From atheism to agnosticism

[Keneke]

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.

Good point.

 

[Keneke]

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

Thank you so much. The difference between the casual usage in this context and the strict usage (making theism and gnosticism on different axes) is easily divided and recognized from the context of a writing. To stubbornly deny usage of the applied form when the message is easily understood is an irritating fallacy whose proper name I won't even bother to look up.

 

[Taffer]

Thank you so much. The difference between the casual usage in this context and the strict usage (making theism and gnosticism on different axes) is easily divided and recognized from the context of a writing. To stubbornly deny usage of the applied form when the message is easily understood is an irritating fallacy whose proper name I won't even bother to look up.

Not a fallacy per se, but irritating none the less. I am guilty of playing a definitions game, at times, and I have to often remind myself that the context is more important then the words used to express it.

FWIW, common usage of "athiems" and "agnosticism" are not exactly wrong, but rather, differ from the philosophic usage.

 

[bignickel]

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

No, I can only speak for myself. Others can 'know' that there is a god, but my claim will be that they are jumping to 'belief' with inadequate reasoning/evidence, etc.

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.

This is quite fascinating, in that I ran into the same exact objection 2 months ago, and then had to explain further. I'll explain myself now, but afterwards: could you tell whether I need to incorporate that into my initial argument, or whether I just have to always include it at the end of my argument? (which could possibly double it's length) I wonder if other people have a similar perception as yourself, and how many.

Agnosticism is the exact opposite of certainty; it's primary concern is humility. Agnosticism fully admits that we are primate descendants who just don't have the ability to recognize something outside the universe. It is for this reason that we can never know.

The only way that we could possibly recognize something outside the universe, say, god/s, is if were gods too.

The definition that I use for agnosticism is the same used by others, including Michael Shermer. I myself used a common different definition of it years ago, until finally someone told be that atheist does not mean 'there is no god'. Once atheist becomes 'non-belief in god' (with WHATEVER flavor of 'strong' or 'soft' or 'hard' or 'latte' that you want to throw in there), 'agnostic' meaning "I don't know" is pointless.

Therefore: why use that way? We should keep theist & atheist/non-theist for belief in god; agnostic's definition is much more useful talking about the knowledge of god/s (do I have the ability to know god/s exists?).

As for evidence: most theists believe they have 'evidence' for god/s' existence one way or another. This could be divine revelation, reasoning, belief in the accuracy of the Bible ('God exists because he said he does'), etc. I think there are a few who believe the evidence doesn't prove the existence of god/s, but believe anyway (mostly, deists).

 

[bignickel]

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"?

Any difference to me is irrelevant. The question is why should be bother distinguishing meanings concerning non-knowledge. "I don't believe there is a purple tiger outside my door" is pretty much the same, scientifically speaking, as "I believe there is no purple tiger outside my door". Both can be abandoned, given evidence, and both seem to be responses to someone's belief that there IS a tiger outside the door.

In the magical South Park future that Cartman visited, when all religions have gone the way of the dodo... both of the statements that you listed about god's existence wouldn't even be asked. Just as no one would ask either of my two questions. There's no reason to even posit them, unless as a response to an affirmative statement.

(If you would like to continue with 'hard' and 'soft' and 'glossy' and 'latte', and other flavors, for the sake of completeness in philosophy, be my guest, but I'm not going to follow along.)

 

[Taffer]

Any difference to me is irrelevant. The question is why should be bother distinguishing meanings concerning non-knowledge. "I don't believe there is a purple tiger outside my door" is pretty much the same, scientifically speaking, as "I believe there is no purple tiger outside my door". Both can be abandoned, given evidence, and both seem to be responses to someone's belief that there IS a tiger outside the door.

In the magical South Park future that Cartman visited, when all religions have gone the way of the dodo... both of the statements that you listed about god's existence wouldn't even be asked. Just as no one would ask either of my two questions. There's no reason to even posit them, unless as a response to an affirmative statement.

(If you would like to continue with 'hard' and 'soft' and 'glossy' and 'latte', and other flavors, for the sake of completeness in philosophy, be my guest, but I'm not going to follow along.)

That's all very well and good, I'm not about to tell you how to behave, but more specifically it is not about philosophy, about about the logical argument. In formal logic, there is a difference between "I believe God is nonexistant" and "My belief in God is nonexistant".

To put it in more logical terms, the two arguments are as follows:

Let G = God, B = "my belief"

B = ~G
~(B = G)

These are fundamentally different arguments. One is a positive assertion (or, if you like, a negative assertion), and the other is a lack of any assertion at all.

However, if you wish to classify both as Atheism, with no modifiers, then be my guest. It makes no difference to me.

 

[bignickel]

Well, there we go. For our conversations about logic and philosophy, 'hard' and 'soft'.

For practical discussions involving reason, science, and religion, no need.

 

[Taffer]

Well, there we go. For our conversations about logic and philosophy, 'hard' and 'soft'.

For practical discussions involving reason, science, and religion, no need.

Fair enough.

However, I will continue to use that nomenclature to make the distinction between the different positions. I hope you don't mind.

 

[chriswl]

No, I can only speak for myself. Others can 'know' that there is a god, but my claim will be that they are jumping to 'belief' with inadequate reasoning/evidence, etc.

Then they don't know (they only 'know' ). Making a lucky guess doesn't count as knowing even when someone insists that they do actually know. Knowledge is not subjective, not a matter of how you feel about things or how you personally see things.

Agnosticism is the exact opposite of certainty; it's primary concern is humility.

But this is not true for your preferred definition of agnosticism. You insist that we cannot know whether or not gods exist. No uncertainty there in the use of the word 'cannot'. You are making a strong positive claim which I don't think you can justify.

You're not merely saying that there may be things out there that we cannot understand. You are saying that there may be something out there that we can reasonably call God that we cannot understand.

As I said before, this is equivalent to the following claim:

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.

Please give me a suitable definition.

Agnosticism fully admits that we are primate descendants who just don't have the ability to recognize something outside the universe. It is for this reason that we can never know.

I thought we'd agreed that there was no "outside" of the universe. The universe, by definition, is everything that exists.

The definition that I use for agnosticism is the same used by others, including Michael Shermer.

Shermer is not really an agnostic, as many people have pointed out to him. He rules out the existence of God, just like you. He just likes to call himself agnostic so he can play good cop to Dawkins and Dennett's bad cops when arguing with Christians.

I myself used a common different definition of it years ago, until finally someone told be that atheist does not mean 'there is no god'. Once atheist becomes 'non-belief in god' (with WHATEVER flavor of 'strong' or 'soft' or 'hard' or 'latte' that you want to throw in there), 'agnostic' meaning "I don't know" is pointless.

I appreciate the idea that belief and knowledge are orthogonal. But, after arguing for it for a few years now I'm finding it harder to make sense of. There's too many holes in it. I think maybe the common definitions worked better after all - atheist: I believe there is no God; theist: I believe in God; agnostic: I don't know.

As for evidence: most theists believe they have 'evidence' for god/s' existence one way or another. This could be divine revelation, reasoning, belief in the accuracy of the Bible ('God exists because he said he does'), etc. I think there are a few who believe the evidence doesn't prove the existence of god/s, but believe anyway (mostly, deists).

Sorry, but evidence is just completely the wrong word here. Not all knowledge is based on evidence. I don't need any "evidence" to know that 1 + 1 = 2. Knowledge is what we are talking about here, not evidence.

The point about divine revelation is interesting, though. I'd suggest that, in practice, this is what truly seperates atheists from believers. The rejection/acceptance of the idea that divine relelation can be a special, direct route to knowledge.

 

[bignickel]

You deserve a good solid response to your post. Alas, I am very tired after walking all over Shakuji Koen. I need to be in top form when I am discussing some of these points, to fully explain my position. Even if it turns out I'm wrong (especially if it turns out I'm wrong)

I will note that Shermer calls himself an agnostic non-theist. I haven't heard him abandoning either one.

Jaa, mata.