Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[slyjoe]

I seem to be in a group of one.

The ones that are in Dawkins' "De facto atheist", to me, are looking for the identical snowflakes.


.

How so? Why is that not the default position?

 

[Thurkon]

How so?
Do you currently hold the belief that there is a god? That is a simple yes/no question.

If I asked you if you like broccoli you can answer that quesation with either "yes" or "no". That the anser could be clarified further doesn't matter.

I have seen people who refuse to answer the question. That doesn't mean there is a third answer, though.

Not quite the same thing. Broccoli can be easily purchased and tasted. A simple test. God is an idea. A complex one at that.

Take Global Warming, another complex idea. Science has ascertained that Global Warming is a reality...but is it the product of fossil fuel emissions? There are those that conduct research and have the belief that, yes, it is the product of fossil fuel emissions...and those that hold the belief that it is the product of normal glaciation cycles. Then there are those that feel ambivalent about such a complicated issue...simply that they don't have the ability or information to choose either side.

I understand that Global Warming is something that has the capability of being put to the scientific test moreso than God, but you get the general idea.

 

[Georg]

An atheist lacks any belief in a god. I believe an agnostic has a more ambivalent view...sometimes they feel there might be a god, and other times they are uncertain.

I do lack any believe in a god. Atheist. But since I don´t know for sure, I am also an agnostic by definition. And an apatheist, since I really don´t care about god(s) that don´t interfere with anything. If they (he, she, it) would, there would be evidence, and I haven´t seen any.
O.K., agnostic atheist apatheist it is.
Maybe it just boils down to: those labels are only important if one doesn´t have the chance/time to elaborate on one´s point of view, since, as this thread shows, everybody is using different definitions anyway.

 

[slyjoe]

...
Maybe it just boils down to: those labels are only important if one doesn´t have the chance/time to elaborate on one´s point of view, since, as this thread shows, everybody is using different definitions anyway.

True. So, when someone asks whether I'm an atheist, theist or agnostic, I can just say "I'm a six".

That'll get 'em.

 

[Rasmus]

Not quite the same thing. Broccoli can be easily purchased and tasted. A simple test. God is an idea. A complex one at that.

Take Global Warming, another complex idea. Science has ascertained that Global Warming is a reality...but is it the product of fossil fuel emissions? There are those that conduct research and have the belief that, yes, it is the product of fossil fuel emissions...and those that hold the belief that it is the product of normal glaciation cycles. Then there are those that feel ambivalent about such a complicated issue...simply that they don't have the ability or information to choose either side.

I understand that Global Warming is something that has the capability of being put to the scientific test moreso than God, but you get the general idea.

But it's the same with global warming: Either you do hold the positive belief that humans are responsible, or you do not hold that belief.

If you do not hold that particular belief there is a number of other beliefs that you could hold. But that is not the question asked.

Same with theism and atheism: Do you have the belief that there is at least one god?

Yes, you do have that belief: You are a theist.
You do not have that belief: You are an atheist.

It doesn't matter if you are relatively certain that there is no god. It doesn't matter if you can argue your position. The quality of the evidence isn't important. It doesn't matter that you could be wrong. All that matters is whether you believe in one or more gods. If not, you're an atheist. As has been said elsewhere on this board: Deal with it!

 

[Thurkon]

For me there has to be a point where you say no.

Can I fly to Jupiter on a peanut-butter sandwich?

Some bizarre collection of circumstances may make this possible but the odds of it actually being possible are so high that I can confidently say..."I cannot fly to Jupiter on a peanut-butter sandwich".

Gods, IMHO and after examining lots of so-called evidence, falls into the same category. So outrageously improbable that it is not worth considering.

Not true. If you are defining "gods" as those creatures described by institutional religions and their various wacky tomes of god-knowledge...then I would agree with you.

Some, however, could conceive of god as something entirely different. Just because no evidence exists as yet does not make the notion itself scientifically untenable. Even though I see no evidence yet, we could very well have some kind of creator or divine overlord. I'm not spending my precious time thinking about it or finding a way to suck up to him/her/it, but it is a possibility, I suppose.

Perhaps not a god that is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. That seems unlikely considering the universe we live in. Perhaps a giant, evil, tentacled space octopus waiting to bolster the population of Earth to appropriate feeding size?

 

[H3LL]

How so? Why is that not the default position?

It may be.

I'm just a little puzzled as to how preposterous an idea has to be before it is discarded. The De facto Atheist would seem to answer this with "never".

.

 

[Thurkon]

But it's the same with global warming: Either you do hold the positive belief that humans are responsible, or you do not hold that belief.

If you do not hold that particular belief there is a number of other beliefs that you could hold. But that is not the question asked.

Same with theism and atheism: Do you have the belief that there is at least one god?

Yes, you do have that belief: You are a theist.
You do not have that belief: You are an atheist.

It doesn't matter if you are relatively certain that there is no god. It doesn't matter if you can argue your position. The quality of the evidence isn't important. It doesn't matter that you could be wrong. All that matters is whether you believe in one or more gods. If not, you're an atheist. As has been said elsewhere on this board: Deal with it!

It seems that you're eager to place things in one of two boxes. Unfortunately, the world isn't colored this way. I mostly agree with you...I think some agnostics are wishy-washy atheists. Yet, it still remains that they don't have the equivalent lack of belief that we atheists do. It's that simple. They may not have a strong belief in God, but they do not discount a divinity either.

My wife is such a creature. Sometimes she believes there very well could be a god, and other times she feels uncertain. Such is the nature of complex issues and humanity. Should I label her an atheist during her uncertain moments and a theist on the other days? Why not use a more appropriate label...agnostic...to describe her condition? It's far more appropriate, after all, and simply a label.

Eliminating the gray may be easier for you, but it is far less helpful in describing the complex world we live in.

 

[Thurkon]

I do lack any believe in a god. Atheist. But since I don´t know for sure, I am also an agnostic by definition.

I don't think knowing should have anything to do with the definition of agnostic. None of us know. It all has to do with the level of belief and consistency of belief. Perhaps some would argue that any belief defines one as a theist, but the fact is that rarely does someone who would label themselves as an agnostic have a constant level of belief. It seems to fluctuate between atheism and theism. Just a term to describe that state of ambivalence.

It's just a definition to help clarify levels of belief. I used to be what I consider agnostic...now I consider myself atheist because I lack any belief or faith in divine creatures.

[/splitting hairs]

 

[GreNME]

We athiests are agnostic about God the same way we are agnostic about unicorns.

I hope that clears things up.

This one always amuses me, and which is why I stand firmly in the "have not made a choice, feel no need to make a choice" camp as described by Apology earlier.

Comparing Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or many other religious beliefs to believing in unicorns or invisible bunnies seems to ignore, whether implicitly or explicitly, the social inertia (or you could say baggage) of the history of the belief in terms of cultural history. They aren't really comparable concepts outside of a vacuum where no other factors but the belief exist. Now, fifty or a hundred or a thousand years from now, if there is a Church of the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church that exists, then I could see them as being not only comparable but in fact extremely similar in terms of holding a faith. There seems to be no rhetorical logic behind the argument except to commit the logical fallacy of reduction to absurdity.

I also find it ironic how many people seem to require admission of being on one side or the other on the theist/atheist question. I wonder where Buddhists stand on that mark, actually-- as far as I'm aware, Buddhism allows for both atheism and theism, and claims neither as absolute.

 

[GreNME]

I don't think knowing should have anything to do with the definition of agnostic. None of us know. It all has to do with the level of belief and consistency of belief. Perhaps some would argue that any belief defines one as a theist, but the fact is that rarely does someone who would label themselves as an agnostic have a constant level of belief. It seems to fluctuate between atheism and theism. Just a term to describe that state of ambivalence.

It's just a definition to help clarify levels of belief. I used to be what I consider agnostic...now I consider myself atheist because I lack any belief or faith in divine creatures.

[/splitting hairs]

Do you understand what the root word of 'agnostic' means?

(I'm teasing)

 

[the PC apeman]

This one always amuses me, and which is why I stand firmly in the "have not made a choice, feel no need to make a choice" camp as described by Apology earlier.

Comparing Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or many other religious beliefs to believing in unicorns or invisible bunnies seems to ignore, whether implicitly or explicitly, the social inertia (or you could say baggage) of the history of the belief in terms of cultural history. They aren't really comparable concepts outside of a vacuum where no other factors but the belief exist. Now, fifty or a hundred or a thousand years from now, if there is a Church of the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church that exists, then I could see them as being not only comparable but in fact extremely similar in terms of holding a faith. There seems to be no rhetorical logic behind the argument except to commit the logical fallacy of reduction to absurdity.

That comparison is not ignoring social inertia. It's putting religion in a more rational perspective. The resistance to doing so is typically an appeal to popularity and/or antiquity.

 

[Rasmus]

It seems that you're eager to place things in one of two boxes. Unfortunately, the world isn't colored this way.

But it is, according to one accepted definition of "theist" and "atheist".

True, not everything in this world is black and white. But I assure you everything is either black or non-black. Red, Blue, Yellow, Purple, Invisible and Mauve are all non-black. Nobody is saying that they are all white, mind you.

I mostly agree with you...I think some agnostics are wishy-washy atheists. Yet, it still remains that they don't have the equivalent lack of belief that we atheists do.

We atheists? I am certainly an atheist. But I am also an agnostic. There could be a god, assuming mankind turns out to be wrong about nearly everything. Utterly unlikely but possible.

It's that simple. They may not have a strong belief in God, but they do not discount a divinity either.

So? Do they have *any* believe in god, weak or strong? Why is it so hard for some to answer that question? (I am not asking "Are you certain?", or "How can you be sure?" or "Could you be wrong?", or any such thing!)

My wife is such a creature. Sometimes she believes there very well could be a god, and other times she feels uncertain.

Irrelevant to the question whether she is an atheist or a theist.

She could change her mind five times a day and swap between theism and atheism. She would still never find any middle ground! It is, by definition, not possible.

We can disagree about the definition, of course. But then you would have to provide your own.

Such is the nature of complex issues and humanity. Should I label her an atheist during her uncertain moments and a theist on the other days?

Possibly. Why shouldn't you?

I don't know, though, since you are not telling me if she actually believes in a god at either time, though!

Why not use a more appropriate label...agnostic...to describe her condition? It's far more appropriate, after all, and simply a label.

Define your labels, please.

Eliminating the gray may be easier for you, but it is far less helpful in describing the complex world we live in.

Again: non-black != white.

It is you who is trying to oversimplify things by insisting that there is only one dimension to be measured where I see (at least) two.

Your wife isn't certain, so I guess that makes her an agnostic. What's wrong with also saying whether she actually believes in a god or not? What would be wrong with further detailing how certain she is? Why should it be a problem if her condition changes from time to time?

Should I stop speaking of "ice" "liquid" and "steam" just because the condition of aggregation of water can change? Aren't "liquid" and "steam" both non-ice?

 

[Yoink]

The definition I use is indeed a philosophical concept, one that starts with a premise regarding what knowledge humans can and can't have about reality (reality simply meaning "everything". Therefore it is very different from a philosophical position that starts with the premise of "we don't know anything yet", one deals with a subset of possible knowledge one deals with all possible knowledge. Both are equally "logically defensible" positions since they both start from a premise.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you mean here. (I mean that quite literally, not in the "how could you say something so preposterous" sense). Are you saying "God is unknowable" is a premise from which your thinking about the question begins? What do you derive that premise from? If it is simply an article of faith, then isn't that simply theism ("I believe in an unknowable God"). I suppose that this could usefully be termed "agnosticism" to distinguish it from theistic belief in a knowable god--but that would simply add a new level of confusion to the debate, wouldn't it? Most "agnostics" wouldn't accept that this was the position they held, would they?

Would you mind spelling out your definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic"? It might help to clarify your point for me.

 

[slyjoe]

It may be.

I'm just a little puzzled as to how preposterous an idea has to be before it is discarded. The De facto Atheist would seem to answer this with "never".

.

Ah - I understand now. It's the teapot around Saturn argument - can you disprove anything? Does anything have a 0% probability?

That said, I agree the evidence is to put the probability so low that for all intents and purposes we may discard the concept, and I think that is what most people that identify as "atheist" actually do.

 

[Yoink]

I don't know that there isn't one.

Hi Apology--I get the feeling that you think the point here is to try to force you into adopting a position other than the one you hold ("admit it! You're really an atheist, aren't you!"). But that's not my point at all. I'm suggesting that the existence of the two terms "agnostic" and "atheist" just muddies the conceptual waters and that these two terms do not in fact describe conceptually distinct positions (at least, not tenable positions).

You, clearly, hold that an atheist claims to "know" that there is no God. I'm an atheist, however, and I would strongly object to being told that my claim is of absolute knowledge in the non-existence of God. My position is simply that I have not yet been shown no reason to believe in the existence of a God. Could you tell me how that differs from your position?

I'm sure there are self-described "atheists" who do in fact claim that they "know" that there is no God, but I would argue that this is not a logically defensible position. If the "god-hypothesis" includes gods who, by definition, do not give any evidence of their existence then it is simply not possible to "know" that such gods don't exist.

I don't know that there is.

I don't know.

So, in your "not knowing" you are like most theists and all atheists. Again, I submit that a term which purports to be a "third way" between "atheism" and "theism" but which in fact seems to be equally applicable to both atheists and theists is philosophically useless and should be abandoned.

 

[GreNME]

That comparison is not ignoring social inertia. It's putting religion in a more rational perspective. The resistance to doing so is typically an appeal to popularity and/or antiquity.

No, doiong so is reducto ad absurdum and an appeal to ridicule. Using qualifiers like "more rational" to describe the comparison are misleading claims of predetermined validity based on opinion (which usually translates to "agrees with my conclusion"). I already asked this, but where does Buddhism, which is a religion, fall into your comparison?

This isn't about popularity or antiquity, this is about social inertia and context. If you can point me to a Church if the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church, then I would agree it is an apt comparison. Now, on the other hand of that, even though it is a joke I find the Church of FSM to be a relevant comparison when the issue of evolution versus ID comes up, because as Mr. Henderson has stated in his site's FAQs ^link that is exactly the purpose of the church. So, when you or someo other enterprising person goes and creates the Church of the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church, I'll agree it's an apt comparison (provided you are comparatively thorough as Henderson was).

 

[Yoink]

This one always amuses me, and which is why I stand firmly in the "have not made a choice, feel no need to make a choice" camp as described by Apology earlier.

The problem with the "well, are you agnostic about unicorns?" question is that it appears to be (and, obviously, often is) simply an insult directed at religious belief ("believing in God is just as silly as believing in unicorns"). But if you ignore that side of it for a moment and just concentrate on the epistemological point it might be more clarifying.

The argument I'm making is that neither atheists nor agnostics--according to any definition of the positions that would be logically consistent--should "feel a need to make a choice." Atheists don't "choose" not to believe in God, they simply say "no evidence of the existence of a God has been presented." (Obviously there are real-world self-described "atheists" who do in fact say "there is no God"--but my point is that they are occupying an indefensible position. It is clearly impossible for them to disprove the existence of any god who, by definition, gives no evidence of his existence--such as the Deist god.) If that is the case, then, what possible philosophical purpose does the term "agnostic" serve? It doesn't name a coherent, logically tenable position that is separate from another coherent logically tenable position that could be termed "atheism."

I also find it ironic how many people seem to require admission of being on one side or the other on the theist/atheist question. I wonder where Buddhists stand on that mark, actually-- as far as I'm aware, Buddhism allows for both atheism and theism, and claims neither as absolute.

Yes, there are theist Buddhists and atheist Buddhists. My contention is that it offers no useful distinction to suggest that there could also be "agnostic Buddhists." If you believe that it does, it would be really helpful if you would define "atheist" and "agnostic" so that they are distinct but both coherent and valid positions.

 

[Yoink]

Ah - I understand now. It's the teapot around Saturn argument - can you disprove anything? Does anything have a 0% probability?

That said, I agree the evidence is to put the probability so low that for all intents and purposes we may discard the concept, and I think that is what most people that identify as "atheist" actually do.

I think the "probability" argument is incoherent and irrelevant to the distinction between "atheists" and "agnostics." We can't estimate probabilities unless we know something about the frame within which the probabilities are estimated. (E.g., I know the probability of a head or a tail when I toss a coin, because I know the frame includes only those two options). To speak of the "probability" of god's existence would require knowledge of universes in general, and knowledge of how many of them tend to be created by gods. As all of this is unknowable to us, hypotheses of "probability" are simply meaningless. All we can say is "we are yet to see any evidence to support the hypothesis."

For that reason Dawkins's 7 positions seem to me to be unhelpful for this discussion. I think they are probably "anthropologically" correct--that is, they probably do describe positions that people believe themselves to hold--but they are conceptually incoherent: they describe positions which cannot be logically defended.

 

[Yoink]

There seems to be no rhetorical logic behind the argument except to commit the logical fallacy of reduction to absurdity.

Oh, p.s., a small point: "reductio ad absurdum" isn't a logical fallacy, it's a type of argument. It's a method of demonstrating that an argument is absurd by showing that it entails absurd consequences.