Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[fls]

They are about semantics, not over semantics.

That was the funniest thing I've seen today. Thanks for the laugh.

Linda

 

[Yoink]

Please explain where the religion of Buddhism sits in this either/or statement.

There is no "religion of Buddhism"--there are many different religions that go by the name. Some are theist, some are atheist. They are all "agnostic"--which is why "agnostic" is not, in my view, a philosophically useful term.

Ahh, the good old "you're stupid" argument.

I know this wasn't addressed to me--but I think you were misreading his argument, here. I don't see how saying that agnosticism is a position of humility is accusing anyone of stupidity. "Humility" is usually regarded (except by Nietzscheans and a few others) as a positive quality.

ETA: GreNME, I would very much like to see you give a positive definition of "agnosticism"--one that is coherent, but distinguishable from "atheism" (without relying on defining atheism so narrowly that it becomes an absurd position). I do find it surprising that so many people are willing to say "it's obvious that there is a coherent 'agnostic' position" but that no one is willing to have a go at defining it.

 

[Macoy]

Sometimes metaphor communicates more clearly than a literal definition.

http://cectic.com/039.html

I don't know which one is which. Certainty causes havoc on this planet.

 

[GreNME]

Fine--so I'm asking you to ignore it and concentrate on the logical argument being made.

That's a ridiculous request. Beliefs aren't exclusive to their social affiliation and interpretation. Removing social context is a poor way to go about this argument, and is intellectually lazy.

And I'm saying that there are either theist Buddhists or atheist Buddhists and no usefully defined group that can be labelled "agnostic" Buddhists. If you think there is (i.e., if you think that there is some coherent, valid position that should be labeled "agnostic" and will be distinct from both a coherent, valid "theism" and a coherent, valid "atheism" I really wish you'd just say what it entails).

No, validity depends on logical consistency. Please note I'm not using "valid" here to mean "true" or "correct." I think theists are wrong, for example, but I still believe you can give a coherent account of theism. What I am arguing is that you can't coherently distinguish "atheism" from "agnosticism" without making one term or the other describe an absurd position.

There are times you can distinguish the two, and there are times you can't.

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

Understand?

I don't know what you mean here, but I do know that the term "reductio ad absurdum" does not describe a form of logical fallacy. It describes a way of exposing someone else's logical (or factual) fallacies. Don't take my word for it--just try Googling it.

Which is why I went on to explain what the mechanism does-- it appeals to ridicule using reduction to an absurd degree. Hope that helps you understand it better.

 

[the PC apeman]

GreNME,
Is there some belief X such that...

we can agree it is irrational to hold X,
has a sufficiently established set of adherents,
and you would not find to be a ridiculous comparison to belief in a god?

 

[cafink]

Like I said, show me the Unicorn Orthodox Church and we can agree on this claim. Otherwise it is an intellectually lazy assertion.

Now you are committing a logical fallacy--argumentum ad populum. That belief in god is more popular than belief in unicorns does not make the existence of god more likely than that of unicorns.

And this is why I find such arguments amusing. Arguing from a vacuum is no way to make a point about a social construct.

It is when the point of the argument is that, in a vacuum, the two beliefs are equally tenable. Are you claiming that belief in god is more reasonable than belief in unicorns just because a lot of people believe in god and almost no one believes in unicorns? Because that's pretty much the only difference between the two beliefs.

 

[GreNME]

There is no "religion of Buddhism"--there are many different religions that go by the name. Some are theist, some are atheist. They are all "agnostic"--which is why "agnostic" is not, in my view, a philosophically useful term.

What if someone is agnostic but not a Buddhist?

I know this wasn't addressed to me--but I think you were misreading his argument, here. I don't see how saying that agnosticism is a position of humility is accusing anyone of stupidity. "Humility" is usually regarded (except by Nietzscheans and a few others) as a positive quality.

I didn't get the memo that stated everyone must define the world according to Nietzche (which actually sounds more like Rand than Nietzche, but Rand was a big fan of Nietzche so the distinction may not mean much). Questioning the competence in a blanket statement like that is, indeed, an accusation of stupidity.

ETA: GreNME, I would very much like to see you give a positive definition of "agnosticism"--one that is coherent, but distinguishable from "atheism" (without relying on defining atheism so narrowly that it becomes an absurd position). I do find it surprising that so many people are willing to say "it's obvious that there is a coherent 'agnostic' position" but that no one is willing to have a go at defining it.

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

There are some who would also argue that there are A who are neither B nor C at all, and also some who are BC. Still, such claims still do not fall exclusively into B or C. The binary if-then statement doesn't apply.

 

[Yoink]

There are times you can distinguish the two, and there are times you can't.

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

Understand?

Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean?

Atheism means:
Theism means:
Agnosticism, by contrast, means:

I really think this would help.

As to your "some A are B, some A are C"--this would be fine if "Agnostic" purported to be a term utterly unrelated to the positions described as "theist" and "atheist" (that is, if there were no people in the world who said--like Apology--"I'm neither theist nor atheist, I'm agnostic"). If A was "German" for example, that would be fine: some Germans are atheist, some are theist--fine.

But "agnostic" isn't such a term. It is an term with an inherently unstable meaning that simply muddies the conceptual waters (again, if you disagree, please provide a stable definition). It suggests a "via media," but on most definitions is either coterminous with atheism or makes no useful distinction between atheists and theists.

Which is why I went on to explain what the mechanism does-- it appeals to ridicule using reduction to an absurd degree. Hope that helps you understand it better.

Fine--just don't use a long-established rhetorical term that has a fixed and well understood meaning for something quite different. You are objecting to religion being ridiculed. That is not a "reductio ad absurdum."

 

[GreNME]

Now you are committing a logical fallacy--argumentum ad populum. That belief in god is more popular than belief in unicorns does not make the existence of god more likely than that of unicorns.

You really haven't been reading my posts. I already said arguments like the Church of FSM are valid despite not coming from a popular position because unlike your unicorn analogy the person who developed the FSM argument was not intellectually lazy about it. All you have to do is show the Unicorn Orthodox Church (or whatever you wish to name it) and you might have a point. Bringing up unicorns and fairies or whatever are not an apt comparison because they aren't like analogies.

It is when the point of the argument is that, in a vacuum, the two beliefs are equally tenable. Are you claiming that belief in god is more reasonable than belief in unicorns just because a lot of people believe in god and almost no one believes in unicorns? Because that's pretty much the only difference between the two beliefs.

The need to argue it from a vacuum is exactly what makes the argument ridiculous. People don't develop their beliefs in a vacuum. If you can't place it in context then you should rethink your approach at the argument.

 

[Darat]

Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean?

Atheism means:
Theism means:
Agnosticism, by contrast, means:

I really think this would help.

...snip...

A slight rearrangement of your three called for definitions:

Theism means: Someone who believes a god exists
Atheism means: A label for someone who is not a theist
Agnosticism: A philosophical position that holds that the knowledge of whether god exists or not is in principle not knowable.

An atheist can only exist and be defined because there are theists, whilst theists do not require atheists to be defined.

 

[GreNME]

Please--rather than continuing to simply assert that "of course agnosticism can be distinguised usefully from theism and atheism," would you just attempt to give a definition of what you understand the term to mean?

Atheism means:
Theism means:
Agnosticism, by contrast, means:

I really think this would help.

Help who? Agnosticism, by contrast, means: neither exclusively atheist nor exclusively theist.

As to your "some A are B, some A are C"--this would be fine if "Agnostic" purported to be a term utterly unrelated to the positions described as "theist" and "atheist" (that is, if there were no people in the world who said--like Apology--"I'm neither theist nor atheist, I'm agnostic"). If A was "German" for example, that would be fine: some Germans are atheist, some are theist--fine.

But "agnostic" isn't such a term. It is an term with an inherently unstable meaning that simply muddies the conceptual waters (again, if you disagree, please provide a stable definition). It suggests a "via media," but on most definitions is either coterminous with atheism or makes no useful distinction between atheists and theists.

I'm going to need to draw you a picture using a Venn diagram, aren't I?

Fine--just don't use a long-established rhetorical term that has a fixed and well understood meaning for something quite different. You are objecting to religion being ridiculed. That is not a "reductio ad absurdum."

Reducing to absurdity is the method of the ridicule. Try not to be so pedantic about it. Do you honestly think that there is a way to use that argument that does not involve ridicule?

 

[Yoink]

What if someone is agnostic but not a Buddhist?

You haven't told me what you mean by "agnostic." The question you ask does not seem to be logically related to the claims that I made.

I didn't get the memo that stated everyone must define the world according to Nietzche (which actually sounds more like Rand than Nietzche, but Rand was a big fan of Nietzche so the distinction may not mean much).

Again--I'm saying that most people DON'T define the world (did you mean word?) in the way Nietzsche did, and THEREFORE I don't think Cafink was being insulting when he said that agnosticism is a position of humility. I am saying that MOST people (presumably including Cafink and you) think that humility is good.

Questioning the competence in a blanket statement like that is, indeed, an accusation of stupidity.

Again--if he was saying that agnostics show humility, he is NOT questioning their competence. Is that clear now?

Some A are B.
Some A are C.
Therefore, A are neither exclusively B nor C.

There are some who would also argue that there are A who are neither B nor C at all, and also some who are BC. Still, such claims still do not fall exclusively into B or C. The binary if-then statement doesn't apply.

That isn't a definition of agnosticism. It is your claim of how your definition relates logically to other definitions. Without you giving a substantive definition we can't tell if you're right.

For example, if you define "agnosticism" as "not knowing" then in fact all B are A and all C are A--so the term serves no function (it is redundant). If you define it as "speaks German" then you would be right about the relationship of A to B and to C, but it would be too odd a definition to be useful. So, again, I'd be very grateful if you'd actually venture a definition of the term.

 

[Yoink]

Help who? Agnosticism, by contrast, means: neither exclusively atheist nor exclusively theist.

Help us clarify what it is that we are discussing. Help me find out if I'm right in my suspicion that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are hopelessly muddled in their conceptual implications and that one of them should be eliminated from philosophically strict discussions of the issue of belief in God.

As to your definition, I'm afraid it doesn't help. By my definition, "theists" believe in a god or gods, "atheists" do not believe in a god or gods. So it is logically impossible to be "neither exclusively atheist nor theist" (although it is possible--as Apology shows--to be successively theist and atheist; even remarkably rapidly). So--if you want to demonstrate that your definition is logically coherent you'll need to provide definitions of "theist" and "atheist" that are not mutually incompatible. In itself that is easy enough: my contention is that you can't provide such definitions and have them be conceptually coherent positions that would describe the actual position of a well-informed "theist" or "atheist." But I'd love to be proved wrong.

 

[cafink]

You really haven't been reading my posts. I already said arguments like the Church of FSM are valid despite not coming from a popular position because unlike your unicorn analogy the person who developed the FSM argument was not intellectually lazy about it. All you have to do is show the Unicorn Orthodox Church (or whatever you wish to name it) and you might have a point. Bringing up unicorns and fairies or whatever are not an apt comparison because they aren't like analogies.

Aside from their levels of popularity (both historically and today), how does belief in unicorns or fairies differ from belief in god? What empirical evidence is there for the belief in god that does not also apply to unicorns or fairies?

 

[JoeEllison]

Agnosticism just feels bogus to me. It doesn't seem to be a legitimate position at all. Is anyone withholding judgment on the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, or dragons? Since gods fall into the same category as any other mythological creature that most people DON'T believe in, the idea of holding an ambivalent position towards them seems like a fraud.

My impression, based on talking to people over time, is that "agnostics" are basically theists without a chosen religion.

 

[Macoy]

Someone once said that agnosticism allowed one to travel the chaotic nature of the universe, rather than the transitory illusion of order.

 

[JoeEllison]

Someone once said that agnosticism allowed one to travel the chaotic nature of the universe, rather than the transitory illusion of order.

Does that actually mean anything?!?!?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Does that actually mean anything?!?!?

I was actually admiring the sentence for how utterly malleable it is. You can rearrange the words almost at will, and it always seems to be saying something deep. It's a masterful work of horsehockey, really.

Agnosticism allows one to travel the universal chaos of nature, rather than the orderly transition of illusion.

Chaos orders one to travel the natural universality of agnosticism, rather than the transitory allowance of illusion.

 

[Macoy]

Only that the universe and mathematics contain aspects of chaotic behaviour, and as a result things might turn up unexpectedly.

 

[Yoink]

Only that the universe and mathematics contain aspects of chaotic behaviour, and as a result things might turn up unexpectedly.

To take that probably more seriously than it was meant: that still wouldn't usefully distinguish agnostics from either theists or atheists. That is, both theists and atheists can happily agree that "things might turn up unexpectedly."