Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Sunday, April 27, 2014, 15:07 (3863 days ago) @ romansh

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"