Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)
by romansh 
, Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:22 (3864 days ago)
edited by unknown, Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:37
DHW: If there is no consensus on the meaning of words, we cannot have a coherent discussion. My objection to "weak atheism" when associated with agnosticism is that "weak" is pejorative, and "atheism" denies the agnostic's neutrality on the question of God's existence. In a religious context my definition of "agnosticism" (below) coincides with that of every reference book I have consulted (though some extend it to knowledge of anything outside the material world). Your use of "agnostic" above ... in the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... changes the context from religion to epistemology.-Your initial assertion I find false. I don't have to agree (have consensus) with your definition to have a meaningful conversation, I just need to understand it in a similar way to the way you intend use the word.-I do not see "weak" as a pejorative. Here is the Wiki page on agnosticism. I don't get the sense weak is used as a pejorative at all. philosophically speaking. Personally I describe my self as weak agnostic, and trust me it is not a pejorative.-And this light your statement ... the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... is false with respect to my position.-Dawkins and agnosticism http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-doe...
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:53 (3864 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh I do not see "weak" as a pejorative. > Here is the Wiki page on agnosticism. I don't get the sense weak is used as a pejorative at all. philosophically speaking. Personally I describe my self as weak agnostic, and trust me it is not a pejorative. > > And this light your statement ... the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... is false with respect to my position. > > Dawkins and agnosticism > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-doe... definition Dawkins is a weak agnostic:-From the article:-"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic?" Prof Dawkins answered that he did. "An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: "You are described as the world's most famous atheist." Prof Dawkins said that he was "6.9 out of seven" sure of his beliefs. -"I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low," he added. "-I find a 'weak' agnostic is an honest and strong thinker. At least he is open minded and not acting like a fundamentalist. We will never know is not a proper answer.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:57 (3864 days ago) @ David Turell
by definition Dawkins is a weak agnostic:-Agreed ... assuming Dawkins still stands by this definition and position.
Agnosticism and other related labels
DAVID: ....by definition Dawkins is a weak agnostic.-I am unable to get the article you were referring to, and so I have no idea how it defines 'weak' agnostic. However, in the Wikipedia article to which Romansh referred me, the definition of weak agnostic is as follows:-Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.-I have not seen or heard any evidence to suggest that Dawkins has changed his position since writing The God Delusion, and I would suggest that his 6.9 out of seven certainty concerning his beliefs does not suggest that he is withholding judgement.- DAVID: I find a 'weak' agnostic is an honest and strong thinker. At least he is open minded and not acting like a fundamentalist. We will never know is not a proper answer.-This is a little ambiguous. May I assume that you do not accept the claim that Dawkins is a weak agnostic? I have to add that I don't like the terms strong/weak agnosticism, and much prefer closed and open. -[
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Sunday, April 27, 2014, 16:15 (3863 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: ....by definition Dawkins is a weak agnostic. > > dhw: I am unable to get the article you were referring to, and so I have no idea how it defines 'weak' agnostic. However, in the Wikipedia article to which Romansh referred me, the definition of weak agnostic is as follows: > > Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") > The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.-The newspaper search mechanism is weak. If you played with the index offer, the article can be found. What Dawkins said is exactly the Wiki you quoted above. > > dhw: I have not seen or heard any evidence to suggest that Dawkins has changed his position since writing The God Delusion, and I would suggest that his 6.9 out of seven certainty concerning his beliefs does not suggest that he is withholding judgement.-It was his response of 6.9 that raised the issue. A very slight sliver of an open mind. > > DAVID: I find a 'weak' agnostic is an honest and strong thinker. At least he is open minded and not acting like a fundamentalist. We will never know is not a proper answer. > > dhw:This is a little ambiguous. May I assume that you do not accept the claim that Dawkins is a weak agnostic?-He likes to claim he is. And I'm willing to accept it.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, April 27, 2014, 18:59 (3863 days ago) @ David Turell
Agnosticism and other related labels
DHW: If there is no consensus on the meaning of words, we cannot have a coherent discussion. My objection to "weak atheism" when associated with agnosticism is that "weak" is pejorative, and "atheism" denies the agnostic's neutrality on the question of God's existence. In a religious context my definition of "agnosticism" (below) coincides with that of every reference book I have consulted (though some extend it to knowledge of anything outside the material world). Your use of "agnostic" above ... in the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... changes the context from religion to epistemology. -ROMANSH: Your initial assertion I find false. I don't have to agree (have consensus) with your definition to have a meaningful conversation, I just need to understand it in a similar way to the way you intend use the word.-I have found our discussion on Dawkins' and your own use of "atheistic" extremely unsatisfactory, simply because you appear to be using it in a sense of general disbelieving, whereas I use it ... and so does everyone else I know ... in the sense of disbelieving in the existence of god(s). You do not seem to see the illogicality of claiming that a devout Christian can be called atheistic if he doesn't believe that dinosaurs walked with men. I might expect this from a religious bigot but not from an agnostic! Clearly there is no consensus between us on the meaning of the word "atheistic", and we appear to have reached a dead end. ROMANSH: I do not see "weak" as a pejorative. Here is the Wiki page on agnosticism. I don't get the sense weak is used as a pejorative at all. philosophically speaking. Personally I describe my self as weak agnostic, and trust me it is not a pejorative.-Thank you. This is an interesting article, particularly the quote from Huxley, which goes some way to supporting your views when he talks of it as a method: "Follow your reason as far as it will take you." On the other hand, you will I'm sure have noticed that both definitions in the introduction explicitly mention deities,*** in line with my own definition. My objection, though, is to the equation of agnosticism with weak atheism, for reasons I've already given you. However, it's not a major issue, and of course I accept that you would not use it pejoratively of yourself. -ROMANSH: And this light your statement ... the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... is false with respect to my position.-Another misunderstanding, I think. You wrote: "That you reject the attempt to assume agnosticism shows that you believe there is some intrinsically correct definition...which in of itself is not agnostic." Your use of "agnostic" here has nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God, or with your position, but relates to the possibility of there being an intrinsically correct definition. I took this to mean an objective "correctness", which no-one can possibly "know". The best we can get is consensus. This applies to all language and most if not all other spheres of human activity ... which is why I place your second use of "agnostic" under epistemology, not religion.-*** "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively"
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, April 27, 2014, 19:40 (3863 days ago) @ dhw
I have found our discussion on Dawkins' and your own use of "atheistic" extremely unsatisfactory, simply because you appear to be using it in a sense of general disbelieving, whereas I use it ... and so does everyone else I know ... in the sense of disbelieving in the existence of god(s). You do not seem to see the illogicality of claiming that a devout Christian can be called atheistic if he doesn't believe that dinosaurs walked with men. I might expect this from a religious bigot but not from an agnostic! Clearly there is no consensus between us on the meaning of the word "atheistic", and we appear to have reached a dead end. -It is not just my use ...again the opening lines from Wiki Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.-The fact that you use atheism in the strong (narrow) sense is fine. The problem arises when we talk about people who define themselves as atheists in the broader sense. What do you suggest we call them? I try to use the weak atheist or agnostic atheist labels ... as they are the labels that are commonly used.-Is a devout Christian who does not believe (or actively disbelieves) in a literalist god atheistic with with respect to that god? I think is a fair question. Is he or she an atheist? Definitely not, but that was not my question. -> Thank you. This is an interesting article, particularly the quote from Huxley, which goes some way to supporting your views when he talks of it as a method: "Follow your reason as far as it will take you." On the other hand, you will I'm sure have noticed that both definitions in the introduction explicitly mention deities,*** in line with my own definition. My objection, though, is to the equation of agnosticism with weak atheism, for reasons I've already given you. However, it's not a major issue, and of course I accept that you would not use it pejoratively of yourself. -I don't deny agnosticsm includes the concept of god. That you object to the "equating" is interesting and I understand and I have much sympathy with that objection, but as you point out it is common usage. > Your use of "agnostic" here has nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God, or with your position, but relates to the possibility of their being an intrinsically correct definition. Correct is an intrinsically correct definition a metaphysical proposition? > I took this to mean an objective "correctness", which no-one can possibly "know". The best we can get is consensus. This applies to all language and most if not all other spheres of human activity ... which is why I place your second use of "agnostic" under epistemology, not religion. Again in my travels on the internet atheism is used as a lack of believe in god.-And I go with the concensus ... despite the fact it is illogical. eg a weak atheist does not disbelieve in god. Atheism looses something here for me. But I have no problem saying I am atheistic towards Roman, Greek and Norse gods. In either the strong or the weak sense of atheism. In the same way I might say turquoise is bluish. But I would not say it is blue.-> *** "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively"-My personal experience does not with fit William Rowe's. Incidently Rowe converted from being an evangelical Christian to an atheist over his adulthood.
Agnosticism and other related labels
dhw: Romansh wrote that "agnosticism is not about belief in gods....It is about how we handle such knowledge." The definitions you referred me to are quite explicit in their references to belief in gods. -ROMANSH: From the opening line of Wikipedia "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."-I take "claims about the existence etc." to mean the same as beliefs here, and as you know, the next sentence uses believe/disbelieve. However, it's "unknowable" I'd like to follow up in a moment.-ROMANSH: If you recall I mentioned I extended this to other non metaphysical concepts ... I also noted this could be quite contentious.-This is an important point, which ties in with your question whether an intrinsically correct definition is a metaphysical proposition. Agnosticism is essentially a reference to knowledge (gnostikos = relating to knowledge), whereas atheism is specifically related to god(s) (theos = god). I don't think it's at all contentious to relate agnosticism to other concepts. The contentiousness arises when you try to relate atheism / atheistic to other concepts! However, in a religious context, the word "agnosticism" does cause problems if people define it as the impossibility of knowing (as above) whether there is a god or gods. This is where epistemology raises its head: can we "know" anything? On a certain philosophical (metaphysical?) level the answer has to be no. And so we are ALL agnostics in that sense. Perhaps this is why Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic, because 6.9 out of 7 allows for the fact that nobody can "know" anything for certain. And this is also why some of us opt for a less rigid definition: we neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. What exactly is your objection to this definition of agnosticism in its religious context?
Agnosticism and other related labels
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 04:51 (3861 days ago) @ dhw
Rizzle pizzle duck splat ding dong bell whistler. Rubber ducky buckshot brimstone. -This means that all life on earth came from the egg of a three toed hippo that rode through the universe on the back of a giant amoeba that was impregnated by the great sky turtle Atuin. (If it sounds crazy, its because it is. Even if I changed all the 'words' to real words, it would still be non-sense if we can't use the accepted definitions. -It is also the reason that I do not debate with Romansh any more. The method that has been employed in the discussion over 'Atheism' and 'Agnosticism' is the same method that was used in the discussion of 'Responsible'. There can be no debating or discussion with that.-So razzle pazzle Agnotipism atheolalidocious.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 06:31 (3861 days ago) @ dhw
Perhaps this is why Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic, because 6.9 out of 7 allows for the fact that nobody can "know" anything for certain. -This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Can we ever be certain of anything? Well I don't think so, but I bet my life livelyhood on some of them. This uncertainty is the very backbone of sientific method. The things we are reasonably certain of, we test to destruction.-> And this is also why some of us opt for a less rigid definition: we neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. What exactly is your objection to this definition of agnosticism in its religious context?-I have no objection to this DHW. It is just that there is a large group of people who describe themselves as atheists who use the negative belief version of atheism.-By your definition Dawkins is an agnostic (I think) and this is the type very person you rail against.-On the oterhand we can have agnostic theists who understand they do not "know" god exists but believe it anyway .... fideism
Agnosticism and other related labels
dhw: Perhaps this is why Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic, because 6.9 out of 7 allows for the fact that nobody can "know" anything for certain. -ROMANSH: This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Can we ever be certain of anything? You have repeated the point I made throughout the whole paragraph, but have ignored the conclusion which was its whole purpose: "And so we are ALL agnostics in that sense." If we wish to remain on that level, we might as well eliminate such terms as atheist and theist altogether. I am beginning to have great sympathy with Tony (see razzle pazzle Agnotipism atheolalidocious...). I then went on:-"And this is also why some of us opt for a less rigid definition: we neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. What exactly is your objection to this definition of agnosticism in its religious context?"-ROMANSH: I have no objection to this DHW. It is just that there is a large group of people who describe themselves as atheists who use the negative belief version of atheism. By your definition Dawkins is an agnostic (I think) and this is the type very person you rail against.-Theism: belief in the existence of god(s) Atheism: disbelief in the existence of god(s) Agnosticism: neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of god(s) These words are used in order to distinguish between different approaches to the existence of god(s). This is because different people have different approaches to the existence of god(s) ... some believe, some disbelieve, and some can't decide either way. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Dawkins says god is (gods are) a delusion. That suggests to me that he disbelieves in the existence of god(s), which by my definition makes him an atheist if these terms are to have any meaning at all (see above, re epistemology which makes us ALL into agnostics). I do rail against people who ridicule other people's beliefs, especially when I feel (subjectively, of course) that their own beliefs are no more reasonable than those they rail against. I also rail against people who I feel (subjectively of course) twist language, resort to ambiguities, ignore questions, throw in non sequiturs, take comments out of context, and sometimes appear to argue for the sake of arguing.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Thursday, May 01, 2014, 02:28 (3860 days ago) @ dhw
I also rail against people who I feel (subjectively of course) twist language, resort to ambiguities, ignore questions, throw in non sequiturs, take comments out of context, and sometimes appear to argue for the sake of arguing.-Instead of railing against them why not do something like try and understand what theys are saying?-And speaking of avoiding questions ... what about the people who describe themselves as atheists and use the weak or negative definition of atheism?
Agnosticism and other related labels
Dhw: I also rail against people who I feel (subjectively of course) twist language, resort to ambiguities, ignore questions, throw in non sequiturs, take comments out of context, and sometimes appear to argue for the sake of arguing. -ROMANSH: Instead of railing against them why not do something like try and understand what theys are saying?-The problem is that when asked, you make no attempt to explain what you are saying. For instance, I asked you repeatedly why you challenged Tony and me to deny that the sun was responsible for hurricanes (= causal responsibility) when we were talking about moral responsibility, as in Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. I asked you repeatedly why you used the word atheistic in relation to disbelief in men walking with dinosaurs. How do you justify using the term atheistic in such a way that a person can believe and disbelieve in the same God at the same time? If Dawkins calls God a delusion, and if I define atheism as disbelief in god(s), and agnosticism as neither belief nor disbelief in god(s), how can you tell me that according to my definition Dawkins is an agnostic? Language is our only means of reaching understanding, but you play games with it, as in your effort to justify your use of "atheistic" through your ambiguous question: "Do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?" When challenged on these matters, you either go very quiet, or you try to turn the tables, as follows: ROMANSH: And speaking of avoiding questions ... what about the people who describe themselves as atheists and use the weak or negative definition of atheism?-In your post of 27 April at 19.40 you asked me what I would call them. In my reply of 28 April at 20.31 I wrote: "I don't like these different categories, because then we all start arguing about them. I'd take the first two definitions for 'atheism'. Agnosticism for me is neither belief nor disbelief in god(s), and if someone leans one way or the other, let them say precisely that: an agnostic tending towards atheism / tending towards theism." What question have I avoided? Your complaint is that I do not try to understand what you are saying, but here you are trying to make out that I don't answer your questions. If you want me to understand what you are saying, should you not be answering my questions? Here's a suggestion: why don't you try to explain exactly what it is about your position that you think I have not understood?
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Thursday, May 01, 2014, 14:51 (3860 days ago) @ dhw
What would you call someone who described themselves as a weak atheist?
Agnosticism and other related labels
ROMANSH: What would you call someone who described himself as a weak atheist?-I would call him the same as I called him on 28 April and on 1 May, when you asked the same question: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". Perhaps you didn't realize that before giving my answer, I explained the thinking that led to it. Clearly this is an approach you are not used to, since you continue to avoid my own requests for explanations.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Saturday, May 03, 2014, 01:35 (3858 days ago) @ dhw
Surely you are not suggesting they are atheistic with personal Abrahamic gods and the like; but, they are unsure or agnostic about the more deistic gods?
Agnosticism and other related labels
ROMANSH: What would you call someone who described himself as a weak atheist?-Dhw: I would call him the same as I called him on 28 April and on 1 May, when you asked the same question: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". Perhaps you didn't realize that before giving my answer, I explained the thinking that led to it. Clearly this is an approach you are not used to, since you continue to avoid my own requests for explanations.-ROMANSH: Surely, you are not suggesting they are atheistic with personal Abrahamic gods and the like; but, they are unsure or agnostic about the more deistic gods.-No, I'm not, and you know I'm not. According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time and even in relation to one and the same god. You are making a mockery of language. This discussion is leading us nowhere, and we should end it.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, May 04, 2014, 19:08 (3856 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, May 04, 2014, 20:00
No, I'm not, and you know I'm not. According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time and even in relation to one and the same god. You are making a mockery of language. This discussion is leading us nowhere, and we should end it.-Well dhw according to my twisted language-Yes they can be theistic, atheistic and agnostic at the same time. ie a theist who disbelieves in a particular god or set of gods, understands that they can't know for sure. Though one cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. That you can't see the difference worries me a little, just a little.-Atheists and theists can be agnostics at least according to Wikipedia. Notice the term agnostic is used as an adjective in the case of atheism and theism. This is all stuff that I have touched on before, in my twisted use of language.-The fact that you seem unwilling to understand what is meant by a devout Christian being atheistic towards Norse gods actually does say loads about your approach to others.- Incidently this is a really nice source of viewpoints on agnosticism and world views in general.-It is almost as though in your world something is either blue, green or neither. And if someone describes something as bluey green it is a twisted use of language. -If you do not wish to continue ... please feel free not to continue.-> and even in relation to one and the same god. I certainly have not meant to have said this. Please point out where I have said this.
Agnosticism and other related labels
ROMANSH: It is almost as though in your world something is either blue, green or neither. And if someone describes something as bluey green it is a twisted use of language. You asked how I would describe a weak atheist. I responded: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". This is my equivalent of your bluey green, in case you hadn't realized. Romansh: Atheists and theists can be agnostics at least according to Wikipedia.-Below are the Wikipedia definitions of agnosticism***. No mention of the existence of individual deities. However, we're not arguing about the adjective "agnostic", which is more flexible than "atheistic", since it relates originally to knowledge and not just to gods. This is clear from the definitions of "agnostic atheism" and "agnostic theism". I've frequently mentioned the problem of defining "agnosticism", because if it refers only to knowledge, we're ALL agnostics (which is why Dawkins can astonish the world by claiming to be one). My objection is to your twisted use of "atheistic". Here's your recommended definition of atheism from Wikipedia:-ROMANSH: It is not just my use ...again the opening lines from Wiki "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." Any deities ... not one particular form. You approve, but you still want to apply the adjective to individual deities. This discussion started when I objected to Dawkins' joke about monotheists being atheists because they reject the ancient gods. You responded: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" Again I objected to your use of "atheistic", as I see no link with disbelief in god(s). I asked later why you used it, but you didn't answer. You can of course use language any way you please, but then you shouldn't complain if people don't understand you.-Dhw: [According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time] and even in relation to one and the same god. ROMANSH:I certainly have not meant to have said this. Please point out where I have said this.-You obviously don't realize the implications of your language, even when they're pointed out to you, as follows: You tried to justify your question by rephrasing it: "Do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?" I commented on the ambiguity before answering (28 April under "Dawkins dissed...), and wrote on this thread: "Are you going to point to every single story about every god and say that someone who rejects a single story is atheistic? If someone disbelieves in the story of Noah but believes in the story of the parting of the Red Sea, does he then become atheistic AND theistic "with respect to" that same God? What kind of language is this?" Of course you did not respond. Add being agnostic "with respect to" the God of the burning bush, and you have your trio.-However, as we've agreed, there's no ultimate authority on definitions. You don't mind the illogicality of someone being theistic, atheistic and agnostic at the same time, though you've tried to do a wriggle with "atheist" and "theist", as if the adjectives had a different meaning from that of the nouns. So although I see it as "twisted", shall I say instead that your use of language seems to me unnecessarily confusing? Whereas in my view language should be used to clarify not to confuse. We have different criteria. And so you (and Dawkins) can go your way and I'll go mine.- *** Definitions recommended by Romansh:-Agnostic atheism The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist. Agnostic theism The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Tuesday, May 06, 2014, 04:08 (3855 days ago) @ dhw
You asked how I would describe a weak atheist. I responded: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". This is my equivalent of your bluey green, in case you hadn't realized.-In case you did not realize atheistic is my equivalent to bluey. > > Romansh: Atheists and theists can be agnostics at least according to Wikipedia. > > Below are the Wikipedia definitions of agnosticism***. No mention of the existence of individual deities. However, we're not arguing about the adjective "agnostic", which is more flexible than "atheistic", since it relates originally to knowledge and not just to gods. This is clear from the definitions of "agnostic atheism" and "agnostic theism". I've frequently mentioned the problem of defining "agnosticism", because if it refers only to knowledge, we're ALL agnostics (which is why Dawkins can astonish the world by claiming to be one). My objection is to your twisted use of "atheistic". Here's your recommended definition of atheism from Wikipedia: > > ROMANSH: It is not just my use ...again the opening lines from Wiki > "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." > > Any deities ... not one particular form. You approve, but you still want to apply the adjective to individual deities. This discussion started when I objected to Dawkins' joke about monotheists being atheists because they reject the ancient gods. You responded: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" Again I objected to your use of "atheistic", as I see no link with disbelief in god(s). I asked later why you used it, but you didn't answer. You can of course use language any way you please, but then you shouldn't complain if people don't understand you. > > Dhw: [According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time] and even in relation to one and the same god. >> ROMANSH:I certainly have not meant to have said this. Please point out where I have said this. > You obviously don't realize the implications of your language, even when they're pointed out to you, as follows: You tried to justify your question by rephrasing it: "Do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?" I commented on the ambiguity before answering (28 April under "Dawkins dissed...), and wrote on this thread: "Are you going to point to every single story about every god and say that someone who rejects a single story is atheistic? If someone disbelieves in the story of Noah but believes in the story of the parting of the Red Sea, does he then become atheistic AND theistic "with respect to" that same God? What kind of language is this?" Of course you did not respond. Add being agnostic "with respect to" the God of the burning bush, and you have your trio.-Just curious ... is there any difference for you when we use atheist as an adjective and atheistic? Whilst I can't say I recommend any of them per se, I have no problem with any of them and is how I generally use the meanings.-> *** Definitions recommended by Romansh: > > Agnostic atheism > The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist. > Agnostic theism > The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. > Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism > The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. > Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") > The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." > Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") > The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."
Agnosticism and other related labels
ROMANSH: It is almost as though in your world something is either blue, green or neither. And if someone describes something as bluey green it is a twisted use of language.-Dhw: You asked how I would describe a weak atheist. I responded: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". This is my equivalent of your bluey green, in case you hadn't realized.-ROMANSH: In case you did not realize atheistic is my equivalent to bluey.-A few days ago, you said "atheistic" meant "atheist like" ... do I have an atheist-like disbelief in men walking with dinosaurs? ... and now apparently it's bluey green. So you meant: do I have an atheist-like, roughly three quarters disbelief and one quarter belief in men walking with dinosaurs? Ditto with the "god of the flood", and the ancient gods. The more you wriggle, the lower you sink. Stop it. Dhw: [According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time] and even in relation to one and the same god.-ROMANSH:I certainly have not meant to have said this. Please point out where I have said this.-dhw: You obviously don't realize the implications of your language, even when they're pointed out to you, as follows: You tried to justify your question by rephrasing it: "Do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?" I commented on the ambiguity before answering (28 April under "Dawkins dissed...), and wrote on this thread: "Are you going to point to every single story about every god and say that someone who rejects a single story is atheistic? If someone disbelieves in the story of Noah but believes in the story of the parting of the Red Sea, does he then become atheistic AND theistic "with respect to" that same God? What kind of language is this?" Of course you did not respond. Add being agnostic "with respect to" the God of the burning bush, and you have your trio.-ROMANSH: Just curious ... is there any difference for you when we use atheist as an adjective and atheistic? Whilst I can't say I recommend any of them per se, I have no problem with any of them and is how I generally use the meanings.-You asked me to tell you how your twisted use of terminology had unintentionally led you to the illogical claim that a person could be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time even in relation to one and the same god. I have done so, and this is your response. Since you clearly have no intention of conducting a meaningful dialogue, and can't even make up your own mind what you mean by "atheistic", I'm sorry but I see no point in continuing a discussion that had already lost its direction the moment you started playing with men and dinosaurs.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Wednesday, May 07, 2014, 05:42 (3854 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Wednesday, May 07, 2014, 06:07
I disbelieve that a god created our world where, about four thousand years ago or there abouts, man wandered this Earth together with dinosaurs. I disbelieve in this god .... and when it comes to that many other gods too. I would find it really strange that anybody could argue against the use of the word atheistic to describe my position regarding these gods.-I also understand I can't prove that these gods are false, so in this sense I could be described as agnostic. All I can do is provide tons of corroborating evidence that these gods are false. Here I would cite Bertrand Russell a world class mathmetician and logician.-And say I happened to believe in a panentheistic god, like David does. By definition this would make me a theist.
Agnosticism and other related labels
Dhw: You asked how I would describe a weak atheist. I responded: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". This is my equivalent of your bluey green, in case you hadn't realized. ROMANSH: In case you did not realize atheistic is my equivalent to bluey. Dhw: A few days ago, you said "atheistic" meant "atheist like" ... do I have an atheist-like disbelief in men walking with dinosaurs? ... and now apparently it's bluey green. So you meant: do I have an atheist-like, roughly three quarters disbelief and one quarter belief in men walking with dinosaurs? Ditto with the flood, ancient gods, and your attitude towards the vast number of Christian positions. The more you wriggle, the lower you sink. Stop it.-As usual, no response from Romansh. Instead the wriggling continues: ROMANSH: I disbelieve that a god created our world where, about four thousand years ago or there abouts, man wandered this Earth together with dinosaurs. I disbelieve in this god... -Same silly equivocations as before, conflating god and stories about the god. The Pope believes that his god created our world, but he disbelieves that men walked with dinosaurs, and for all we know, he may even disbelieve in the story of Noah and his ark, or perhaps have doubts about Christ walking on water, but that does not make him atheistic and agnostic "with respect to" the selfsame god of the Old and New Testaments about whom these stories have been told. You claimed not to know how your thinking could make a person atheistic, theistic and agnostic in his attitude towards the same god. I have shown you, and you continue to ignore my response, reproducing exactly the same equivocal arguments as before. Why do I bother?-ROMANSH: .... and when it comes to that many other gods too. I would find it really strange that anybody could argue against the use of the word atheistic to describe my position regarding these gods.-Atheistic as in atheist like, or as in bluey green? The above was the basis of Dawkins' little joke, which started this whole discussion and which leads to the (in my view) illogical conclusion that a person can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic at the same time, even in relation to the same god. But use it that way if you want to. There is no ultimate authority to say you are wrong. I can only explain (as I've done over and over again) why I regard this use as confusing and illogical, but I've now given up hope that one day you might actually read what I say and respond to it. ROMANSH: I also understand I can't prove that these gods are false, so in this sense I could be described as agnostic. All I can do is provide tons of corroborating evidence that these gods are false. Here I would cite Bertrand Russell a world class mathmetician and logician.-Agreed. The word "agnostic" is not the subject of our disagreement. But see my post on Defining Agnosticism.-ROMANSH: And say I happened to believe in a panentheistic god, like David does. By definition this would make me a theist.-Agreed. However, David doesn't believe in the Christian God, so would that make him an atheist? Of course not, because according to me (and the Wikipedia articles you quoted approvingly), theism = belief in the existence of god(s); atheism = disbelief in the existence of god(s). Not belief/disbelief in one particular form of god or story about one particular form of god. Round we go, but there is no objective right or wrong here, and with your use of "atheistic" you are in the good company of Dawkins and many others, so do as you please.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Thursday, May 08, 2014, 00:25 (3853 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Agreed. However, David doesn't believe in the Christian God, so would that make him an atheist? Of course not, because according to me (and the Wikipedia articles you quoted approvingly), theism = belief in the existence of > god(s); atheism = disbelief in the existence of god(s). Not belief/disbelief in one particular form of god or story about one particular form of god. Round we go, but there is no objective right or wrong here, and with your use of "atheistic" you are in the good company of Dawkins and many others, so do as you please.-I've gotten back from our trip to see a discussion between splitters and lumpers it seems. Not very productive as there is no solution to how to split and lump. It is all personal. Yes I am a theist, but not a trinitarian. Too much splitting for me.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Thursday, May 08, 2014, 03:38 (3853 days ago) @ dhw
dhw ... you seemed to have missed this: > rom: Though one cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. -This boils down to how we interpret atheistic ... -I asked before what is the difference for you between atheist (used as and adjective) and atheistic?
Agnosticism and other related labels
ROMANSH: Though one cannot be an atheist and a theist at the same time. Of course I agree. ROMANSH: This boils down to how we interpret atheistic...I asked before what is the difference for you between atheist (used as and adjective) and atheistic?*** [My answer is below]-You have so far defined "atheistic" as atheist like, and as your equivalent of bluey green (= say, three quarters unbelieving, one quarter believing), neither of which makes sense in your question "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" You asked this in response to the following example which I gave of Dawkins' superficiality: "He comes up with the usual sneer at all the past gods that people are now "atheistic" about [...] By picking on the soft targets of individual religions, he can raise easy laughs, and play with the word "atheism", but one would have hoped for something more discerning at this level." You've taken this superficiality to extremes. I've pointed out that "According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time and even in relation to one and the same god." As regards the same god, you wrote: "I certainly have not meant to have said this. Please point out where I have said this." I have now explained it three times, e.g. one can be "atheistic" towards the "god of the flood" (your own expression), agnostic towards the "god of the burning bush", theistic towards the "god of the parting of the Red Sea". All the same god. Your response: what is the difference between atheist and atheistic? Tell me what you think is the point of trying to prove that a person can be theistic, atheistic and agnostic all at the same time, even in relation to the same god. And tell me what you think is the point of my answering your questions when you ignore the answers.-**** "From an atheist(ic) point of view, there is no difference between Yahweh, Allah and Brahma ... they are all figments of the imagination". Atheist(ic) means from the point of view of someone who disbelieves in the existence of god(s). The two words mean the same. According to your two definitions of atheistic, it means = from the point of view of someone who is like someone who disbelieves in the existence of god(s)...or from the point of view of someone who approx. three quarters disbelieves but one quarter believes in the existence of god(s)... (= your bluey green). Does that make sense?-Now please read this carefully: any use of the word "atheistic" to mean anything other than disbelieving in the existence of god(s) can only lead to the confusing, illogical and ... to my mind ... utterly pointless argument that a person can be theistic, atheistic and agnostic all at the same time, even in relation to the same god. But if that's how you wish to use language, carry on. Message received? Over, and if there is no response, over and out.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Thursday, May 08, 2014, 16:15 (3852 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Now please read this carefully: any use of the word "atheistic" to mean anything other than disbelieving in the existence of god(s) can only lead to the confusing, illogical and ... to my mind ... utterly pointless argument that a person can be theistic, atheistic and agnostic all at the same time, even in relation to the same god. But if that's how you wish to use language, carry on. Message received? Over, and if there is no response, over and out.-Having been away and then returning to this vast inane discussion, down a huge rabbit hole, I find disappointing. The definition of atheist is a non-issue. Please, over and out.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Friday, May 09, 2014, 02:17 (3852 days ago) @ David Turell
Having been away and then returning to this vast inane discussion, down a huge rabbit hole, I find disappointing. The definition of atheist is a non-issue. Please, over and out.-The problem David is there are two broad definitions of atheism in use. generally speaking: 1) an active disbelief in any god. 2) a lack of belief in any god.-Personally I am happy with either definition, so long as when we use the word atheist we are clear which definition we are speaking about. These are commonly denoted as strong and weak respectively.-similarly for agnosticism 1) not knowing whether god exists or not (but not necessarily limited to god). 2) lacking a belief and disbelief in god.-I would agree that amongst the general public 2) is a common perception, but anyone of a philosophical persuasion would understand that 1) is original intent. 2) for me reduces agnosticism to an atheistic position where the concept of god is somehow important to me. It is not.-We then move on to the difference between atheistic and atheist when used as an adjective. For me there is a subtle difference. For me it is OK to say David has an atheistic position in the Trinity ... in that like atheists you disbelieve in a Trinitarian god. (Assuming you do).-I can't see the problem here.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Saturday, May 10, 2014, 05:43 (3851 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh:We then move on to the difference between atheistic and atheist when used as an adjective. For me there is a subtle difference. For me it is OK to say David has an atheistic position in the Trinity ... in that like atheists you disbelieve in a Trinitarian god. (Assuming you do). > > I can't see the problem here.-I don't see the importance of worrying about these minute differences in definitions. To me an atheist doesn't accept the concept of God or gods, strongly or weakly doesn't matter, and an agnostic like dhw is not sure that it can be proven there can be a God or gods, but he remains open to the possibilty that proof may appear. All simple and not worthy of prolonged discussion. Resembles the famous number of angels on the head of a pin. We debate here about whether science is providing any answers to the question. Whether the Bible is some help is also covered. Definitions don't get to any central points.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Saturday, May 10, 2014, 22:13 (3850 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, May 10, 2014, 22:21
I don't see the importance of worrying about these minute differences in definitions. To me an atheist doesn't accept the concept of God or gods, strongly or weakly doesn't matter, and an agnostic like dhw is not sure that it can be proven there can be a God or gods, but he remains open to the possibilty that proof may appear. -Essentially I agree with you David; so long as we are clear which definition we are talking about. The problem lies when we use the weak definition of atheist because it applies to agnostics such as dhw and myself. I have no problem with this as it is only a semantic shell game, but dhw seems to have some fundamental disagreement with the weak definition. Also from what I have read Dawkins also falls into the weak category which I think dhw also objects to.-> All simple and not worthy of prolonged discussion. Resembles the famous number of angels on the head of a pin. We debate here about whether science is providing any answers to the question. Whether the Bible is some help is also covered. Definitions don't get to any central points.-Personally, I did not think I was saying anything terribly controversial here.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Sunday, May 11, 2014, 00:30 (3850 days ago) @ romansh
> Romansh: Personally, I did not think I was saying anything terribly controversial here.-My point is it shouldn't be controversal because it to me the definitions don't matter or help understanding the real issues. I don't care what Dawkins is in his own mind and I don't like what he does.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, May 11, 2014, 16:52 (3849 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Romansh: Personally, I did not think I was saying anything terribly controversial here. > > My point is it shouldn't be controversal because it to me the definitions don't matter or help understanding the real issues. I don't care what Dawkins is in his own mind and I don't like what he does.-Frankly David what you don't like about Dawkins' actions is irrelevant to this discussion ... it belongs to the Dawkins Dissed thread. -If you think understanding the meaning (and nature) of words don't help or matter, fair enough.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Sunday, May 11, 2014, 22:06 (3849 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: If you think understanding the meaning (and nature) of words don't help or matter, fair enough.-You have been defining terms covering folks intent in thinking about God or no God or gods. Words in the discussions should be defined so we all understand each other, but, as an example, Dawkins degree of atheism is of very little importance to the overall discussion and content of the conversation. I don't care what degree of atheist he is. It doesn't redefine the content of his writings.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, May 11, 2014, 22:51 (3849 days ago) @ David Turell
Romansh: If you think understanding the meaning (and nature) of words don't help or matter, fair enough. > > You have been defining terms covering folks intent in thinking about God or no God or gods. Words in the discussions should be defined so we all understand each other, Agreed. > but, as an example, Dawkins degree of atheism is of very little importance to the overall discussion and content of the conversation. Agreed, generally I have avoided that part of the discussion. I don't how I could neasure how certain I am in a certain type of god? > I don't care what degree of atheist he is. It doesn't redefine the content of his writings. Agreed, it is our interpretation of the content that defines the content,
Agnosticism and other related labels
by David Turell , Monday, May 12, 2014, 01:13 (3849 days ago) @ romansh
David: Dawkins degree of atheism is of very little importance to the overall discussion and content of the conversation. > Romansh: Agreed, generally I have avoided that part of the discussion. I don't how I could neasure how certain I am in a certain type of god? > > David: I don't care what degree of atheist he is. It doesn't redefine the content of his writings. > Romansh: Agreed, it is our interpretation of the content that defines the content,-My role on this website has not been to define God. I can't measure types of God. I can't describe God. What I have done is to describe the complexities of the cosmology of this universe, as I understand them; the complexities of the biochemistry of life and of evolution; the difficulties in understanding the origin of life. And from all of this, perhaps as an approach from incredulity, concluding and stating that chance cannot have caused the reality we experience. There must be a guiding greater power, which I cannot be expected to describe beyond that simple statement. Does this power have more than an enermous intellect? I don't know. Adler's considered position was that there is a 50/50 chance He cares about us.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by GateKeeper , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 03:05 (3830 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Saturday, May 31, 2014, 03:19
you can't change them at a whim either. Cause you don't like it. like this "proof" thing. I think you are using what you describe in the exact same way I use the word 'proof". But I am an armature. -Like david said. I hit the light switch, the light goes on. I have "proof" there is power at this time.-I ask you this. Assuming a regular room on a regular day. Will the light go on the next 5 times I hit the switch (hit it at a rate of one time every 5 seconds?) -probably yes, probably no, or Can't be known? -based on what we know. regular nice day. Which of the three is most reasonable.-I agree with you about "weak agnostic". monism is a 'god' stance. Just with different traits. It is weak agnostic. I am just as weak really. I just make the prediction based on the notion "do the best we can". You are afraid of the prediction, that's fair enough. -But being weak, meaning towards atheist, is not an insult either to me.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 04:32 (3829 days ago) @ GateKeeper
you can't change them at a whim either.-What definition have I changed GateKeeper?
Agnosticism and other related labels
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 17:55 (3828 days ago) @ romansh
lol, nice try again rom,-you said "... I don't have to agree with your definition..."-I said we can't change it on a whim either.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 19:21 (3828 days ago) @ GateKeeper
lol, nice try again rom, > > you said "... I don't have to agree with your definition..." > > I said we can't change it on a whim either.-Please answer my question. Where have I changed a definition on a whim?-And you said you can't change it on a whim ... not we. You went on to say Cause you don't like it.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 22:21 (3828 days ago) @ romansh
again you said you don't have to accept a definition. I said "YOU" can't change it on a whim either. It aint that hard there big man. -now, let's get back to the topic.-I think you are afraid to make simple predictions with the information we have. Just look at what you did to the light switch example. "mathematician", are you kidding me? -Will you stick the screw driver in or are you going to move and let me fix it?
Agnosticism and other related labels
by romansh , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 22:46 (3828 days ago) @ GateKeeper
again you said you don't have to accept a definition. I said "YOU" can't change it on a whim either. It aint that hard there big man. -I have not changed any definition on a whim. -> I think you are afraid to make simple predictions with the information we have. Just look at what you did to the light switch example. "mathematician", are you kidding me? -This is utter poppycock. definition > Will you stick the screw driver in or are you going to move and let me fix it?-No, I would gather some evidence first. Frankly I would not trust you with my electrical wiring.
Agnosticism and other related labels
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 23:28 (3828 days ago) @ romansh
no it is not. That is just flat out silly to say that. -the answers -No man, I got it. I say "cheers".-or-'I will move because I am afraid of "something". I say, no problem my man, I'll handle it.-at some point you and I have address why you won't, or can't. Maybe its the same reason I say I am sticking to my definition of "science". accountant/accounting applies.
Agnosticism: a critical analysis
by David Turell , Sunday, February 19, 2023, 23:44 (643 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Discussion based uponn an agnostic's comments:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo15/functional-unbelief
"Agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wants to clear something up: "Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism," he says, but the stout ale of "radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty." In fact, he insists, his belief system is just as distinct from atheism as it is from theism. It is important that you know this.
"In "An Agnostic Manifesto" published on June 28, 2010, at Slate, Rosenbaum takes great pains to explain that God-deniers, like God-believers, have childlike faith: faith that reality is nothing but the sum-total of the physical world; faith that science is the sole source of knowledge; faith that the materialistic quest will unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, including the ultimate questions about human existence; and faith that their beliefs are not based on faith, but are settled beyond rational argument.
***
"God-deniers dismiss God-believers for their dogmatic claims, yet fail themselves, as Rosenbaum rightly notes, "to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing." Not to mention the impossibility of nothing creating everything!
"But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."
"It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith.
***
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.
"One such source is intellectual predisposition. This was best expressed by the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who once said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
"Note that Lewontin's faith in science as the ultimate source of knowledge is based on his intellectual preference for a particular worldview, not on science's proven explanatory power in answering ultimate questions.
"Another source is our non-rational sensibilities. For example, as I pointed out in "Radio Silence" in Salvo 14, astrobiologist Paul Davies believes that a yet-to-be-discovered principle has been woven into the cosmos so as to make the emergence of biological life inevitable. He believes this, not because he has any evidence to substantiate this notion, but because, as he says, he is "more comfortable" with it than with the alternatives, which presumably include a necessary, non-contingent Being.
"More to the point is NYU law professor Thomas Nagel, who, in a moment of admirable candor, admitted, "It isn't just that I don't believe in God . . . I hope there is no God! . . . I don't want the universe to be like that."
***
"Obviously, authority-derived knowledge requires faith—faith in the expertise and trustworthiness of other people.
***
"The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.
***
To the most important question in life—"Does God exist?"—a person can answer "Yes," "I don't know," or "No." But in practice, a person must live as if God either does or does not exist; there is nothing else to do, except perhaps to oscillate schizophrenically between the two.
***
"...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea."
"Agnosticism is a statement, a mood, a posture. It thrives in the intellectual oxygen of coffee houses and cocktail conversations. But outside of those artificial environments, in the real world where life is lived, the atmosphere supports only belief and unbelief.
"It may well be that there are no atheists in foxholes, but it is certain that there are no agnostics there, or anywhere else on terra firma."
Comment: time for a dhw comment. I've said previously dhw comes across to me as 99% atheist.
Agnosticism: a critical analysis
QUOTE: "Agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wants to clear something up: "Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism," he says, but the stout ale of "radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty." In fact, he insists, his belief system is just as distinct from atheism as it is from theism. It is important that you know this.”
As you would expect, I thoroughly endorse Ron Rosenberg’s description of agnosticism, and the fact of the matter is that both theists and atheists are so convinced of their respective faiths that many theists believe agnostics are atheists, and many atheists believe we are theists! I will deal only with Regis Nicoll’s criticisms:
RN: "The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.”
Difficult to follow, but doubt in the possibility of something is not faith in its impossibility. To be 100% certain you need 100% proof. If God exists, only he can provide it, and if he doesn’t exist, then no one can provide it! RR and I simply don’t know what to believe, but if God exists, we doubt if he will suddenly make an appearance to convince us. Maybe there could be 100% proof in an afterlife, but that can only be proved or disproved when we’re dead, and I suspect RR is as uncertain of that as I am.
RN: To the most important question in life—"Does God exist?"—a person can answer "Yes," "I don't know," or "No." But in practice, a person must live as if God either does or does not exist; there is nothing else to do, except perhaps to oscillate schizophrenically between the two.
In practice, it is perfectly possible to live without “oscillating”, and I would question the claim that the most important question in life is whether God exists or not. What world does RN live in? For vast numbers of people the most important question is “Can I survive?” And the next question may well be: “How can I be healthy and happy?” As an agnostic, I like to think that I live just as moral and humanitarian a life as any religious believer or atheist humanist would do, and although I am so fascinated by the subject of a possible God’s existence and nature that I started this website, I can calmly accept my own belief that I shall only know the objective truth about God’s existence if there is an afterlife. My ignorance does not make me a schizophrenic oscillator.
RN: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea."
What “truth”, and “revealed” by whom to whom? Is it a revealed truth that God told Moses (Deuteronomy) that non-believers should be killed, and whole cities should be destroyed? Or that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that insulting Mohammed should be punished by death? What is “functional” atheism and what are the “benefits” of atheism? Does RN believe that atheists and agnostics want to go round killing people, or that they are incapable of love and charity and altruism and empathy? I don’t go to church or synagogue or mosque – that would be hypocritical, and I must confess that when I do attend religious ceremonies, I find myself objecting to many of the assumptions which are just as blinkered as those of atheists who place their faith in materialism and chance. But I do not reject God or materialism, and I am not schizophrenically oscillating. Call it “weak tea” if you like, but – to be really nasty – I would argue that weak tea is preferable to the horrors perpetrated by the strong drinkers who wage war in the name of their God, or to the arrogance of those who call God a “delusion”.
RN: "Agnosticism is a statement, a mood, a posture. It thrives in the intellectual oxygen of coffee houses and cocktail conversations. But outside of those artificial environments, in the real world where life is lived, the atmosphere supports only belief and unbelief.”
I don’t know what circles RN lives in. Yes, it’s a statement: “I don’t know the truth, and I doubt if I ever will.” But it’s not a mood or a posture or a topic for intellectual “cocktail” conversation, and the use of such terms – which suggest hypocrisy and superficiality – is sheer arrogance. Luckily for me, the “atmosphere” in which I live does not support any particular faith, but in those societies where a particular belief – whether religious or secular - reigns supreme, there tends to be oppression and vicious intolerance. How many agnostics have gone to war to defend their inability to make a decision on whether God exists or not?
DAVID: time for a dhw comment. I've said previously dhw comes across to me as 99% atheist.
That is because you are as blinkered as RN.
Agnosticism: a critical analysis
by David Turell , Monday, February 20, 2023, 17:15 (642 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wants to clear something up: "Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism," he says, but the stout ale of "radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty." In fact, he insists, his belief system is just as distinct from atheism as it is from theism. It is important that you know this.”
dhw: As you would expect, I thoroughly endorse Ron Rosenberg’s description of agnosticism, and the fact of the matter is that both theists and atheists are so convinced of their respective faiths that many theists believe agnostics are atheists, and many atheists believe we are theists! I will deal only with Regis Nicoll’s criticisms:
RN: "The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.”
dhw: Difficult to follow, but doubt in the possibility of something is not faith in its impossibility. To be 100% certain you need 100% proof. If God exists, only he can provide it, and if he doesn’t exist, then no one can provide it! RR and I simply don’t know what to believe, but if God exists, we doubt if he will suddenly make an appearance to convince us. Maybe there could be 100% proof in an afterlife, but that can only be proved or disproved when we’re dead, and I suspect RR is as uncertain of that as I am.
Follows easily, a faith in absolute uncertainty.
RN: To the most important question in life—"Does God exist?"—a person can answer "Yes," "I don't know," or "No." But in practice, a person must live as if God either does or does not exist; there is nothing else to do, except perhaps to oscillate schizophrenically between the two.dhw: In life, it is perfectly possible to live without “oscillating”, and I would question the claim that the most important question in life is whether God exists or not. What world does RN live in? For vast numbers of people the most important question is “Can I survive?” And the next question may well be: “How can I be healthy and happy?” As an agnostic, I like to think that I live just as moral and humanitarian a life as any religious believer or atheist humanist would do, and although I am so fascinated by the subject of a possible God’s existence and nature that I started this website, I can calmly accept my own belief that I shall only know the objective truth about God’s existence if there is an afterlife. My ignorance does not make me a schizophrenic oscillator.
Fair enough.
RN: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea."dhw: What “truth”, and “revealed” by whom to whom? Is it a revealed truth that God told Moses (Deuteronomy) that non-believers should be killed, and whole cities should be destroyed? Or that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that insulting Mohammed should be punished by death? What is “functional” atheism and what are the “benefits” of atheism? Does RN believe that atheists and agnostics want to go round killing people, or that they are incapable of love and charity and altruism and empathy? I don’t go to church or synagogue or mosque – that would be hypocritical, and I must confess that when I do attend religious ceremonies, I find myself objecting to many of the assumptions which are just as blinkered as those of atheists who place their faith in materialism and chance. But I do not reject God or materialism, and I am not schizophrenically oscillating. Call it “weak tea” if you like, but – to be really nasty – I would argue that weak tea is preferable to the horrors perpetrated by the strong drinkers who wage war in the name of their God, or to the arrogance of those who call God a “delusion”.
fair enough.
RN: "Agnosticism is a statement, a mood, a posture. It thrives in the intellectual oxygen of coffee houses and cocktail conversations. But outside of those artificial environments, in the real world where life is lived, the atmosphere supports only belief and unbelief.”I don’t know what circles RN lives in. Yes, it’s a statement: “I don’t know the truth, and I doubt if I ever will.” But it’s not a mood or a posture or a topic for intellectual “cocktail” conversation, and the use of such terms – which suggest hypocrisy and superficiality – is sheer arrogance. Luckily for me, the “atmosphere” in which I live does not support any particular faith, but in those societies where a particular belief – whether religious or secular - reigns supreme, there tends to be oppression and vicious intolerance. How many agnostics have gone to war to defend their inability to make a decision on whether God exists or not?
DAVID: time for a dhw comment. I've said previously dhw comes across to me as 99% atheist.
dhw: That is because you are as blinkered as RN.
It is an opinion from what is seen to be presented. Thank you for an in-depth review. With new followers, it should be repeated now and then.