Is this Agnosticism?

[Noble Ire]

Recently, a conversation I had with one of my relatives has caused me to reconsider my self-described religious affiliation, or lack thereof. For the last several years, I have considered myself an atheist, and my views are still quite atheistic: I do not believe in any organized religion, nor do I believe in any god or any sort of abstract spirituality. However, I have realized that this lack of belief is not total. I believe that there is a possibility that, at the very beginning of this universe, however it began, there was something beyond the bounds of what we consider to be "real" that may have triggered our existence; in other words, a god of some sort. However, I have no reason to believe that this thing has any impact on the world in which we live, or ever has, and indeed, I in no way think that a spiritual explanation is the only possible one.

Now, as I understand it, such a mindset falls under the umbrella of agnosticism. However, I am reluctant to identify myself a such; in my admittedly limited experience, I have found that some people interpreting such an "affiliation" as meaning that a person is simply between religion, and thus is open to lobbying from theological factions. I am not, and although I respect the right of others to believe, I have no personal interest in any world view that revolves around spirituality.

Now, we come back to my question: Is it most appropriate to call this view agnostic? Atheistic? Some other name entirely?

[Darth Raptor]

You're an atheist. To accept the possibility that supernatural phenomena are real doesn't make you any less of an atheist. You still lack anything resembling a religion, and you don't believe in magic unless you have a reason to. "Agnosticism" is a useless term, unless you're using it to describe someone who is, like you said, merely between religions. To paraphrase Dawkins, are you also agnostic about the possibility of faeries in your backyard?

Also, consider if you encountered a god (or a being powerful enough to be considered a god) or a force with no readily apparent explanation (i.e., magic). Does that mean there isn't a rational explanation for these experiences at all? Of course not, you just don't know what it is yet.

[Elaro]

I think the term is "deist". It's exactly what you think: a entity that set the world in motion, but doesn't intervene in worldly affairs.

[Darth Raptor]

I think the term is "deist". It's exactly what you think: a entity that set the world in motion, but doesn't intervene in worldly affairs.

As I understand it, deism is more or less the belief that the universe *is* God. It's less a religion with any practical implications and more an austere reverence for reality itsef. "God" and "nature" are pretty much interchangeable to a deist.

[Gil Hamilton]

Depends. Athiesm isn't a complete "There Are No Gods" statement, it's a statement of reasonability. If we are being honest and precise in our language, we cannot make the claim that there are no Gods, because that would be proving a negative statement. However, we can accept the possibility of a God or Gods and still make the statement, because atheism, standardly, is a statement of reasonability.

Let me give an example.

I have shelving units under my bed, but they don't go all the way back, thus leaving a space under my bed between the shelving units and the wall. In this space, it is entirely possible that a gnome lives there. I don't have evidence for this gnome, so it would be entirely reasonable to say that the gnome doesn't exist.

However, I haven't actually looked under there except once, when I moved the bed because I dropped a sock into that space. I didn't see a gnome then, but it could have been out at the time or invisible or heard me shifting the bed and moved with it. I didn't see a gnome or have ever heard the gnome or smelled it's habitation, but logically, I can't preclude its existance, just that it is reasonable to state that it doesn't exist.

Statements of reasonability apply to all science, incidently. It is reasonable to conclude that there is an attractive force between the Earth and all objects. This is because in every case observation we've had, all things being equal, things assort themselves by density and objects heavier than air fall to the ground. Thus the force is infered and we even infer measurements of the magnitude of the force and we call that Gravity. We can't prove the force exists, just that it is reasonable that it exists.

Back to my gnome, as I said, I can't proclude it's existance, though I can be reasonable when I say it doesn't exist. After all, all that it's necessary for me to have no evidence of it's existance is to be able to counter my feeble attempts to detect it. All the super powers it would need would be quicker than me, unnaturally quiet, have a really effective deoderant and carefully bagging its garbage. That isn't even technically supernatural. Compare this to a God, whose power is omnipotence and creation of the entire Universe! If it is reasonable to state that my tidy gnome doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence, then surely it isn't reasonable to state that an all-powerful God doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence.

Hence, you can be an atheist and state that God or Gods don't exist, while not categorically denying the possibility. The first two are a matter of reasonability, while the latter is a matter of logically admitting that you can't prove a negative.

[Panzer Grenadier]

Ive heard the TCs viewpoint descibed as weak atheism. Meaning you deny the existence of god based on the lack of evidence supporting such a theory, but do not totally deny the possibilty (no matter how remote) of a god. This is opposed to a so called strong atheist who actively says that there is no god and finds the entire concept of god nonsensical. Your still definatley an atheist though.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

I don't understand your dilemma here. You accept the possibility you say, but that word is oh-so-easily distorted in the context of a religious discussion. For example: I also accept that it is possible we were created by some super-powerful-being or ancient alien race, but the odds are so infinitesimally small that they might as well not exist at all. It's also possible that every observation of [insert topic] has been wrong due to [insert reason], and really does [insert off-the-wall idiocy]... but it is not a credible point of view given what we know. The picture of the world science and empiricism has given us always has the possiblity of being wrong, simply because it is impossible to undeniably prove or disprove X for every circumstance at any given point in time. That does not mean we have to consider the stupidity of a "Higher Being" who created us all and left no evidence at all as a valid point of view, though.

So, basically, what do you accept as possible? That there is a nearly nonexistent chance of something we can't predict or know about magicking us into existance, or that since there is a chance of it and we must consider it a valid point of view because we just don't know for sure either way? That is the core of the whole Agnostic vs. Atheist argument.

[Haruko]

Perhaps the following links may be of help to you, Ire:

1-- “Atheism and Agnosticism” (Paul Tobin).

2-- “Atheist or Agnostic?” (Richard Carrier)

3-- “What's an Agnostic?” (Steven Dutch).

2-- “Why I Am Agnostic” (Robert Ingersoll).

There's also THE THREAD I submitted on atheism versus agnosticism that got some good responses.

[Gil Hamilton]

What the religious folks there are doing is a logical getcha game and trying to get you into a Catch-22. If you admit an infintesmal possibility under the aegis of "Anything's Possible", then they declare victory and damn near baptise you on the spot. If you refuse to play their game and deny the possibility, they call you unreasonable, arrogant, and close minded for not admitting that there is an infintesmal possiblity that "Anything's Possible".

The problem that such games apply to my gnome, unicorns, faeries, and Dick Cheney's soul don't tend to occur to them.

[Zadius]

If you don't agree with this statement: "I believe in one or more supernatural deities", then you're an atheist. Admitting minute possibilities doesn't change anything.

[wolveraptor]

As I understand it, deism is more or less the belief that the universe *is* God. It's less a religion with any practical implications and more an austere reverence for reality itsef. "God" and "nature" are pretty much interchangeable to a deist.

I don't think it's that narrow a definition. While you've accurately described Einstein's version of Deism, Elaro may have been referring to the form of deism that Rationalists (notice that I capitalize the term) like Jefferson and Franklin subscribed to at the end of the 18th century.

[Noble Ire]

So, basically, what do you accept as possible? That there is a nearly nonexistent chance of something we can't predict or know about magicking us into existance, or that since there is a chance of it and we must consider it a valid point of view because we just don't know for sure either way? That is the core of the whole Agnostic vs. Atheist argument.

The first. Despite what some might say, not all viewpoints are equally valid, and I would be more inclined to believe a scientific answer if one was presented, simply because it has more precedent in the world we know. Nevertheless, like everything else imaginable, there is a tiny chance that there was something more involved in the birth of reality, in my view. Therein lies the root of my quandry.

[Noble Ire]

Edit: The above was in response to Ar-Adunakhor.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Then you are, flat-out, an intelligent Atheist who accepts logic and reason. Your position is not that of an Agnostic, by any means.

[Metatwaddle]

I think the term is "deist". It's exactly what you think: a entity that set the world in motion, but doesn't intervene in worldly affairs.

As I understand it, deism is more or less the belief that the universe *is* God. It's less a religion with any practical implications and more an austere reverence for reality itsef. "God" and "nature" are pretty much interchangeable to a deist.

I think the term for that is pantheism. Deism usually refers to the "watchmaker" God of Jefferson and Franklin and the others.

As for the OP, I personally think atheist and agnostic are rather clumsy terms. There's no clear distinction between them, because any point of distinction you could pick would be an arbitrary and rather useless one. Unless you defined atheism as absolute certainty that there is no God, in which case there really wouldn't be many, if any, atheists. I think you'll find that most atheists assign a very small subjective probability to the possibility of a God, but they are not absolutely certain. In that respect you are no different than Richard Dawkins (and if he's not an atheist, then practically no one is) or anyone else who identifies him or herself as an atheist.

[LeftWingExtremist]

I honestly still don't get the weak vs strong atheism thing. It seams to me like being either strong or weak pregnant, its on and off for me, you're atheist or not.

[mr friendly guy]

I think someone said, agnosticism is the method, atheism is the logical conclusion (from agnosticism).

The fact that one may admit there is a possibility of God and willing to change views if evidence shows up, does not disqualify one from being an atheist. The reason is simple. Atheism is not the belief that "there is no God" (as dishonest Christians like to strawman), its a lack of belief. There is a good reason not to belief in God, ie no evidence. This does not preclude accepting the possibility of God.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I believe that there is a possibility that, at the very beginning of this universe, however it began, there was something beyond the bounds of what we consider to be "real" that may have triggered our existence; in other words, a god of some sort.

This just sounds like you believe that when the universe was created, some wildly exotic physics were at the helm. And guess what? From what I understand, that appears to be the scientific consensus.

[Darth Wong]

Depends. Athiesm isn't a complete "There Are No Gods" statement, it's a statement of reasonability. If we are being honest and precise in our language, we cannot make the claim that there are no Gods, because that would be proving a negative statement.

Bullshit. You can make a statement that there are no gods based on the overwhelming probability that this is true. You don't need to prove a negative in order to make the statement that something does not exist, any more than you must do so in order to deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your argument relies on the assumption that absolute proof is required before any knowledge can be acquired or any statement can be made.

[Darth Wong]

I believe that there is a possibility that, at the very beginning of this universe, however it began, there was something beyond the bounds of what we consider to be "real" that may have triggered our existence; in other words, a god of some sort.

This just sounds like you believe that when the universe was created, some wildly exotic physics were at the helm. And guess what? From what I understand, that appears to be the scientific consensus.

What the fuck are you talking about? The scientific consensus does not support any theory of the universe being "created" at all, much less the consensus that the laws of physics must have been totally different at the time this unnecessary event supposedly took place.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I believe that there is a possibility that, at the very beginning of this universe, however it began, there was something beyond the bounds of what we consider to be "real" that may have triggered our existence; in other words, a god of some sort.

This just sounds like you believe that when the universe was created, some wildly exotic physics were at the helm. And guess what? From what I understand, that appears to be the scientific consensus.

What the fuck are you talking about? The scientific consensus does not support any theory of the universe being "created" at all, much less the consensus that the laws of physics must have been totally different at the time this unnecessary event supposedly took place.

I stand corrected. I hadn't meant to say that the laws were "different", but rather bizarre and yet to be understood during that period of time. I guess this is what I get for relying on pop science.

[General Zod]

I think someone said, agnosticism is the method, atheism is the logical conclusion (from agnosticism).

The fact that one may admit there is a possibility of God and willing to change views if evidence shows up, does not disqualify one from being an atheist. The reason is simple. Atheism is not the belief that "there is no God" (as dishonest Christians like to strawman), its a lack of belief. There is a good reason not to belief in God, ie no evidence. This does not preclude accepting the possibility of God.

I'm not so sure. You can come to a conclusion that gods don't exist rationally, but if someone's never been exposed to an idea then you have a "lack of belief" as you'd never even considered that it might exist in the first place. So it's possible for someone to lack a belief in God, only to happily join with Christianity once someone shows him their material and preaching. On the other hand an atheist will flat out not be converted as they know that God can't logically exist and Christianity is full of bullocks. The only strawman is when Christians try and equivocate disbelief as a form of faith.

[Darth Wong]

Atheism is the default state of people when they're born; they have to be indoctrinated at some point, but the religious indoctrination in our society is so pervasive that it's totally inescapable unless you live in a mountain cave somewhere. So you can't really say that an atheist is necessarily rational, but you can say that a rational approach to the question of God's existence would necessarily conclude that he is no more credible than Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Thor the Thunder God. Ergo, a strictly rational approach would tend to lead to atheism.

[drachefly]

I believe that there is a possibility that, at the very beginning of this universe, however it began, there was something beyond the bounds of what we consider to be "real" that may have triggered our existence; in other words, a god of some sort.

This just sounds like you believe that when the universe was created, some wildly exotic physics were at the helm. And guess what? From what I understand, that appears to be the scientific consensus.

What the fuck are you talking about? The scientific consensus does not support any theory of the universe being "created" at all, much less the consensus that the laws of physics must have been totally different at the time this unnecessary event supposedly took place.

I read TithonusSyndrome as saying that the most relevant laws of physics back near the big bang were laws that we have not been able to adequately probe (i.e. they are, to us, exotic). I don't see anything controversial with that statement.

[Darth Wong]

This just sounds like you believe that when the universe was created, some wildly exotic physics were at the helm. And guess what? From what I understand, that appears to be the scientific consensus.

What the fuck are you talking about? The scientific consensus does not support any theory of the universe being "created" at all, much less the consensus that the laws of physics must have been totally different at the time this unnecessary event supposedly took place.

I read TithonusSyndrome as saying that the most relevant laws of physics back near the big bang were laws that we have not been able to adequately probe (i.e. they are, to us, exotic). I don't see anything controversial with that statement.

Look at the context: specifically, what he's replying to and confirming as "scientific consensus".