’re saying that Atheism means ‘a-theism’, not-theism, non-theism, lack in belief in God (however defined, and irrespective of anything else that guides or accompanies that non-belief). Fair enough. I agree with your definition.
Well, what next? You’ve made this very obvious point, and no one can possibly disagree with you when you say that that particular meaning of Atheism is both etymologically and functionally valid, because it is such a blindingly obvious point. Now I’m asking you, What now? What next? Having made that very obvious point, what do you propose now?
Words, especially in English, tend to often carry meanings and senses that are counter-intuitive, etymologically speaking. The same word sometimes carries different, even contradictory, meanings. The world may perhaps have been a happier place had that not been the case. Or perhaps not. The point is, in the real world, words, especially in English, sometimes/often do carry very different/diverse as well as etymologically inconsistent meanings. How do you propose to deal with this, in this specific instance?
You end your post with the declaration that “I refuse to rewrite that to frame it (to comport with) the theistically preferred version”. Well, first of all, it’s not a question of your “re-writing” anything, it’s a question of your recognizing (or not recognizing) definitions already extant. Second of all, that isn’t necessarily a “theistically preferred” version -- there are plenty of non-theists who prefer those versions (starting with Huxley himself), and nor do I see any reason to presume that all theists necessarily carry this alleged preference. But most importantly (much more important than pointing out the inconsistencies with and inaccuracies in how you have framed that declaration) : Having refused to define Atheism (as well as related words like Agnosticism) in any other way (other than the definitions you yourself prefer for these words), and having refused to recognize the other senses in which some others use these words, what do you now propose?
How do you propose to engage with those who use these words differently? (Others, whether theist or non-theist, who prefer the word Agnostic, or perhaps prefer the term Soft Atheist, or perhaps the label Agnostic-Atheist?) Or do you propose not to engage with any of them at all? (It’s fine if that is what you wish. You are perfectly free to engage with anyone you wish, or not, basis any reasons that appeal to you, irrespective of whether that appears reasonable to me or to others. I’m just asking you to clearly spell out what you propose, that’s all.)
I’ve described what I propose. It’s simple : We recognize that this is a disagreement over semantics, and not over the underlying position itself (when, that is, that is what happens to be case -- and I’d say that happens often enough). Therefore we, at the outset, settle this difference by agreeing on the definitions we are to use (if only for the space of some specific discussion) -- or, if we are unable to come to such agreement, then we stop fixating with the terms themselves and directly discuss the underlying positions instead. Sounds straightforward to me.
Do you disagree with what I propose? Can you spell out your disagreement, if so? And can you tell us what you propose instead?
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
I’ve come across enough people, myself, who seem similarly apatheistic (without necessarily worrying about, or even being aware of, this label). But because I’ve never discussed the God question with them -- one feels weird raising this topic generally, outside of this forum I mean, and I can count on the fingers of one single hand the people with whom I am comfortable talking about the God question IRL -- I’ve always assumed that that is merely their outer expression on this subject, an outer expression of cogitations already gone through internally and conclusions already drawn.
I’m afraid I’m no closer, really, to properly appreciating -- at the gut level I mean, I mean properly empathizing, as opposed to merely intellectually acknowledging -- this POV despite reading your accounts. But thanks very much for sharing.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Etymologically, yes ; but in practice, no, not entirely, not in the case of the word ‘agnostic’. At least in English, it is established usage that gives words their meanings, and those meanings are sometimes/often contradictory, as well different from (or with nuances not necessarily arising out of) what the etymology might suggest.
That is your opinion, sure. But it is no more than that, is it? *
Perhaps. Not necessarily, but perhaps. (That is, they are conflating belief and knowledge, only if they are actually doing that. Circular-ish, that. Tautological, conditional, and circular.)
Again, that is your opinion, sure. But it is no more than that.
* I keep on pointing out that this no more than your opinion : but of course, there’s nothing wrong in holding some personal opinion, as long as one realizes that is what it is. Nor is there anything wrong with expressing it, as you are doing here. Indeed, expressing one’s personal opinion, and discussing the reasons for those opinions, as well the consequences arising out of following some prescription that follows from those opinions, that is as effective a way as any of influencing other people’s opinions.
But what follows from your opinion, ynot? What do you propose, basis that opinion? When you do find some person, whether theist or non-theist, who seems to be using the word Agnostic differently from how you prescribe, what then do you propose one should do? What would you yourself do?
I’ve tried to discuss this aspect, and to ask this question with more clarity and in greater detail, in an earlier post addressed to JoeMorgue. Perhaps you might like to go through it, and consider what I’ve tried to convey there? This portion, especially, would probably be relevant here :
I still don't think you get that I see being forced to define my stance to some exacting degree is the problem. I'm saying the hand wringing over exact terminology has an ulterior motive that clarifying the terminology won't actually help. I thank you for the 5 paragraph long linguistic lecture, but it wasn't necessary but I'm not arguing the linguistic. I'm arguing the need for the linguistics.
Yes you and I could very well spend the next 10 pages refining and defining and clarifying our position until all nuance is lost and all the rough edges are gone but... to what end and to what purpose?
In other words asking me to clarify in detail why I think an argument is being too pedantic is pretty much asking me to lose.
That's what I keep saying, that the level of exactedness (that needs to be a word) demanding in this discussion has an ulterior motive.
Now I get that this is the internet and the internet holy stone tablets state that there is no such thing as too much detail, too much nitpicking, too much pedantics, or too much semantics but I'm not going to get caught in some Jabbian trap of being forced to word my argument in such a way as to admit my opponent is right before I'm even allowed in the discussion.
"God exists? Y/N" doesn't have to be approached from 90 bazillion different angles to the point that nobody is actually saying anything so the "belief" side can keep winning.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
None of what you say would apply if 'agnosticism' is defined as acknowledging that one does not know what one does not know ; and with the added nuance that, when it comes to the God question, one does not believe what one does not have grounds for believing. When defined thus, complete with that added nuance, then the word 'agnostic' means the same as 'soft atheist', and indeed the exact same as the etymologically derived meaning of the word 'atheist'.
As far as I can see, that was Huxley's intention. During his time (and indeed, at times, in our as well) the word 'atheist' is taken to mean 'hard atheist', and my understanding is that he did not care to take on that added nuance.
True, that meaning of 'agnosticism' is somewhat different from the etymologically derived meaning. But there are many words in English that differ somewhat (and at times differ drastically) from their etymologically derived meanings. And it is a fact that there are those who, in practice, do use the word 'agnosticism' in this sense.
My whole point, that I am trying to make in this thread, is that different people do, in fact, use these words ('atheist' and 'agnostic') in different senses. That cannot be wished away. To say that something-or-other *should* be the meaning that everyone agrees with, that is where the special pleading comes in. There are many meanings that might, with justification, be used. I'm saying this kind of insistence that everyone should use these words in just one single sense that one prefers isn't justified at all ; and even if for the sake of argument I grant you that this demand is justified, even then there is no way really to enforce that demand, is there?
So what is one to do?
I propose that before commencing any discussion, one takes care to agree on definitions at the very outset. If one can't do that, then one must stop fixating with terms, and directly talk about the underlying concepts. That is probably the best -- indeed, perhaps the only -- way to effectively deal with this issue.
Do you agree? If not, why not? And, if not, then what alternative proposal would you propose instead to deal with this situation?
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Instead of pointing out the flaws that I detect in what you have said there, as well as pointing out the portions of your post that I agree with, I will ask again what I have already asked you once : So what is it that you propose? How do you propose to engage in discussion with all of those theists and all of those non-theists who choose to define the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic' in ways that are different from what appears reasonable to you? Or do you choose not to engage with these people at all?
Psst - objectively I can show that subjective experience exists....