Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[slingblade]

That really depends on you definition of "choice". I think a better description would be: "I chose to examine the evidence critically, and as a RESULT of that examination, I was no longer able to believe".

Having "chosen" something implies that you could have chosen differently. Are you saying you could have taken a look at it all, then chosen NOT to believe?

Alternately, could you now choose to believe again?

Only with some sort of proof, now. I remain open to the idea that a god could exist, but I'd need proof, and then it wouldn't be belief, but knowledge.

The way you worded the first paragraph, it says the same thing to me as what I said. I looked at religion and chose not to believe anymore.

 

[Yoink]

What is wrong with the following definitions:
Atheist: Once who believes "there is no god"
Agnostic: One who does not believe "There is a god".
Theist: One who believes: There is a god.

This seems to do the following:
1) Agree with Apology's claim that he is an agnostic
2) Provide a useful distinction between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic", and a far better distinction than the clumsy "weak atheist" vs "strong atheist".
3) More closely resembles how the terms are used in society.

It does redefine the epistemological definition of agnostic somewhat ("one who believes the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable"), but that definition is fairly far from common usage anyways...

There's nothing wrong with this from a "clarity" point of view. There is the problem that it restricts "atheism" to an unreasonable and self-contradictory position that few, if any, self-described atheists would adopt. The point in my OP was that we have three terms (theist, agnostic, atheist) which purport to describe three separate positions but that no coherent and valid description of three such positions is possible. Your account tends to confirm my suspicions.

 

[Yoink]

Using these definitions, the answer to the OP is obvious. Atheism is significantly different that agnosticism. Atheism is belief (or lack thereof) regarding god. Agnosticism is a belief regarding knowledge.

So to answer the OP, I can't find a reasonable definition of these where atheism is NOT different that agnosticism....

You forgot an essential aspect of the OP. I'm not trying to define "how do people use these terms" I'm asking "is there a way of defining these that gives us three coherent and defensible positions?" Your options involve several patently absurd positions (such as "believing you don't know" something--which sounds simply like confusion).

 

[cafink]

I'm merely reserving the right to withhold judgment before forming beliefs until I receive additional knowledge on the subject.

Exactly. Since you have not formed a belief, you lack belief.

 

[bignickel]

I think you skipped a few pages of this thread.

These agnostic/atheist threads always go the same way, so I doubt I missed anything earth-shattering.

In any case, it doesn't actually matter towards the discussion of definitions. If I post E=MC2, I doubt that "wrong, you skipped a few pages" really covers it as a rebuttal.

 

[qwert]

There's nothing wrong with this from a "clarity" point of view. There is the problem that it restricts "atheism" to an unreasonable and self-contradictory position that few, if any, self-described atheists would adopt. The point in my OP was that we have three terms (theist, agnostic, atheist) which purport to describe three separate positions but that no coherent and valid description of three such positions is possible. Your account tends to confirm my suspicions.

But all you really did is argue that there is no proof for the existence of god, hence no proof for strong atheism.

But atheism doesn't address proof, it addresses belief.

Do you think the two statements are equivalent?
I believe God does not exist
I don't believe that God exists

Colloquially, the first is atheism. The second is agnosticism. Philosophically, the first is strong atheism, the second is weak.

I still do not see how the first is self-contradictory.

 

[qwert]

You forgot an essential aspect of the OP. I'm not trying to define "how do people use these terms" I'm asking "is there a way of defining these that gives us three coherent and defensible positions?" Your options involve several patently absurd positions (such as "believing you don't know" something--which sounds simply like confusion).

Sorry, the agnostic definitions were pretty lame I admit.

How about then:
A weak agnostic does not know whether god exists
A strong agnostic claims it is impossible to know whether god exists

A weak agnostic is distinguished from a weak atheist based on knowledge vs. belief. i.e. a weak agnostic makes a claim as to knowledge. A weak atheist makes a claim as to belief.

Other than theists with a direct "god experience", I assume most people would be weak agnostics (i.e. they might believe, but not know). They could additionally be a member of any other category.

Again, I don't see a logical contradiction in these definitions.

 

[Btodd]

Yes, I did. I used to believe in god, took a long, hard look at it all, decided I had both fooled myself and had been fooled, and stopped believing. I chose not to believe.

Why can't one do that?

I used to believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. I don't believe in them anymore. In fact, I'd say I know they don't exist. They're fantasies. I feel the same about gods, but 20 years ago, I'd have told you the Christian God was absolutely real, and I knew that, too.

Maybe you don't choose what you believe and what you don't. I do choose, and have, more than once.

You said you stopped believing. Shouldn't you have said, "I CHOSE to stop believing?" The former statement supports what I've been saying.

Zalbik already summed this up, but if you chose to not believe, you could have just as easily chosen to believe. Once you had looked at all the evidence, was it still a 50/50 proposition in your eyes? Because that's the only way 'choice' makes sense to me. It was a toss-up, so the only way to fall on one side is to choose. But I highly doubt that's how it was; I assume that like me, the evidence was so lopsided, that you could no longer believe, and simply acknowledged the obvious.

And that's not a choice, it is simply intellectual honesty. I rest on my example of gender, because I doubt you will tell me you 'decided' that you are a man. You noticed it in light of the definition of what a man is, and your genitalia fitting that definition (forgive me if you are a woman, and you can use the same argument with different genitalia if that is the case ).

Dis[/I]prove a negative?" Don't you mean you can't prove a negative? Isn't disproving a negative just proving a positive?

You are correct; I made a popular mis-statement. The point remains the same. What evidence would you be waiting on for a non-existent thing? What evidence CAN there be? How many things must we claim agnosticism for, simply because we cannot prove they don't exist?

If God is a supernatural idea beyond natural detection, then....it doesn't interact with our reality and as such, has no reality that we'd find meaningful. I'd even say it can't interact with our reality, and so is not the standard idea of god. Every religion that postulates a god, postulates interaction. Whatever idea of god you're trying to prove here, it isn't the one that matters to the religious.

I don't need proof that god doesn't exist. That's the default. I need proof that it does exist.

I mostly agree here. And if the default position is non-belief, then Apology's insisting on agnosticism to the exclusion of atheism is unwarranted. Atheism is the default position. That is not to say he's a strong atheist; he most certainly is not.

I really am puzzled by the 'choose to believe' argument. If that's the case, then do you agree with Christian apologists who tell me that I'm willfully denying God's existence? I'm choosing not to believe in Him?

What if He doesn't exist? Am I still choosing not to believe in something that doesn't exist, or simply acknowledging the fact that there's no evidence for it's existence?

One last thing regarding your examples of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. You say that you chose not to believe in them. Does that mean the decision is final, or do you have to continually make that choice? Are you choosing on a daily basis not to believe in non-existent beings?

 

[Yoink]

In philosophy (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems to be:
A) Strong atheist: One who believes god does not exist
B) Weak athesist: One who does not believe god exists
C) Strong agnostic: One who believes that knowledge of god is unknowable
D) Weak agnostic: One who believes they do not know whether god exists
E) Theist: One who believes god exists

Just to elaborate a little on my earlier reply. The problem with this way of setting things out seems to me to be that it just gives us a series of muddled and overlapping categories:

A): this describes a position which almost no one I know of holds. Nobody says "I choose not to believe in God, in the face of any evidence that may surface to the contrary." Now, it might be handy to have a term for such odd birds, but it seems silly to use such a widely used and common term for that purpose.

B): This seems to me to be a fine general definition for "atheist."

C): Again, I don't believe there is any such group of people, or that a term for them is necessary. To deny, in general, the knowability of god/gods per se is to claim knowledge of the unknowable. There are people who claim strongly that their particular god (or gods) is unknowable (e.g. Deists, certain Christians etc.)--but they are not "agnostic" in contradistinction to "theists"--so while it might be worth having a term to describe them (such as "agnostic") it again seems to be merely confusing to use a term which is so often regarded as excluding theists.

D): This is either meaningless (what does it mean to "believe you know" X? How does it differ from "knowing" X?--it seems to involve a radically different usage of the word "believe" from that in the statement "I believe in the existence of God"), or it is indistinguishable from B. So, "weak agnostics" simply are the same thing as "weak atheists." That's fine, but again it suggests to me that we should get rid of a term that constantly prompts us to invent a distinction that is not there.

E): Yes, that seems fine.

 

[Yoink]

But all you really did is argue that there is no proof for the existence of god, hence no proof for strong atheism. But atheism doesn't address proof, it addresses belief.

I see your point here (and indeed have always accepted that it is possible to define atheism in this way)--I just don't see the point of doing so. Yes, it is possible for someone to say "I believe in no-god-ism" in the same way someone says "I believe in God!"; but it hardly seems worthwhile wasting a perfectly serviceable and common word like "atheism" on such people, does it?

Do you think the two statements are equivalent?
I believe God does not exist
I don't believe that God exists

Colloquially, the first is atheism. The second is agnosticism. Philosophically, the first is strong atheism, the second is weak.

I still do not see how the first is self-contradictory.

So at this point we seem to be in agreement--if you agree that "agnosticism" is, philosophically, an unnecessary term (you say it maps perfectly onto "weak atheism") then we're on the same page. (I have consistently maintained that there is, of course, a colloquial distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but also maintained that they are terms that simply muddy the waters philosophically). The only question remaining is whether we need the distinction "strong vs weak" atheism. I would say that it would be best to use "atheism" generally to refer to "weak" atheism and only use the term "strong" (or "elective") atheism in the rare case when you wish to deal with that extreme minoritarian view (disgruntled teenagers, for the most part).

In any event, it would seem that we agree that the term "agnosticism" does not name a coherent position distinct from some form of atheism.

 

[Yoink]

By the way, Happy theist or nontheist Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[qwert]

I see your point here (and indeed have always accepted that it is possible to define atheism in this way)--I just don't see the point of doing so. Yes, it is possible for someone to say "I believe in no-god-ism" in the same way someone says "I believe in God!"; but it hardly seems worthwhile wasting a perfectly serviceable and common word like "atheism" on such people, does it?

So at this point we seem to be in agreement--if you agree that "agnosticism" is, philosophically, an unnecessary term (you say it maps perfectly onto "weak atheism") then we're on the same page. (I have consistently maintained that there is, of course, a colloquial distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but also maintained that they are terms that simply muddy the waters philosophically). The only question remaining is whether we need the distinction "strong vs weak" atheism. I would say that it would be best to use "atheism" generally to refer to "weak" atheism and only use the term "strong" (or "elective") atheism in the rare case when you wish to deal with that extreme minoritarian view (disgruntled teenagers, for the most part).

In any event, it would seem that we agree that the term "agnosticism" does not name a coherent position distinct from some form of atheism.

I agree that the colloqual version of agnosticism (don't know) maps perfectly well to the philosophical "weak atheism". However, I still maintain that the 5 philosophical stances are each valid & distinct.

Also, I don't understand the argument against strong atheism. You seem to be indicating that since it cannot be proven, it should not be believed.

I do not agree that everything logically needs proof in order for belief. Especially regarding matters of existence.

Take Bertrand Russell's Teapot:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

I would certainly say "I believe this teapot does not exist". I have no proof of this assertion, but I hold this belief anyways. And I suspect many people who are not "disgruntled teenagers" would also do so.

What exactly is the difference between this and strong atheism?

 

[Yoink]

I agree that the colloqual version of agnosticism (don't know) maps perfectly well to the philosophical "weak atheism". However, I still maintain that the 5 philosophical stances are each valid & distinct.

Also, I don't understand the argument against strong atheism. You seem to be indicating that since it cannot be proven, it should not be believed.

I do not agree that everything logically needs proof in order for belief. Especially regarding matters of existence.

Take Bertrand Russell's Teapot:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

I would certainly say "I believe this teapot does not exist". I have no proof of this assertion, but I hold this belief anyways. And I suspect many people who are not "disgruntled teenagers" would also do so.

What exactly is the difference between this and strong atheism?

But your "belief" that the teapot is not there is not the same as someone else's "belief" that God IS there in the absence of all evidence. That is, in the event of a spaceship going out to run an intercept course and finding the teapot you will simply say "well, fancy that, Bertrand Russell must have had some alien friends with a sense of humor." You will then adjust your belief accordingly. In other words, your "belief" that the teapot does not exist is not a leap beyond the available evidence, it is simply an acceptance that there is no evidence available to prove the assertion (with a concomitant feeling that the postulate seems extremely unlikely--though not impossible--on its face). I don't see that this is structurally equivalent to "belief" in the theist sense at all, and the problem with "strong atheism" is that it implies such a structural equivalence.

Now, obviously, there could be someone who "believes" in that "jump beyond the evidence" way in the absence of the teapot. Such a person would, presumably, continue to refuse the evidence gathered by the spaceship that went out and found it (NASA faked it, etc.). But that is a very peculiar mindset, and not one that seems to require much consideration.

 

[Taffer]

What is wrong with the following definitions:
Atheist: Once who believes "there is no god"
Agnostic: One who does not believe "There is a god".
Theist: One who believes: There is a god.

Because that is not what the terms mean. Agnosticism deals with the ability to know something. Strong atheism states that there is a belief in no god. Weak atheism states that there is no belief in a god. The positions are subtly, but importantly, different. It always saddens me that people do not understand the difference betweel agnosticism and atheism.

For Apology, please read the two wiki pages on agnosticism and atheism, they are both generally well written and cited.

 

[Taffer]

I think you skipped a few pages of this thread.

And I think you just do not wish to be labelled an atheist. I wonder why that is, when the word "atheism" accurately describes your position?

Atheism is any one who lacks a belief in a god. Strong atheism is "I believe there is no god" (or B = ~G). Weak atheism is "I lack a belief in a god" (or ~(B = G)).
Agnosticism is one who thinks knowledge of god has not been obtained. Strong agnosticism is "It is impossible to have knowledge of god", while weak (also called "mild") agnosticism is "I do not have knowledge of god" or, similarly, "we do not have knowledge of god", with the emphasis being that it is not possible to one day have that knowledge.

Hopefully you can see that one who is an atheist is usually a strong agnostic, while one who is a strong agnostic is not always an atheist.

 

[Apology]

Because that is not what the terms mean. Agnosticism deals with the ability to know something. Strong atheism states that there is a belief in no god. Weak atheism states that there is no belief in a god. The positions are subtly, but importantly, different. It always saddens me that people do not understand the difference betweel agnosticism and atheism.

For Apology, please read the two wiki pages on agnosticism and atheism, they are both generally well written and cited.

You are silly to think I've never read those two pages, or read the little wiki discussion page on atheism to check out the changes that are being discussed That thing's hilarious! When it got to the part about how to categorize the Raelians (they worship aliens, so are they a religion?) I was just dying of laughter. The discussion page is proof alone that atheism is far from united on a single definition of itself.

I've read a lot of the authors cited in the page, and I just think they're wrong. It's got that atheist baby bull in there and everything. I strongly object to the concept of implicit atheism. I think the whole "strong atheist/weak atheist" argument that Flew and others were so fond of is just dumb. It's broken up into groups like that so everyone can step away from that nasty Strong Atheism with its intrinsic logic flaws. I mean, really, are you 75% sure that God doesn't exist, or 88.7% sure? How do you calculate something like that? If I have to believe much of what's on that wiki page, I'm definitely not an atheist.

There's a lot of junk on the agnostic page that I don't agree with either. To say, "We don't know, and we will never know" assumes knowledge that we don't have. I could know next week, I could die not knowing, my great-great-grandkids might know some day. I really can't say that whether God exists or not is eternally unknowable so I don't agree to that. If an agnostic comes in here and starts telling me I have to believe that in order to be an Agnostic, I'll tell them that they're wrong.

I actually owe BTodd a response and I'm dreadfully behind, I'm sorry about that, but come on, you guys, it's Thanksgiving

 

[Apology]

Can't we agree on a separate category for the Raelians and call that group "Strong Lunatics?"

 

[Btodd]

Apology, don't worry. I know you aren't ducking me, so enjoy your turkey and get back tomorrow if you wish.

 

[slingblade]

What drives me bonkers in such conversations is the trying to decide on universals that will fit everyone. Umbrella terms. Like your story is always gonna be my story. Yeah. Makes me nuts.

You said you stopped believing. Shouldn't you have said, "I CHOSE to stop believing?" The former statement supports what I've been saying.

Yes, I actually did choose to stop believing. It was a very gradual process that eventually culminated in a single day.

I'll start with what I said earlier: I don't care what you call me, or even how I label myself. If you think the term agnostic better encapsulates my position, use it. If atheist, use that. It honestly doesn't matter. What matters is that I did break away from an abusive system, and in so doing, learned to think more critically in general. Hooray for me.

After I deliberately left Christianity, I played around with Paganism for a while. I simply didn't know how one lived without a god-being to worship, so I picked a female one the second time around. After that started seeming just bat-crap silly in a hurry, I went around for a long time calling myself an agnostic. But I think I defined it differently than anyone here has, so far. I was wrong, I guess, but it made sense to me at the time. It made the sense I needed it to make, for me.

I would say, "I believe there is something out there, a being greater than humans, but I don't know its nature. I don't and can't know what it is. But I do think there's something there. So, I have no religion, but I do believe in some kind of god." I was letting go of faith gradually, you see. I still needed something, even if I didn't have anything to call it.

Later, when I was finally willing to give even that little bit up, I called myself an atheist: "Now, I no longer believe in even the 'something greater.' There's nothing out there; it's just us, and the crap we make up to hurt each other with, and that's all. I'm an atheist. I no longer choose to believe in any gods. As far as I know, there are none. Fin."

I do consider I made a choice; a few choices. Maybe you don't know how hard it is to break away from faith itself. Maybe you do, I dunno. But maybe you'd be surprised at the sheer amount of crap you can make yourself swallow simply by telling yourself you have faith. Or telling yourself, when you have doubts, that it's just Satan, trying to deceive you. Can't be too careful; I've heard he's a tricky bastidge. If you can make yourself doubt that your own thoughts are coming from within your own head, what won't you believe?

At some point, there came a time when I said "enough. Just stop it."
And, I did. Call it whatever makes you happy. The label doesn't affect my reality.

 

[Taffer]

You are silly to think I've never read those two pages, or read the little wiki discussion page on atheism to check out the changes that are being discussed That thing's hilarious! When it got to the part about how to categorize the Raelians (they worship aliens, so are they a religion?) I was just dying of laughter. The discussion page is proof alone that atheism is far from united on a single definition of itself.

Heh, you do have a point. But, y'see, I go by what the words actually mean. A theism. Without theism. It is a simple as that for me. The rest, strong and weak etc, come from philosophy of religion.

I've read a lot of the authors cited in the page, and I just think they're wrong. It's got that atheist baby bull in there and everything. I strongly object to the concept of implicit atheism.

But, y'see, "atheism" literally means "without theism". Anyone, no matter how or why, who lacks theism is an atheist. That is what the word means. I honestly do not understand how you can disagree with that.

I think the whole "strong atheist/weak atheist" argument that Flew and others were so fond of is just dumb. It's broken up into groups like that so everyone can step away from that nasty Strong Atheism with its intrinsic logic flaws. I mean, really, are you 75% sure that God doesn't exist, or 88.7% sure? How do you calculate something like that? If I have to believe much of what's on that wiki page, I'm definitely not an atheist.

No, anyone who lacks theism is an atheist. Again, that is what the word "atheism" literally means. Strong and weak atheism comes into it to account for the difference between B = ~G and ~ (B = G) arguments. They are logically distinct. Without the strong and weak difference, atheism would be exactly what you claim it is. That is to say, a catch all term. But it is not because we can distinguish between those two arguments, and others.

Further, I don't understand where your "75% or 88.7%" comes from. The question is binary. Either you have theism (or are theistic), or you lack it. There is no "I lack it a little bit". Atheism means, literally, without theism. Any being which lacks theism is an atheist. Again, I simply cannot fathom why you do not accept this.

There's a lot of junk on the agnostic page that I don't agree with either. To say, "We don't know, and we will never know" assumes knowledge that we don't have. I could know next week, I could die not knowing, my great-great-grandkids might know some day. I really can't say that whether God exists or not is eternally unknowable so I don't agree to that. If an agnostic comes in here and starts telling me I have to believe that in order to be an Agnostic, I'll tell them that they're wrong.

And yet again you are showing that you're wearing your shades. Did you not realise that there are different forms of agnosticism as well? Some (weak/mild agnosticism) believe that we may one day have knowledge. Others (strong/absolute agnosticism) believe that we never will. So you would be a weak agnostic.

I actually owe BTodd a response and I'm dreadfully behind, I'm sorry about that, but come on, you guys, it's Thanksgiving

Not here it ain't.