Atheism vs Militant Agnosticism

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-16 02:48pm

Rye wrote:Well it seems ive opened a can of worms on this. I guess it all comes down to how people define words.

Well, personally I am interested in agreeing on meaning. Such a thing would be crucial for subsequent debates.

Rye wrote:To me, it would appear atheists specifically don't believe in things that may or may not exist... agnosticism doesnt discount the idea of gods with other properties, if they hinge on not being provable either way. They may agree that it's certainly unlikely that floating invisible animals that can pass through solid matter with no trace don't exist, but there's always a chance.

So, you define atheism roughly as "one who does not believe in the existence of god(s)". But that still leaves two possibilities: the belief in the non-existence of god(s) and lack of belief in both existence and non-existence of god(s). Hence the strong vs. weak distinction.

It seems many people dismiss weak atheists as anostics, and not 'true' atheists. I've begun to doubt what the proper usage of the word 'agnostic' is, given that many also define it as lacking knowledge. To summarize, either:
1. Agnostics are lacking belief in the existence or the non-existence of god(s) (weak atheism), or
2. Agnostics are lacking knowledge in the existence of god(s) (literal meaning of 'a+gnosis')

These positions clearly differ greatly--belief is not the same thing as knowledge, for belief does not require any sort of (logical or otherwise) justificiation, while actual knowledge does. It seems very plausible for a person to be able to believe that some god exists, but recognizing that s/he has no such knowledge.

I have no personal preference of how the word 'should' be used, but I am interested in how the people on this board divide these positions, just so we can have a common terminology.

At the risk of turning this into espistemological nitpicking... Comments?

(Edit: fix typo)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-16 02:53pm

Rye wrote:
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the logical principle of parsimony. Do you feel the same equivocal attitude toward the intangible fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage?
I don't care if it exists or not. I won't go out of my way to prove it doesn't however, unless belief in said dragon is causing problems in the real world, e.g some saying that it's told them to kill babies or whatever.

It is irrelevant whether you would "go out of your way". Atheism, agnosticism, etc. are defined in terms of what you think is true, not how militant you are in the public dissemination of your beliefs or lack thereof.

No more than there is for Santa Claus. Does this mean you think it's unreasonable for someone to disbelieve in Santa Claus?
Well, the santa myth has a lot of limitations put on it, and would therefore be possible to disprove. So disbelief in santa is not unreasonable.

Precisely. God is either undefined (hence cannot possibly exist; you cannot say that something can or even MIGHT exist if you don't even bother to say what it is) or defined by religion (all of which involve myths that are easily disproven). Therefore, disbelief in God is completely reasonable.

I was unaware that "sensible" is a synonym for "irrational".
well maybe you should know better . it is sensible to for example agree with a guy with a gun that santa exists and told him to tell you this message, when it certainly isn't likely. It's the not particularly caring what people think if it does good that is sensible, not arguing over somethign that hasn't really progressed in x amount of years.

Actually, it has progressed a great deal. If you compare present-day society to that which existed just one century ago, there has been enormous progress.

Appeal to consequence. Another logical fallacy.
so what if it's a lie? a lot of people depend on lies. Consequence is the only reason any action is taken, no?

Perhaps you shouldn't be so lazy, and you should actually look up what the appeal to consequence fallacy is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-16 02:59pm

Kuroneko wrote:To summarize, either:

1. Agnostics are lacking belief in the existence or the non-existence of god(s) (weak atheism), or
2. Agnostics are lacking knowledge in the existence of god(s) (literal meaning of 'a+gnosis')

Agnosticism is actually a term coined by Huxley, who said that there is no proof for or against the existence of God, hence it is impossible to know either way. In short, he ignored or dismissed the logical principle of parsimony. This is why it's important to draw parallels to the intangible fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage or Santa Claus. People instinctively recognize that those myths are absurd, yet they refuse to recognize that agnosticism, if applied equally, would lead to the conclusion that we seriously cannot know whether Santa or Sagan's fire-breathing dragon are real.

At the risk of turning this into espistemological nitpicking... Comments?

Rather than attempt to determine what agnosticism means by picking apart latin pieces, you should consider that the word, like most English words, has a history and was actually publicly coined to describe a particular social movement.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-03-16 03:05pm

Precisely. God is either undefined (hence cannot possibly exist; you cannot say that something can or even MIGHT exist if you don't even bother to say what it is) or defined by religion (all of which involve myths that are easily disproven). Therefore, disbelief in God is completely reasonable.

It depends which god, you can change the properties of any god to what you want and can define it to existence, by saying something like "i believe god is the universe" as i do. Anyone can make a god up, however if you mean specific gods, you should perhaps say "classic theistical god of judeo-christian texts," or "ctg" for short, or perhaps YHWH, Jehova, and so on. If the sun is your god, it obviously exists, even if the attributes of your god are a load of hydrogen particles fusing into helium or whatever, you tell that person their god doesnt exist.

Actually, it has progressed a great deal. If you compare present-day society to that which existed just one century ago, there has been enormous progress.

i suppose you could say that, however we've also seen the advent of political correctness.

It's all relative. Seems america is getting more religious too.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so lazy, and you should actually look up what the appeal to consequence fallacy is.

perhaps i shouldnt be so lazy, but i will be.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-16 03:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:Agnosticism is actually a term coined by Huxley, who said that there is no proof for or against the existence of God, hence it is impossible to know either way. In short, he ignored or dismissed the logical principle of parsimony. This is why it's important to draw parallels to the intangible fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage or Santa Claus. People instinctively recognize that those myths are absurd, yet they refuse to recognize that agnosticism, if applied equally, would lead to the conclusion that we seriously cannot know whether Santa or Sagan's fire-breathing dragon are real.

So it is fair to say that agnosticism is essentially philosophical skepticism?

Huxley... the only one that springs to mind is the author of Brave New World, although I know there were several other Huxleys, so it's dubitable that he is the one you're referring to (seems like the wrong timeframe, anyway). Could you be a bit more specific?

Darth Wong wrote:Rather than attempt to determine what agnosticism means by picking apart latin pieces, you should consider that the word, like most English words, has a history and was actually publicly coined to describe a particular social movement.

Quite right, which is why I was asking for the board members' opinions and knowledge on the topic, myself being somewhat confused on how the term should be defined.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-16 03:36pm

Rye wrote:It depends which god, you can change the properties of any god to what you want and can define it to existence, by saying something like "i believe god is the universe" as i do. Anyone can make a god up, however if you mean specific gods, you should perhaps say "classic theistical god of judeo-christian texts," or "ctg" for short, or perhaps YHWH, Jehova, and so on. If the sun is your god, it obviously exists, even if the attributes of your god are a load of hydrogen particles fusing into helium or whatever, you tell that person their god doesnt exist.

That's technically true, but all it really does is move the question of God's existance to whether the newly defined "God" has the properties the believer would like It to have. And it really is a somewhat worse situation of the believer, since then it is more readily falsifiable (in theory if not in practice), unlike the notions of a completely transcendent being.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-03-16 03:49pm

i agree with you, what's your avatar by the way?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-16 03:56pm

Kuroneko wrote:So it is fair to say that agnosticism is essentially philosophical skepticism?

It's just this side of solypsism.

Huxley... the only one that springs to mind is the author of Brave New World, although I know there were several other Huxleys, so it's dubitable that he is the one you're referring to (seems like the wrong timeframe, anyway). Could you be a bit more specific?

Interestingly enough, the Huxley you're speaking of is the son of the Huxley I'm talking about.

Darth Wong wrote:Rather than attempt to determine what agnosticism means by picking apart latin pieces, you should consider that the word, like most English words, has a history and was actually publicly coined to describe a particular social movement.
Quite right, which is why I was asking for the board members' opinions and knowledge on the topic, myself being somewhat confused on how the term should be defined.

Look at Huxley and agnosticism on Google.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-16 03:59pm

Mine? The avatar is Kuwabara Hon'inbou, a fictional character who holds the Hon'inbou title (a real-life Japanese title in professional Go).

Perhaps somewhat egostistical of me, since my own skill in Go is quite small even by amateur standards, much less professional. I'm currently more of a Go enthusiast than a skilled player (a condition which I'm working to remedy, I assure you).

(Edit: fixed typo)

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-16 04:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's just this side of solypsism.

I'll that that as a yes.

Darth Wong wrote:Interestingly enough, the Huxley you're speaking of is the son of the Huxley I'm talking about... Look at Huxley and agnosticism on Google.

Oh? This grows more interesting that I first expected... I'll do that.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-16 09:32pm

I think there is some confusion on what "agnostic" means. I claim myself to be relatively agnostic, on the religious spectrum that is. Religiously/philosophically, I don't believe that any man or group can claim absolute knowedge of God. I guess, in the Greek sense, that makes me "lacking knowledge." I also see God as the universe and everything in it (including the infinite and unseen.) I always thought agnosticism meant you believed in the/a principle of "God" (i.e., the universe, or Creator) but didn't believe that God could ever be defined properly. The idea of disregarding scientific evidence for(!)/against God is not only absurd, but a symptom of intellectual cowardice. I seriously didn't know that's what full-blown agnosticism was. Geez.

I've thought about this earlier: It is impossible to take a completely neutral stance in a non-antinomian arguement without contradicting yourself. You have to take a stance eventually. Would that be the cause of a golden mean fallacy? Contradicting yourself just to be in the middle?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-16 09:45pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:I think there is some confusion on what "agnostic" means. I claim myself to be relatively agnostic, on the religious spectrum that is. Religiously/philosophically, I don't believe that any man or group can claim absolute knowedge of God. I guess, in the Greek sense, that makes me "lacking knowledge." I also see God as the universe and everything in it (including the infinite and unseen.)

As mentioned previously, one can always choose to define God in such a manner that it obviously exists. By defining God as the material universe, you guarantee that your particular god exists. Huxley's agnosticism, however, referred to a theist god.

I always thought agnosticism meant you believed in the/a principle of "God" (i.e., the universe, or Creator) but didn't believe that God could ever be defined properly. The idea of disregarding scientific evidence for(!)/against God is not only absurd, but a symptom of intellectual cowardice. I seriously didn't know that's what full-blown agnosticism was. Geez.

Sadly, Huxley lived in an era when it was probably considered brave to go that far. We must remember that this was an era when men were actually put on trial for teaching evolution.

I've thought about this earlier: It is impossible to take a completely neutral stance in a non-antinomian arguement without contradicting yourself. You have to take a stance eventually. Would that be the cause of a golden mean fallacy? Contradicting yourself just to be in the middle?

The Golden Mean fallacy is the assumption that, given two diametrically opposed viewpoints, the answer must be in the middle. It is fallacious because it presumes that any viewpoint considered "extremist" is unreasonable and wrong for that reason alone, hence the middle is always right.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-16 09:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:Sadly, Huxley lived in an era when it was probably considered brave to go that far. We must remember that this was an era when men were actually put on trial for teaching evolution.

I'd hate to see what would have happened to Nietzsche if he lived in America at the time.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-16 10:05pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Sadly, Huxley lived in an era when it was probably considered brave to go that far. We must remember that this was an era when men were actually put on trial for teaching evolution.
I'd hate to see what would have happened to Nietzsche if he lived in America at the time.

He'd probably be locked up in a mental institution, and his assertion that "God is dead" wouldn't have anything to do with it. As I remember it, he ended up talking to a horse.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-16 10:16pm

We both have a few things in common. Preach "eye for an eye" and strictness in behavior while personally being very nice guys, the growing insanity from isolation...

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-16 10:21pm

Durandal wrote:He'd probably be locked up in a mental institution, and his assertion that "God is dead" wouldn't have anything to do with it. As I remember it, he ended up talking to a horse.

There is so much controversy over how to interpret Nietzsche (it's almost like the old saying about quantum physics: anyone who thinks they've got it--don't), but I think that particular section refers to the need for humanity to develop morality grounded in something other than religion rather than the literal "You killed God! All of you!" shout of the madman.

Besides, with books explaining "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Write Such Great Books", and "Why I Am Destiny", waiting for the horse wouldn't be necessary. (: