From atheism to agnosticism

[El Greco]

Keneke, if I may ask:

Why bother ?

Why do you bother to redefine your position regarding the existence of God more than you'd bother to redefine your position regarding the FSM, the Yeti or the Blue-toothed fairy ? Anything of these can perhaps be possible in another universe, or even in this one. What's so special about "God" ?

I call myself a hard atheist because for me not only there is no proof for God's existence, but I also see clearly that it is a human invention. There are millions of other human inventions and fantasies. Do I have to allow the possibility for all of them to exist ?

When it comes to extraterrestrial life I say "pretty possible", just looking at the odds. When it comes to parallel universes I say that I have absolutely no idea and with the level of knowledge I possess I can't even make an half-educated guess. But the above examples are hypotheses of science, without any sentimental involvement and need of reassurance. God for me is like Santa Claus. If I ever felt the need to redefine myself as an agnostic, I'd also be agnostic about Santa, the FSM and the IBU. I don't see anything of these as more or less probable than God. So, what's so special about God ?

 

[Taffer]

The only thing which is impossible to know is that which lies outside our lightcone.

ETA: Correction, the only thing which is impossible to know, and that does not break causality, is that which lies outside our lightcone.

ETA2: Oh, and with regard to the OP, my Phil lecturers always made the distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism as follows:

              |Strong               |Weak
Agnostic      |Impossible to know   |I don’t know
Atheist       |God does not exist   |I don't believe in God

 

[bignickel]

Why the need for 'strong' and 'weak' at all? Let theists use such labels.

I've always seen Agnosticism not as "I don't know", but rather "I can't know".

Re: the OP
Unless you can say or think "I believe in God", then guess what: you're an atheist/non-theist. Don't like being in that club? Tough. The 'theist' club is rather exclusive; if you're not in it, you're out here with the rest of us.

Since agnosticism is only a position on evidence, one can easily be an agnostic non-theist, just like Michael Shermer.

 

[bignickel]

It's not that I am saying it cannot be proven, only that it currently is not. And my atheism was defined by belief in absence, or at least imagining it that way based upon evidence at the time. As I thought one could tell by the context (but I apologize, I was wrong), I was referring to the terms as per popular usage.

This would seem to be the 'gnostic atheist' (which coincidently, is how many fundy theists who come to this board see all atheists)

 

[chriswl]

I've always seen Agnosticism not as "I don't know", but rather "I can't know".

It seems to me that this is problematic (though to tell the truth I have problems with all definitions of agnostic and atheist if I think about them too hard).

If it just means that you can't know whether God exists, given your present state of knowledge, then this is just to say that you curently don't know the answer. Some new evidence tomorrow could persuade you.

Or do you mean that nothing could persuade you, not even God appearing to you in a vision, or meeting someone who claims to be God after you have apparently died? That there is no evidence that could even count as convincing evidence for God? This actually seems to be hard atheism - God is a thing without even a proper definition that would allow us to identify the kind of things that would be true if he existed, so he cannot be said to exist.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Not if the entity also existed outside the universe, the same way the multiverse theory postulates other universes. Now, if you want to say existence, well, we really cannot see beyond the confines of our universe, so we cannot say universe = all of existence just yet.

But this requirement is broken if this deity-concept interacts with our universe, for then it has to abide by the physical laws of this universe

The multiverse theory is still in its very early stages. No one has actually shown that more than one universe exists, so it is all speculation at the moment.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Taffer]

Why the need for 'strong' and 'weak' at all? Let theists use such labels.

I've always seen Agnosticism not as "I don't know", but rather "I can't know".

Re: the OP
Unless you can say or think "I believe in God", then guess what: you're an atheist/non-theist. Don't like being in that club? Tough. The 'theist' club is rather exclusive; if you're not in it, you're out here with the rest of us.

Since agnosticism is only a position on evidence, one can easily be an agnostic non-theist, just like Michael Shermer.

Because there is a difference. Just as there is strong and weak epistemologic atheism. There are different views, thus there needs to be a descriptor of them.

 

[qayak]

Because there is a difference. Just as there is strong and weak epistemologic atheism. There are different views, thus there needs to be a descriptor of them.

Why? If you are an atheist and I am an atheist, does it matter what the difference is? Well, other than the fact that it can engage us in an interesting conversation, that is?

It's not like we are theists and going to talk trash and kill eveyone who thinks a little differently than we do!

 

[Taffer]

Why? If you are an atheist and I am an atheist, does it matter what the difference is? Well, other than the fact that it can engage us in an interesting conversation, that is?

Because there is a fundamental difference between each of the four I give above. A strong and weak atheist is still an 'Atheist', but if required to define what form of atheist they are, they could say "I am a weak atheist", for example.

And both atheism and agnosticism can be used at once. One can be "a weak agnostic" while also being a "strong atheist". In this case, they would have to say "I do not know if God exists, and I think God does not exist".

Agnosticism is a view point on knowledge, while atheism is a view point on one's belief.

It's not like we are theists and going to talk trash and kill eveyone who thinks a little differently than we do!

You do not agree with me! Get 'em, boys!

ETA: FWIW, I am a Strong Agnostic, Weak Atheist.

 

[qayak]

ETA: FWIW, I am a Strong Agnostic, Weak Atheist.

I am an atheist.

 

[bignickel]

"I've always seen Agnosticism not as "I don't know", but rather "I can't know"."

If it just means that you can't know whether God exists, given your present state of knowledge...

Nope: if it's present state of knowledge, then it' can't be "I can't know" (I do not have the ability to know)

Or do you mean that nothing could persuade you, not even God appearing to you in a vision, or meeting someone who claims to be God after you have apparently died? That there is no evidence that could even count as convincing evidence for God?

Bingo. Any other explanation, even "I'm insane" is a better explanation of whatever 'evidence' I'm looking at/experiencing.

As I mentioned, agnosticism is a position on evidence, not of belief.

Don't believe in god/s? You're an atheist/non-theist.
Don't believe that any evidence could ever prove the existence of god/s? You're an agnostic.

Are both true for you? You're an agnostic non-theist.

 

[bignickel]

Because there is a fundamental difference between each of the four I give above. A strong and weak atheist is still an 'Atheist', but if required to define what form of atheist they are, they could say "I am a weak atheist", for example.

Again, why is this necessary? I don't collect butterflies: does it matter if I'm a Hard butterfly non-collector, or a Soft butterfly non-collector?

Shouldn't those who actively pursue something be the ones to use such labels? There's an infinite number of things I don't do; do I have to divide them all into Hard and Soft?

 

[Taffer]

Again, why is this necessary? I don't collect butterflies: does it matter if I'm a Hard butterfly non-collector, or a Soft butterfly non-collector?

Shouldn't those who actively pursue something be the ones to use such labels? There's an infinite number of things I don't do; do I have to divide them all into Hard and Soft?

Look, there are labels because there is a difference in the type of knowledge claimed. If you dislike the labels, then go argue with the philosophers. Call yourself whatever you prefer, it doesn't matter.

 

[bignickel]

What difference is there in the non-knowledge conveyed by 'atheist'/'non-theist'?

 

[Taffer]

What difference is there in the non-knowledge conveyed by 'atheist'/'non-theist'?

Is there a difference, to you, between "I don't know" and "It's impossible to know"? Is there a difference, to you, between "I believe God does not exist" and "I do not believe God exists"?

 

[chriswl]

"I've always seen Agnosticism not as "I don't know", but rather "I can't know".

And you are also, I assume, saying that no one else can know either (they may claim to know but they are mistaken).

Bingo. Any other explanation, even "I'm insane" is a better explanation of whatever 'evidence' I'm looking at/experiencing.

The problem I have with calling this agosticism is that it is a position of certainty. There is never any doubt - whatever the question God can never be the explanation. To believe this would be to also be a strong atheist.

But most people who call themselves agnostics would strongly deny (I'm putting it mildly here...) that they also hold the strong atheist position. There are even agnostic theists.

I think agnostics would say that the important thing is certainty - that we can't know with certainty that God does or doesn't exist. But I still don't know what basis they would have for saying this. What they are claiming here is that there are definitions of God, that aren't absurd or contrived, for which it is a fact that no one could ever disprove or confirm the existence of said God.

But are there any such definitions? Apart from the deist God or a kind of pantheism that simply equates God with the the universe itself I can't think of any. A being that was just another empirical thing in the universe (and thus not strictly subject to proof or disproof) surely wouldn't be a God and all other types of things or concepts have to be justified logically; they can't be unknowable unless we have just not defined them properly, in other words, unless they are nonsense.

If someone who calls themselves an agnostic merely means that they don't know whether God exists then that's fair enough. But I'd question whether any other type of agnosticism is defensible.

As I mentioned, agnosticism is a position on evidence, not of belief.

Don't believe in god/s? You're an atheist/non-theist.
Don't believe that any evidence could ever prove the existence of god/s? You're an agnostic.

I think this is your own definition of agnosticism. By evidence I assume you mean empirical evidence? I don't think there is anyone who thinks that God's existence can be proved by empirical evidence. Most religions explicity say that this is impossible. If we are all agnostics then the word isn't very useful.

Agnosticism is usually assumed to be a position about knowledge, which is rather broader than just evidence.

 

[Beerina]

I'll edit my previous post to say: "I feel like I can say that there's a point past which we cannot currently know, OR possibly ever know."

Do you refer to practical limits or theoretical ones?

Theoretical limits on our knowledge are pretty damned unlimited, as far as we can tell, being thought to be synonymous with "most powerful finite computational device". Such a thing does have limits, but they are more of theoretical importance (Goedel, et al.) that, if they applied to a god or creation, would be very odd indeed if you ask me, and entirely coincidental.

 

[Beerina]

Entropy, the vastness of space, and limited energy resources kind of precludes that, I think.

There's no conceivable way for humans in the far future to reconstruct the Library of Alexandra, for example, so we'll never know what all those scrolls contained. Neither can we ever find out what is beyond the perceivable edge of the universe. And, we can't plot the position of all objects in the universe, because that would take a processor larger than the universe itself.

I don't even see how knowing everything is relevant to the god hypothesis, it's inherently unfalsifiable.

A single, sufficiently large decimal number could do it, but of course that would require more atoms than are in the universe to represent it, which is your point.

However, if the universe behaved according to strict rules, which it does, and if quantum randomness isn't really random at all*, then it all could be spun off from a very small representation of initial conditions.

* The "dice" of the universe could be deterministic, but that would shove reality down to a much lower level than Einstein wanted to go -- the reality he refused to give up on was "real" objects "out there" with real properties. A deterministic computer processor (as an extreme example) instantiating quantum mechanics would violate this brutally.

 

[Keneke]

Keneke, if I may ask:

Why bother ?

Why do you bother to redefine your position regarding the existence of God more than you'd bother to redefine your position regarding the FSM, the Yeti or the Blue-toothed fairy ? Anything of these can perhaps be possible in another universe, or even in this one. What's so special about "God" ?

I am defining my position on the possibility of the existence of something else; multiverses, a Prime Mover, whatever. The term "God" is full of baggage, as is references to IPU and FSM. To ruminate on these issues may seem like philosophical mental masturbation, and certainly nothing that would fit into strict scientific research, but I haven't been yet disuaded from wondering about the outer reaches of existence simply because there's no reason to.

 

[Keneke]

then it has to abide by the physical laws of this universe

Does it?