Define “Agnostic”

[Ron_Tomkins]

Your claim, as I see it, is that everyone is an agnostic, because nobody can objectively know whether there is or is not a God. If so, then the word "agnostic" according to your definition is redundant and need not be used.

Ahhh ok, I see what you mean. Well, you're absolutely right: The word "Agnostic" does become pretty useless when you consider that no one really "knows" for certainty whether there is a God or not. Which perhaps illustrates why the whole "Agnostic vs Atheist" conundrum is useless. Again, answering the question "Do you believe in God?" with "I don't know for certain if God exists" is kinda useless, since yes, probably no one knows that, and yet that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing in God anyway.

Can we please, therefore, use it for a definition that's useful to the rest of us, which is "a person who believes that they cannot know for certain whether there is or is not a God"?

Sure. The problem is that such definition includes a lot of Atheists too. Since a lot of atheists (such as myself) believe that we cannot know for certain whether there is or is not a God. So then, the definition becomes useless and redundant again, because it's not exclusive to Agnostics.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Take this sentence : I'm a hard atheist as regards Yahweh and Zeus and Indra and Ra, but I am a soft atheist as regards a Zen-ic or Advaitic God-ness that underlies our everyday reality. Wouldn't it be much clumsier to express this if the terms "soft atheist" and "hard atheist" did not exist? Why do you think this is a good thing?

For the same reason I can say "Fairies don't exist" without breaking it down into "Wood Nymphs don't exist, pixies don't exist, the tooth fairy doesn't exist" and having to assign a probability to each.

Sure. The problem is that such definition includes a lot of Atheists too. Since a lot of atheists (such as myself) believe that we cannot know for certain whether there is or is not a God. So then, the definition becomes useless and redundant again, because it's not exclusive to Agnostics.

Ted and Steve are arguing over whether or not the chair is blue. Bill joins the conversation and says the color of the chair is unknowable for certain.

Are Ted and Steve now obligated to change how they present or what they call their opinions?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure. The problem is that such definition includes a lot of Atheists too. Since a lot of atheists (such as myself) believe that we cannot know for certain whether there is or is not a God. So then, the definition becomes useless and redundant again, because it's not exclusive to Agnostics.

No, it doesn't. A lot of red-headed people are tall, but neither tall nor red-headed is useless or redundant as a result. It simply means that they define different attributes. A person is or is not an atheist depending on whether they do not believe or do believe there is a God; that same person may or may not be an agnostic depending on whether they personally believe that they know for certain that there is or is not a God. It's a perfectly workable and consistent set of definitions. The objection that "agnostic" refers to a personal belief is no more valid than the objection that "atheist" refers to a personal belief; it's simply that one is a belief concerning epistemology and the other a belief concerning the existence of a deity.

Dave

 

[Chanakya]

For the same reason I can say "Fairies don't exist" without breaking it down into "Wood Nymphs don't exist, pixies don't exist, the tooth fairy doesn't exist" and having to assign a probability to each.

Your answer makes no sense.

I'm asking you :

e.g., Take this sentence : I'm a hard atheist as regards Yahweh and Zeus and Indra and Ra, but I am a soft atheist as regards a Zen-ic or Advaitic God-ness that underlies our everyday reality. Wouldn't it be much clumsier to express this if the terms "soft atheist" and "hard atheist" did not exist? Why do you think this is a good thing?

Or take, for added emphasis, my edited example :

I'm a hard atheist as regards Yahweh and Zeus and Indra and Ra, but I am a soft atheist as regards a Zen-ic or Advaitic God-ness that underlies our everyday reality ; and I'm igtheistic when it comes to the God question in general.

There : now, using your preferred phraseology, how do you re-cast this sentence? Why do you think you'd like to make communication more clumsy, as you'll no doubt find you've ended up doing when you try to re-cast that sentence as requested?

Your answer to this question, quoted above, makes no sense whatsoever. Would you like to try again?

(Don't forget this thread is specifically about the meaning of the word Agnostic, and not about your position, or mine, about these questions.)




Also, you did not address my other question within the post you part-quoted :

Granting for the sake of argument that I agree with you : How do you propose to enforce this? Given that, in the real world, by 'atheist' some people mean 'hard atheist', others mean 'soft atheist', and so on, when in some discussion that you do have, either here or elsewhere, people do end up using the term 'atheist' in different senses : then how do you propose to enforce your proposal, how do you propose to get everyone to use your particular meaning? How do you get people to agree that 'atheist' should mean exactly what its etymology suggests it should mean, without any qualifiers tagged on?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your answer makes no sense.

Because I refuse to answer it in your context which is my entire point.

It's also why I'm ignoring parts of your argument, which you seem to think I'm not allowed to do for some reason.

You're trying to pigeon hole me into defining something so we don't have to deal with the context of how it's used.

Technically, dictionary level "agnostic" just means to be unsure of God's existence. There, that's an answer to the question you seem to think this is all about.

How the term is applied and used in discussions is not some side topic you can build a wall around nor am I obligated to pretend so.

 

[Chanakya]

(...) Since a lot of atheists (such as myself) believe that we cannot know for certain whether there is or is not a God. So then, the definition becomes useless and redundant again, because it's not exclusive to Agnostics.

This is getting weird.

There are some theists who believe, with absolute certainty, their own God-beliefs. They believe (that is, some of them believe) that everyone who does not follow their particular creed are heathens, and are headed straight to hell. It doesn't matter whether these heathens are atheists, or agnostics, or theists who believe in some other religion.

So then if some such theist -- let's just say (just as example, with no offense intended to any actual RCCs who may have wandered into this Godless discussion) that this particular theist in our example subscribes to the RC faith -- were to suggest that we do away with the words 'atheist', as well as 'agnostic', as well as 'Muslim', as well as 'Buddhist', as well as 'Baptist', et cetera -- and lump all of these categories together under the single word "heathens" -- then would you agree with them? Why not?

Even if you were yourself an RCC : Does it make sense, even then, for you to agree with this person? Why not?

 

[Chanakya]

Because I refuse to answer it in your context which is my entire point.

It's also why I'm ignoring parts of your argument, which you seem to think I'm not allowed to do for some reason.

You're trying to pigeon hole me into defining something so we don't have to deal with the context of how it's used.

Technically, dictionary level "agnostic" just means to be unsure of God's existence.

How the term is applied and used in discussions is not some side topic you can build a wall around.

Oh, you're allowed to not touch on parts of my argument, or all of my argument. But I'm allowed, in turn, to point that out back to you, am I not?



Okay, I think I finally get exactly where you are coming from.

(Do correct me if I'm strawmanning you. It is not my intention to misinterpret you. I'll be happy to correct myself if I am not representing what you're meaning to say correctly.)

Although you haven't said this in so many words, this is what I infer your position is :

You're saying, you will simply not engage in discussion with those who hold a different position than you as far as the question of atheism goes.

If you are a hard atheist, then you will use the term 'atheist' to mean what we now refer to as 'hard atheist', and you will simply not discuss this with others who happen to be soft atheists.

Or else, you are either unable or unwilling to recognize the different nuances that the terms 'soft atheist', 'hard atheist', or 'igtheist' convey. And you simply refuse to engage in discussions where these different nuances come into play.


Am I correct?


If that is truly your view, sure, you can do that. No reason why you shouldn't. No argument about your personal choice in this matter.

But no, I don't think I'll follow your example. And I doubt you'll get too many followers for your particular approach : a few, perhaps, but not too many, even within these forums. And you'll do no better in the world at large, I don't think.


But sure, you are free to follow this proposal when it comes to yourself, personally. I have no issues with that.



With that, we can wrap up our particular discussion, you and I. ( And no offense meant to you, if in trying to speak clearly I may have ended up speaking at all discourteously. )



But, now that we know exactly what it is you are advocating (always assuming I'm not strawmanning you -- that is not my intention, and I invite you to correct me right away if I am), I doubt your view will have too much of an influence so far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ted and Steve are arguing over whether or not the chair is blue. Bill joins the conversation and says the color of the chair is unknowable for certain.

Are Ted and Steve now obligated to change how they present or what they call their opinions?

Since the color of a chair is something that can be proven, unlike the existence of God, your example is invalid.

But more importantly, your example is invalid mainly because we're talking about belief. So your example should be "Ted and Steve are arguing about what each of them believe the color of the chair to be". And since a personal belief doesn't need to be backed up with true information in order for it to be a belief, either Ted or Steve could believe the chair is Red for all that matters, even if you show them that it is blue. Belief is a blind leap of faith that, when strong enough, doesn't give a **** about accurate information proving it wrong. And that has been my point all along.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

No, it doesn't. A lot of red-headed people are tall, but neither tall nor red-headed is useless or redundant as a result. It simply means that they define different attributes. A person is or is not an atheist depending on whether they do not believe or do believe there is a God; that same person may or may not be an agnostic depending on whether they personally believe that they know for certain that there is or is not a God. It's a perfectly workable and consistent set of definitions. The objection that "agnostic" refers to a personal belief is no more valid than the objection that "atheist" refers to a personal belief; it's simply that one is a belief concerning epistemology and the other a belief concerning the existence of a deity.

Dave

I think your definition of agnostic needs some tweaking, because that same exact verbatim definition you gave, applies to theists and some atheists. Theists believe that they know for certain that there is a God. Moreover, some atheists (but not all) believe that they know for certain that there is no God.

Here is the definition of Agnosticism from Dictionary.com:

"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

An agnostic is simply someone who believes nothing can be known for sure.

The problem, again, is that when answering specific "Do you believe in X God" questions, the Agnostic is basically saying he doesn't want to answer, because he claims nothing can be known for sure. But, once again, this is a fallacy and a cop-out because you don't need to know whether something is true or not, in order to believe in it. In fact, the whole point of Religious belief is one of a leap of faith. Of believing despite having no evidence to support the belief. But you either believe in something or you don't. You also don't get to consciously will yourself to either believe or not believe in something. The only thing you can decide to do is to avoid answering the question "Do you believe in X God?", whether for politeness or for not wanting to talk about the subject, or whatever reason. So some people just politely say "I don't have enough information to assert whether there is a God or not" (but again, that is not answering the question "Do you believe in it?")

 

[3point14]

The whole discussion annoys me.

I shouldn't have to refute the fantasies of the delusional.

 

[xjx388]

In practical use, isn’t “agnostic” just a fancy way to say; “I don’t know for sure, therefore I don’t concern myself too much about it.” An atheist is more like “I know for sure there is no God” and a theist is like, “I know for sure there is a God.”

Of course, there is a wide variety of nuance involved in various individual positions. But isn’t that simple definition of each position pretty much what people mean when they say they are agnostic/atheist/theist?

For example, I am fundamentally agnostic. I’m pretty sure that the man-made religions are all crap but I’m not willing to dismiss the existence of any type of God at all. It’s within the realm of possibility that there is a creator who concerned itself with creating and then sat back to watch it all unfold. Kind of like how we might start Conway’s Game of Life just to watch all the patterns emerge. But I’m not too concerned with who/what God is because it seems largely irrelevant to my everyday existence. Yet, weirdly enough, I still “pray.” Maybe only to myself, but I find it helpful and comforting -probably a hold over from my Catholic upbringing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tommok]

xjx388: this is based on the false assumption that atheism means that you believe there is no God.

The main point of this distinction being that a positive belief ("There is no god") would imply a burden of proof, whereas the simple rejection of a claim ("There is a god") would leave the sole burden of proof with the one who makes the claim.

If you do not wish to dismiss the possibility of there being any gods, yet you personally don't believe in a particular one, then you are an Atheist.

 

[Fudbucker]

xjx388: this is based on the false assumption that atheism means that you believe there is no God.

The main point of this distinction being that a positive belief ("There is no god") would imply a burden of proof, whereas the simple rejection of a claim ("There is a god") would leave the sole burden of proof with the one who makes the claim.

If you do not wish to dismiss the possibility of there being any gods, yet you personally don't believe in a particular one, then you are an Atheist.

He was talking about practical usage of the terms. I think he's right. In my experience, atheists invariably believe there are no gods and agnostics aren't sure, one way or another.

In philosophical discussions, the terms become more nuanced, but for practical purposes, "atheist" and "agnostic" are sufficient.

 

[Egg]

He was talking about practical usage of the terms. I think he's right. In my experience, atheists invariably believe there are no gods and agnostics aren't sure, one way or another.

In philosophical discussions, the terms become more nuanced, but for practical purposes, "atheist" and "agnostic" are sufficient.

I think bringing in the concept of "certainty"/"knowing for sure" puts all but the extremes in the middle position. Even many of the staunchest believers have their days of doubt.

It might be more useful to think in terms of being convinced of X or maybe (at least) provisionally accepting X as true/false.

 

[ynot]

He was talking about practical usage of the terms. I think he's right. In my experience, atheists invariably believe there are no gods and agnostics aren't sure, one way or another.

In philosophical discussions, the terms become more nuanced, but for practical purposes, "atheist" and "agnostic" are sufficient.

Merely a theists/philosowankers way of incorrectly defining an atheist as being a believer. Some (not all) do believe there are no gods of course, but that's not what defines them as being atheists. I claim to know there is no god. The only thing common to all atheists is they don't have a belief in a god or gods. All the rest is merely reasons why they're atheists. Agnostics that don't have a belief in gods are atheists.

 

[Fudbucker]

I think bringing in the concept of "certainty"/"knowing for sure" puts all but the extremes in the middle position. Even many of the staunchest believers have their days of doubt.

It might be more useful to think in terms of being convinced of X or maybe (at least) provisionally accepting X as true/false.

Yeah, if I want to drill-down, I'll ask if they're merely not sure, somewhat convinced, totally convinced, etc. But all the people I know who self-identify as atheists (meaning those that make a point to tell me without asking) are totally convinced they're right.

 

[Egg]

Merely a theists/philosowankers way of incorrectly defining an atheist as being a believer. Some (not all) do believe there are no gods of course, but that's not what defines them as being atheists. I claim to know there is no god. The only thing common to all atheists is they don't have a belief in a god or gods. All the rest is merely reasons why they're atheists. Agnostics that don't have a belief in gods are atheists.

I must confess to being somewhat agnostic as to the correctness of your definition of "atheist".

If you care to explain why your definition is The Truth® and why anyone with other ideas must be merely "theists/philosowankers", I believe someone started a thread for that.

 

[ynot]

I must confess to being somewhat agnostic as to the correctness of your definition of "atheist".

If you care to explain why your definition is The Truth® and why anyone with other ideas must be merely "theists/philosowankers", I believe someone started a thread for that.

My response in the Appropriate Thread

 

[David Mo]

Agnosticism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and gnastos, ‘known’), term invented by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to denote the philosophical and religious attitude of those who claim that metaphysical ideas can be neither proved nor disproved. Huxley wrote, “I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it.” (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).​

There is no reason to don't accept this definition. What greater semantic authority than the man who invented the term? I think there is too much background to this issue and too many people trying to manipulate with words.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think your definition of agnostic needs some tweaking, because that same exact verbatim definition you gave, applies to theists and some atheists.

Yes, that's the whole point. Theists can be agnostic theists, who believe God exists but admit that they cannot know for certain that God exists, or non-agnostic theists, who claim that they do know for certain that God exists. Atheists can be agnostic atheists or, conceivably, non-agnostic atheists, who believe that the evidence or lack thereof is sufficient to claim certainty that there is no God. Atheism and agnosticism are separate properties, that can exist independently of each other. There's no contradiction there, and no internal inconsistency.

And that resolves your cop-out dilemma as well. If someone is asked whether they're an atheist and they say they're an agnostic, they're answering the wrong question. It's as if you asked someone, "What colour is your hair?" and they answered, "Five feet eleven."

Dave