• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

are these statements logically equivalent?

triadboy said:
I'd like to know how many languages would translate both those thoughts the same. Maybe it's just something goofy you can do with the English language.
Click to expand...


Relatively few, as far as I know. In fact, I don't know of any language that does not support that distinction, and a Chomskian linguist would claim that in principle, such a language is impossible (it violates the principle of recursive productions).
 
drkitten said:
Relatively few, as far as I know. In fact, I don't know of any language that does not support that distinction, and a Chomskian linguist would claim that in principle, such a language is impossible (it violates the principle of recursive productions).
Click to expand...

But I can read these as having the same meaning:

1) I don't believe gods exist.
2) I believe that no gods exist.

Anything further is just getting off into the English Language - Metaphysical weeds.
 
Bri said:
The agnostic weak atheist believes that it is unknown whether gods exist, not necessarily that it is unknowable. The latter view is a subset of agnosticism (sometimes called "strong agnosticism") but it is difficult to defend since there is the possibility of the appearance of a god. Logically, such a view is problematic because to claim that gods are unknowable is itself a statement of knowledge about gods.

What you describe seems to be an agnostic weak atheist, not a gnostic weak atheist. A gnostic position is that the existence or nonexistence of gods is known. What you describe certainly acknowledges that the existence of gods is currently unknown.

In addition, there are some problems with the view you described that could make it a difficult one to defend. She claims to know that there is enough information of sufficient quality available to resolve the question, but doesn't know what that information is. So the question must be asked: how does she know that there is enough information of sufficient quality available, and what justifies the belief that she will come up with an answer when nobody else has in thousands of years? -
Click to expand...

Ok, now I getcha. I guess I was confusing "God is knowable", "God is known", and "she knows God".

My g-w-a maintains: "I don't know if god exists, but I 'know' (fully expect) I will someday"; your a-w-a: "I don't know if god exists, nor do I know if I ever will."
These appear different, but if you buttonhole my g-w-a and ask her how she "knows" she'll know someday, she'll have to admit that it's a baseless assumption (maybe naive overconfidence or ignorance that agnosticism isn't just a stage on the way to [a]theism). If she did refuse to admit her g-w-a'ism was confused and chose to retain the title, that wouldn't qualify her as a g-w-a; just an irrational stubborn, self-deluded a-w-a. (Though as I write that it occurs to me: is rationality ever a given when it comes to belief in God?) ;)
 
Last edited:
blobru said:
My g-w-a maintains: "I don't know if god exists, but I 'know' (fully expect) I will someday"
Click to expand...

At least according to the definitions in the table, a "gnostic" believes that the existence/nonexistence of deities is known. Therefore, the person you describe would be agnostic, even if she fully expects she will know someday.

your a-w-a: "I don't know if god exists, nor do I know if I ever will."
Click to expand...

The quotes that are within each cell are only examples of possible positions that might fit into the cell. So you're right, the example in the a-w-a cell illustrates a position that differs from the one you gave. There are likely multiple positions that can fit into each cell, and I believe your example is another that would fit into the a-w-a cell (whether or not it is a defensible position notwithstanding).

The only defensible situation I can think of that would actually fit "g-w-a" as defined is if she has reason to believe that someone else definitively knows whether or not gods exist but she is somehow unaware of their verdict. Therefore, she believes it is known whether or not gods exist, but she couldn't have a positive belief one way or the other.

-Bri
 
triadboy said:
But I can read these as having the same meaning:

1) I don't believe gods exist.
2) I believe that no gods exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, people make mistakes in reading comprehension all the time. People also make mistakes in writing (production) all the time, too.
 
bpesta22 said:
Can't figure this out:

1) I don't believe gods exist.
2) I believe that no gods exist.
Click to expand...
They are just two completely different statements.

1. I don't believe P is true
2. I believe P is false

They say completely different things. Statement 1. is the rational response to a lack of evidence for P. Statement 2, on the other hand, requires evidence for why P might be false.

I have been an atheist for nearly 40 years now and 1) has always represented what is meant by atheism. Only since I joined this forum have I heard these terms "weak" and "strong" atheist - I suspect they are pretty recent coinage. I also suspect they were coined by non-atheists, but I have no evidence for that.

I always have to point out the silliness of these deep and detailed specifications of the belief positions of god or God without even the slightest attempt to define what the word god or God means.

Incidentally, the term "agnostic" was originally coined (by Thomas Huxley) to denote the position that when you don't know something, you should simply say "I don't know". It was not intended to specifically refer to religious beliefs.
 
drkitten said:
triadboy said:
But I can read these as having the same meaning:

1) I don't believe gods exist.
2) I believe that no gods exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, people make mistakes in reading comprehension all the time. People also make mistakes in writing (production) all the time, too.
Click to expand...

Robin said:
They are just two completely different statements.

1. I don't believe P is true
2. I believe P is false

They say completely different things. Statement 1. is the rational response to a lack of evidence for P. Statement 2, on the other hand, requires evidence for why P might be false.
Click to expand...

The following two statements are often used interchangeably:


I don't believe I've ever met you before.
I believe I've never met you before.
​

The first one may be more colloquial, but I don't know that you can say that it's grammatically incorrect in English.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
The first one may be more colloquial, but I don't know that you can say that it's grammatically incorrect in English.
Click to expand...

I don't. It's grammatically correct -- it simply doesn't "mean" what colloquial usage would have it mean. Humans are actually pretty bad at figuring out what sentences really "mean"; instead of listening to the propositional content of a set of sentences, then instead construct a scenario in their head(s) that satisfies the set of sentences and interpret that.

One of the classic examples of that is in sentence recognition. Subjects are given a brief story, involving sentences like The turtles were resting near a log when a fish swam under them. They are then asked, later, whether the sentence The turtles were resting near a log when a fish swam under it was in their story. Note the difference -- in the training sentence, the fish is under the turtles, while in the test sentence it's under the log. This is a subtle difference, but people can usually pick up on it.

On the other hand, if the sentence were changed to The turtles were resting on a log when a fish swam under it, subjects' accuracy goes way down. With this minor change, if the fish is under the log, it's also under the turtles (and vice versa). People therefore can't remember whether or not the fish explicitly swam under the log or under the turtles, because the constructed situation is the same. (This finding has been around since the 60's or so -- it's very well-known.)

People don't listen to sentences -- they listen to situations. Usually this is a good thing, since it helps people fill in the gaps in a story. Sometimes it gets people in trouble, though, when they confuse an inference they've made to fill a gap with the actual data they've heard. And, of course, that is also well known -- to any scholar of detective fiction, for a start. The whole point of many detective novels is to get someone's mind to fill in a gap that the detective can later show to be unjustified.
 
drkitten said:
I don't. It's grammatically correct -- it simply doesn't "mean" what colloquial usage would have it mean.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but unlike your example where the listener may miss a detail of a sentence, many sentences in the English language are indeed ambiguous and can have more than one meaning, sometimes discernible in context and sometimes not. The sentence "I don't believe we've ever met" could have more than one meaning, and usually wouldn't mean what you insist that it must. Do you really think the sentence must mean that the person has no belief one way or the other as to whether or not they've met?

Unfortunately, there are many sentences in the English language (and I imagine every language) that have ambiguous meanings. In general, the speaker should clarify what they mean when it is ambiguous, but it is often up to the listener to ask for clarification.

How about this example (perfect to use if you are asked by your boss if they should hire your lazy friend):

In my opinion, you will be very fortunate to get this person to work for you.
Click to expand...

This example of double meaning is from a book called "Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations" (the acronym of the title is LIAR) by Robert Thornton, a professor of economics at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA.

Here are some more from the book:

To describe a person who is totally inept: I most enthusiastically
recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever.

To describe an ex-employee who had problems getting along with fellow
workers: I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague
of mine.

To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the job would be
better left unfilled: I can assure you that no person would be better
for the job.

To describe a job applicant who is not worth further consideration: I
would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an offer of
employment.

To describe a person with lackluster credentials: All in all, I cannot
say enough good things about this candidate or recommend him too
highly.
Click to expand...

-Bri
 
1) I don't believe gods exist.
2) I believe that no gods exist.
Click to expand...

Robin said:
They are just two completely different statements.

1. I don't believe P is true
2. I believe P is false
Click to expand...

I believe this analogy is false.

It would be more apt to say:

1. I don't believe P is true
2. I believe that NOT P is true

In your analogy you need to marry up EXIST with TRUE. Adding FALSE was trickery. Nice going, trickerer. :)

They are the same. OK, if everyone is satisfied, let's go on to the next subject.
 
I started out thinking that the two statements were non equivalent, but I'm tending now toward the other viewpoint, because of the word "believe," which is too variable and ambiguous to be nailed down logically, I think.

Saying I don't believe there are teapots circling Pluto has two different senses, depending on whether one is speculating on the possibility in the abstract, or denying an assertion. If we start with the assumption that here on earth, gods have always been asserted before we had a chance not to believe in them, then saying "I do not believe there are any gods" is a statement, not of reservation, but of disbelief, and I'd have to vote for equivalency.
 
triadboy said:
Robin said:
They are just two completely different statements.

1. I don't believe P is true
2. I believe P is false
Click to expand...

I believe this analogy is false.

It would be more apt to say:

1. I don't believe P is true
2. I believe that NOT P is true

In your analogy you need to marry up EXIST with TRUE. Adding FALSE was trickery. Nice going, trickerer. :)

They are the same. OK, if everyone is satisfied, let's go on to the next subject.
Click to expand...
Italics mine. Can you explain how "not P is true" is different from "p is false"?
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I started out thinking that the two statements were non equivalent, but I'm tending now toward the other viewpoint, because of the word "believe," which is too variable and ambiguous to be nailed down logically, I think.

Saying I don't believe there are teapots circling Pluto has two different senses, depending on whether one is speculating on the possibility in the abstract, or denying an assertion. If we start with the assumption that here on earth, gods have always been asserted before we had a chance not to believe in them, then saying "I do not believe there are any gods" is a statement, not of reservation, but of disbelief, and I'd have to vote for equivalency.
Click to expand...

The two aren't the same, because at least one of the sentences as worded is ambiguous. But semantics aside there are at least two possible viewpoints concerning non-belief in the existence of gods, and they are not equivalent. One is having no belief in the existence or non-existence of gods (weak atheism), essentially admitting "I don't know". The other is having no belief in the existence of gods but also having a positive belief in the non-existence of gods (strong atheism).

If one is trying to explain one's view on the subject, one should be careful to explain further than "I don't believe there are gods" which could mean either "I have no belief in either the existence or non-existence of gods" or "I believe in the non-existence of gods."

Most folks on this board won't assume that "I don't believe there are gods" expresses a positive belief in the non-existence of gods and will often ask for clarification; however, people who aren't aware that atheism includes at least two possible viewpoints will likely assume the positive belief that there are no gods.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
The two aren't the same, because at least one of the sentences as worded is ambiguous. But semantics aside there are at least two possible viewpoints concerning non-belief in the existence of gods, and they are not equivalent. One is having no belief in the existence or non-existence of gods (weak atheism), essentially admitting "I don't know". The other is having no belief in the existence of gods but also having a positive belief in the non-existence of gods (strong atheism).

If one is trying to explain one's view on the subject, one should be careful to explain further than "I don't believe there are gods" which could mean either "I have no belief in either the existence or non-existence of gods" or "I believe in the non-existence of gods."

Most folks on this board won't assume that "I don't believe there are gods" expresses a positive belief in the non-existence of gods and will often ask for clarification; however, people who aren't aware that atheism includes at least two possible viewpoints will likely assume the positive belief that there are no gods.

-Bri
Click to expand...

True enough, and I think that if one wants to be precisely understood, just saying "I don't believe" doesn't do it, owing to that ambiguity. I guess what I meant above is that purely and out of context, the two sentences are not equivalent, but owing to the social context, they generally are meant by the speaker to be, and are generally taken to be (outside of this board, perhaps).
 
Mangafranga said:
Italics mine. Can you explain how "not P is true" is different from "p is false"?
Click to expand...

I was trying to throw the negation on the left side of P instead of the right - to show the similarity of the statements.

1) I don't believe gods exist.
2) I believe that no gods exist.


1) I do NOT believe <P>
2) I believe NOT <P>

These are same. The problem is "believe". For some reason there appears to be a difference between NOT BELIEVE and BELIEVE NOT. Weird.
 
The essential problem here is in the ambiguity of the term "believe". I think that if we rephrase to eliminate this term, the problem will go away.

P = "Gods Exist"

1): ~P
2): ~P

The whole "belief" thing muddies the waters to a massive extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom