Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Yoink]

Without meaning to get too pedantic, an a-theos ist would be one who actively does non-god, it isn't a passive state of non belief or adoxia.

-ist, which comes from the Greek suffix -istes, forms agent nouns, that is, nouns that denote someone who does something.

The OED on "-ism" has:

Forming the name of a system of theory or practice, religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political, social, etc., sometimes founded on the name of its subject or object, sometimes on that of its founder. Such are Alexandrianism, Arianism, Arminianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Calvinism, Catholicism, Chartism, Christianism, Congregationalism, Conservatism, Epicureanism, Judaism (a1500), Latitudinarianism, Liberalism, Machiavellism, Muhammadanism, Platonism, Positivism, Presbyterianism, Protestantism, Puritanism, Puseyism, Quakerism, Quietism, Radicalism, Ritualism, Romanism, Socinianism, Taoism, Toryism, Wesleyanism, Whiggism.

"Atheism" is the practice of holding the "without god" position. That does not mean that it needs to be a positive affirmation of the absence of God any more than Protestantism is the positive affirmation of the existence of Protestants.

 

[Macoy]

To take that probably more seriously than it was meant: that still wouldn't usefully distinguish agnostics from either theists or atheists. That is, both theists and atheists can happily agree that "things might turn up unexpectedly."

I myself have no concept of god, that others appear to have.

For example, "the creator god". My universe could be an assemblage of qubits or whatever on a computer simulating a computer simulation. Everything's hunkydory till the power goes off. What use is that god?

The fact that someone thought of it makes it a possibility until disproven. I don't actually believe it though.

 

[Beth]

In the case of the "unicorn" argument, the claim is that it is reasonable to believe in a god for which there is no empirical evidence. The absurdity that it leads to is that it is equally reasonable to believe in other beings, such as unicorns, for which there is no empirical evidence.

Ignoring the "social inertia" of religious beliefs is the very point of the comparison, because "social inertia" is not a good reason for adopting a belief. Evidence is, and indeed, the evidence for the existence of unicorns is every bit as good as that for the existence of god (according to most traditional definitions of "god," anyway). The mere fact that millions of people have held a belief for thousands of years does not in itself make that belief likely to be true.

Popularity doesn't make a belief more likely to be true. It does, however, make it reasonable to believe in it without proof. It is not equally reasonable to believe in unicorns, teapots orbiting Saturn, or any of the other comparisons made because they do not have the same testimonial evidence to their existance as do the various gods.

You're making a false claim when you say that there is equal evidence for the things you mention. While you may not believe that Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha actually experienced the things that are claimed, testimonial evidence has been given and passed down over generations. Such evidence, whether via oral histories or written documents, provide a reasonable basis for other people to believe. While not empirical, testible evidence, they are more evidence than exists for teapots orbiting Saturn.

 

[Apology]

No one has asked you to join a group of which you don't want to be a part. They've simply asked you, "do you believe in god?" Since you have said more than once in this very thread that you "do not believe God exists," that, like it or not, makes you an atheist by definition.

That's right, no one has asked me, they're telling me what I am, in total disregard for my feelings on the issue or my actual beliefs or lack thereof. Frankly it's rude.

I spent a couple hours as a Buddhist this afternoon but I had to change again, because part of the Eightfold Path includes vegetarianism, and I have a turkey to cook, so I can't be a Buddhist any more today. I reverted to agnosticism, because frankly I don't have time to read any more literature and neither God nor atheism is going to stuff this turkey for me.

 

[JoeEllison]

There was an analogy earlier about broccoli and whether or not you like it. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it either. It's edible. What if I never ate broccoli before? I sure haven't had Ethiopian food before so ask me that again. So where would you lump a person who either doesn't know enough about god and science to have an educated opinion on the topic? Or who doesn't care to have an opinion either way? Or who is still weighing the question?

The OP asked for a meaningful distinction. Obviously can't both hold the belief in something and not hold a belief in something, but you can definately be ignorant to the choices or undecided. I think you'd be wrong in saying that just because someone is holding their chips and not making a commitment either way that they're defaulted to atheism. I think it's a meaningful distinction to make.

If it makes you feel better, you can tack an "atheist" on the end of agnostic and or just say athiest and still be technically correct, but practically wrong because there's just as much difference between someone who says there definately is a god absent evidence as those who say their definately isn't absent evidence as those that don't know. If you don't think there's a distinction to be made there, I don't know what to tell you other than I do.

Your analogy doesn't work. There a difference between saying you like/dislike something, and whether you say it exists or not.

 

[Yoink]

That's right, no one has asked me, they're telling me what I am, in total disregard for my feelings on the issue or my actual beliefs or lack thereof. Frankly it's rude.

Actually, Apology, I'm asking you to define what you are.

Surely you accept that it is possible that there could be a term in common use which contains a conceptual confusion? Surely you accept that it is worthwhile to try to sort out that confusion? Surely you also accept that if the confusion is identified and clarified, the consequence will mean that some people who have previously applied the term one way will cease doing so. This won't mean that they will have been "forced to change their opinions"--it will mean simply that they have found a clearer way of expressing their opinions. This is what I'm trying to achieve.

Again--for clarity's sake--no one is asking you to "change your beliefs" or to "pick a side"; all I'm asking is that you examine a particular pair of terms ("agnosticism" and "atheism") and tell me whether you think they usefully distinguish between defensible-but-different attitudes towards the question of God's existence and, if so, how.

So--care to have a crack at the tricky definitional bit? "An agnostic is someone who..." and "This differs from an atheist because..."?

 

[Yoink]

Popularity doesn't make a belief more likely to be true. It does, however, make it reasonable to believe in it without proof. It is not equally reasonable to believe in unicorns, teapots orbiting Saturn, or any of the other comparisons made because they do not have the same testimonial evidence to their existance as do the various gods.

You're making a false claim when you say that there is equal evidence for the things you mention. While you may not believe that Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha actually experienced the things that are claimed, testimonial evidence has been given and passed down over generations. Such evidence, whether via oral histories or written documents, provide a reasonable basis for other people to believe. While not empirical, testible evidence, they are more evidence than exists for teapots orbiting Saturn.

What if you switch out unicorns and replace it with witches? The existence of witches has been attested by numerous people throughout history and continues to be seriously asserted by many people throughout the world today. Does this make a belief in witches reasonable?

By the bye--I don't think a yes or no answer to this question helps shed any light at all on the issue at hand in this thread. That is, the point of this thread is not "is atheism more sensible than theism?" This thread is about whether "agnostic" is a useful or merely confusing term when discussing various possible positions that people may take up with regard to the question of the existence of god. The question of whether or not belief in god is "reasonable" seems to me to have absolutely no bearing on that issue.

 

[dirtywick]

Your analogy doesn't work. There a difference between saying you like/dislike something, and whether you say it exists or not.

It wasn't my analogy, it was Rasmus'.

 

[Apology]

Actually, Apology, I'm asking you to define what you are.

Surely you accept that it is possible that there could be a term in common use which contains a conceptual confusion? Surely you accept that it is worthwhile to try to sort out that confusion? Surely you also accept that if the confusion is identified and clarified, the consequence will mean that some people who have previously applied the term one way will cease doing so. This won't mean that they will have been "forced to change their opinions"--it will mean simply that they have found a clearer way of expressing their opinions. This is what I'm trying to achieve.

Again--for clarity's sake--no one is asking you to "change your beliefs" or to "pick a side"; all I'm asking is that you examine a particular pair of terms ("agnosticism" and "atheism") and tell me whether you think they usefully distinguish between defensible-but-different attitudes towards the question of God's existence and, if so, how.

So--care to have a crack at the tricky definitional bit? "An agnostic is someone who..." and "This differs from an atheist because..."?

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if God exists. This differs from atheism because atheism clearly lacks a belief in God. Agnosticism does not clearly lack a belief in God. It only admits a lack of knowledge about God.

I know that some people object to the catch-all nature of the word, but that was its original intent when it was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley. Here's a reference if you'd care to read more about Huxley and the coining of the word:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/agnostic.html

Any attempt to define it further than "I don't know" is going to be delving into each agnostic's personal opinions, which do not represent agnosticism as a whole. For instance, my personal position of "I don't know, and I think it's too much of a waste of time to bother trying to find out any more" is partly agnostic and partly personal opinion, and not necessarily representative of Huxley's work or the opinions of other agnostics.

Furthermore, attempting to define agnosticism seems antithetical to the original spirit of agnosticism. I say "I don't know," you say, "Define I don't know." Being uncertain is neither holding a belief nor lacking a belief. It is a position in between, in which a decision must be made to either be a believer or an unbeliever. If the decision is not made, the person cannot move forward or backward, but must stand in the same spot. It is not impossible to stay in that spot until further evidence is shown. My personal opinion is that the decision is unnecessary, especially if it's going to take up too much time and effort that might be better spent doing something more productive. I spent years and years in study, trying to answer the question for myself. The answer that I got in the end is that there is no answer. It seems to bother other people greatly, but I'm cool with it.

 

[Mobyseven]

Let me give you an analogy that will make it easier for all of you to let me choose my own beliefs and what I want to call my beliefs. Imagine I said I was bisexual. You are all saying that I must be gay or I must be straight, because there are no bisexuals. If I live with an opposite-sex partner but have gay sex sometimes, I'm a "weak heterosexual" rather than bisexual. If I live with a same-sex partner but occasionally have straight sex, I'm a "weak gay". If I try to say that I'm not a "weak" anything, I'm bisexual, then everyone goes back to square 1, insisting that there's no such thing as bisexuality. Trying to define bisexuality out of existence doesn't make it go away.

As others have said, this is an inappropriate analogy. The reason it is an inappropriate analogy is that bisexuality is a property that an object can possess. An object cannot possess the property of existence.

Please explain where the religion of Buddhism sits in this either/or statement.

As I understand it, and my understanding may be flawed, Buddhism does not address the existence of god. It is entirely possible to be a Buddhist atheist or a Buddhist theist. Neither theism nor atheism is a necessary prerequisite for Buddhism.

Popularity doesn't make a belief more likely to be true. It does, however, make it reasonable to believe in it without proof.

No, it does not. You surely know better than to write tosh like that Beth - popularity is nothing but a measure of how popular an idea is. It speaks nothing to the actual truth of the matter, and therefore nothing to how reasonable it is to believe the claim.

That's right, no one has asked me, they're telling me what I am, in total disregard for my feelings on the issue or my actual beliefs or lack thereof. Frankly it's rude.

An analogy, if I may:

You are asked to assess the biological sex of a person. You notice they have a penis and testes. Genetically, they have an X and a Y chromosome. You therefore come to the conclusion that they are male.

Should they be upset because nobody considered their feelings on the matter? There are reasonably well understood criteria, so it doesn't matter what the person's feelings are.

In your case, you've been asked, very simply, "Do you believe that god exists?" Yes, there are layers of explanation and uncertainty that lie behind the answer to that question no matter who is asking and who is answering, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you cannot answer yes to that question, you are a de facto atheist. Kindly deal with it.

 

[Trakar]

The OED on "-ism" has:



"Atheism" is the practice of holding the "without god" position. That does not mean that it needs to be a positive affirmation of the absence of God any more than Protestantism is the positive affirmation of the existence of Protestants.

"holding the 'without god' position" (actually "non-god" is more accurate), is in accord with holding a positive afirmation of the non-god position, and is demonstrative of being an active holder of a specific concept, not a holder of a passive null state.

 

[Yoink]

"holding the 'without god' position" (actually "non-god" is more accurate), is in accord with holding a positive afirmation of the non-god position, and is demonstrative of being an active holder of a specific concept, not a holder of a passive null state.

I can actively hold the position that god's existence has not been proved. This satisfies your criterion of "activity" without forcing me to accept your erroneous criterion of "positively asserting the non-existence of god."

Satisfactory?

 

[Taffer]

Skipping 5 pages of replies here, so apolgies if this has already been covered.

Agnosticism is not the same as atheism because it deals with a different thing. Agnosticism is about the ability to know something, while atheism is about the existence of theism. One can be agnostic and antheist, agnostic and theist, or not agnostic and atheist.

 

[Trakar]

adoxtheos is a fine start. But what form of it would I use it in this sentence: _____________ is on the rise. Adoxtheism seems natural to me. -ism here meaning state, not belief system or practice.

PS. Is botulism a belief in sausages? Is racism a belief that there are races?

"Adoxtheos" would work fine on it's own without any further modification, botulus -ism is a bastard mix of latin and greek and not much more proper in its application than atheism (or racism). In greek the condition of state is an active, not a passive, condition. That is why the same term is/was often used as a suffix denoting an active, held philosophy/belief system/state of being.

 

[Trakar]

I can actively hold the position that god's existence has not been proved. This satisfies your criterion of "activity" without forcing me to accept your erroneous criterion of "positively asserting the non-existence of god."

Satisfactory?

Please, don't mistake me for advocating one way or the other with regards to your beliefs, I'm merely discussing the issues of the words that many use, or IMO, misuse, in the casual discussion and consideration of those beliefs.

 

[the PC apeman]

TShaitanaku,
I'm still curious about the order of affix precedence.

((a theos) ism) vs. (a (theos ism))

Can you point me to a reference?

 

[Apology]

Even Dawkins will allow grudging admission of agnosticism as long as he can express it in some sort of percentage of belief or lack of belief. A lot of you are fond of that atheist baby analogy. If I wanted to, I could make a claim that the baby doesn't know whether to believe in God or not because it doesn't know if God exists or not, and is thereby Agnostic, since atheism requires the decision to lack belief. I won't make that claim though, because it's antithetical to agnosticism. The baby can't be agnostic because an agnostic must be aware of the question and unaware of the answer. If you cannot say "I don't know" you cannot be agnostic. It just makes sense.

If we're talking about the religion of an infant, we might as well be talking about whether a cat is agnostic or atheist, or a hamster. Infants aren't self-aware enough to be atheist, agnostic, or anything else. They worship their mothers. Maybe they're theists.

 

[Apology]

If a theist slips into a permanent coma, are they then an atheist or are they still a theist? They certainly aren't any more aware than the baby, and probably less. I doubt they know God exists any more, frankly. I'm not going to claim them for agnosticism though, since they can't say "I don't know."

Sign language and written notes are also acceptable forms of communicating "I don't know." I'll accept semaphore flag if someone gives me a cheat sheet ahead of time so I'm sure I'm decoding the flag signals properly. Nobody who is unwilling or incapable of making the decision to be an agnostic can properly be called an agnostic. They have to call themselves that.

Nor can the word be taken away from anyone who cares to use it. If someone wants to call themselves an Agnostic Theist, there's not a thing I can do about it. They've defined their position as it represents their beliefs. Agnostics are not required to do this. The fact that some do is not a mandate on all the others.

 

[Mobyseven]

Geez, that's a good question Apology! I have an even better one - if a person is dead, are they atheist or theist?

 

[Apology]

Geez, that's a good question Apology! I have an even better one - if a person is dead, are they atheist or theist?

They're just dead. They can't be agnostic either I'm afraid, any more than a baby or a cat.