News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Agnosticism - lending validity to religion?

Started by donkeyhoty, July 24, 2007, 09:41:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

donkeyhoty

#15
here's sort of what I'm trying to get at
Quote from: "SteveS"For me personally (and to play off my Carl Sagan stuff above), I will not deny the possibility of a god (because I must admit I may be wrong, my case is not provable), but without any evidence in favor I will not believe in a god. I would argue that my belief is, therefore, directly related to my knowledge (or lack there of, as in this particular case).

Why is there a need to feel agnostic about the concept of god(s)?

There's only so many times an atheist can invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster before feeling silly, but there's no need to be agnostic about the FSM.

A person saying they're without knowledge of a god or no god is a tacit admission of the veracity of the concept of god(s).  Essentially, saying a god may or may not exist accepts that religious stories are not entirely fictional.

I think it's simply the weight of believers that allows for agnosticism. i.e. God or gods are present in just about all, if not all, cultures, so it becomes difficult to say that everyone, ever, was completely wrong.  Whereas, an imaginary concept, like the FSM, with no weight, or presupposed truth behind it is easily dismissed as imaginary.

I don't think agnosticism is truly without knowledge, because it presupposes that gods are not a fictional, purely human concept.  

Caveat: you could say atheism supposes that gods are a purely human concept, but where is the evidence that they're not? - that's rhetorical.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

joeactor

#16
Hey SteveS... Yeah, I can totally see how knowledge and belief can be intertwined.

Good points indeed.

Donkeyhoty: hmmmm... if there were no believers, there would be no Atheists or Agnostics (at least where religious belief is concerned).  They're both positions of opposition (hence the "A").  But I could be Agnostic about other belief based concepts, I suppose.

Great topic and a lively discussion.

Glad to be around,
JoeActor

SteveS

#17
Hi guys.  Okay,

Joe - thanks.  And, I want to make sure I didn't lose track of two things:

1) I think the way you classify the words, agnostic/gnostic refers to knowledge, atheist/theist to belief, is 100% correct.

2) I think reminding everyone that some things we can claim to know, but others we must only claim to believe, is very important, and is a vital distinction.

donkeyhoty --- to me, any disagreement between us seems very slight.  There's really only one thing that I can't really get 100% behind, which comes out in a few of the statements below:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"A person saying they're without knowledge of a god or no god is a tacit admission of the veracity of the concept of god(s).
I don't entirely agree.  I think the idea of god can be proposed as a solution to some question, and then I can say "there seems to be no evidence of that being correct".  Or, in other words, "We can find no knowledge that the god answer is correct".  The proponent could retaliate with "but it's still possible", and this seems (at least in some definitions of god) to be true.  While this is a ridiculously tiny peg to try to hang your belief hat on, and is sufficient cause for said belief being deemed irrational, the point is if I can't prove something is impossible I have to admit it may be possible.  That's all.  It doesn't have to be very bloody likely, though, and this mere fact is hardly adequate grounds for belief.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Essentially, saying a god may or may not exist accepts that religious stories are not entirely fictional.
Again, I don't think so.  Can't you say a god may be possible, but that religious stories are, in fact, all fictional?  In other words, somebody might say "god may exist, but nobody has got the description of him/her/it/whatever right yet".  What about the god of the diests?  They don't really have any religious stories --- in fact, they don't even really have a religion.  Just a belief in a creator god who wrote the natural laws.  How can I claim to "know" that the diests are wrong?  I can claim to believe they are wrong (reasonably, in my opinion), and I can argue effectively, I think, that they're probably wrong, but to claim knowledge that they're wrong?  It seems too strong to me.

Once we have a proven scientific concept that describes how and/or why the big bang occurred, and why the laws of nature are what they are, then I think we can claim to know the deists were wrong (although any deists alive at the time would probably just "ammend" their argument up a rung, "ah, but where did that come from?" rather than just admit they were wrong.  Annoying, but likely, no?).

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I don't think agnosticism is truly without knowledge, because it presupposes that gods are not a fictional, purely human concept.
I don't know why you couldn't say you are in doubt about whether or not gods are completely fictional concepts or not.  You could then describe yourself as agnostic in this regard.  

For me, I'd say I'm an "agnostic atheist" simply because I don't think I can claim to "know" that any and all god concepts are impossible.  I think this is what you would have to demonstrate in order to be a "strong atheist", which is really what it seems you're arguing for.

Don't get me wrong, I think I can be a "strong atheist" about particular definitions of god.  As for the "Christian god", as he's described by Christian theologians, I'd say the concept they present is self contradictory, which is therefore self refuting, which is therefore impossible.  I don't think I have to claim to believe something impossible doesn't exist, I think I can claim to know that something impossible cannot exist.  So, I can say I'm a "strong atheist" with regards to the Christian god.  Even if something "like" the Christian god exists, it would only be "like" the Christian god --- the theologians would still be wrong and I would still be right ( :wink: ).

My problem is that I don't think I can generalize this to "any" god.  How can I claim to "know" the "god of deism" is impossible, based on the evidence currently available?  I don't think I can.

Just a final note, to put this entire discussion into perspective,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Caveat: you could say atheism supposes that gods are a purely human concept, but where is the evidence that they're not? - that's rhetorical.
I take this point very dearly to heart.  In fact, in my first response on this thread, this is exactly why I said:

Quote from: "SteveS"My assertion that there is no god is primarily motivated by the fact that the god ideas of man seem so completely made up, so completely baseless.

Just wanted to underscore, donkeyhoty, that I don't want our discussion to be perceived as an argument.  I think we're splitting hairs here, dude.

Will

#18
Quote from: "joeactor"I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.

Agnostic/Gnostic refers to Knowledge.

Atheist/Theist refers to Belief.
But 'agnostic' is the supposed middleground between theist and weak atheist. Maybe a better term would be weak theist. It's someone who believes in the supernatural, but is skeptical of religions and is not directly associated with any denomination.

Agnosticism purely as a knowledge based term, not associated with religion directly, would therefore not necessarily lend credence to religion or atheism. It's almost a negative, as an agnostic is not something (similar to the atheist label), and that would be the only loose association I could draw.

Still, we're on Happy Atheist Forum, so I have to assume that 'agnostic' in this case refers to a weak theist. If that's the case, then that position does lend validity to religion, which is bad.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Whitney

#19
From my understanding agnostic is a farily recently coined term (the 50s?) and was intended to refer to those who believe it is not possible to know if a god exists and not possible to conclude that one doesn't exist.  For that reason, the agnostic remains completely undecided about the existance of a god.

It is also commonly used in the litteral sense to mean without knowledge and can be applied to both atheists and theists who don't fit near the strong category.

SteveS

#20
laetusatheos, I'm thinking the term itself was invented by the biologist Henry Thomas Huxley back in the 1860's.  Here's the link to a Wiki page discussing Huxley and agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Thomas_Henry_Huxley



Will,

Quote from: "Willravel"I have to assume that 'agnostic' in this case refers to a weak theist. If that's the case, then that position does lend validity to religion, which is bad.
I agree, if by "agnostic" we mean "weak theist", then clearly they are lending validity to religion.  But, why not call weak theists simply weak theists?  It seems confusing to blend the terms.

For a "true" agnostic (i.e. Huxley-style), claiming "we can never know", I don't see how they can be perceived to be fueling religion.  To them, it seems the pursuit is ultimately pointless (because we can never know) and completely unjustified.

Whitney

#21
Quote from: "SteveS"laetusatheos, I'm thinking the term itself was invented by the biologist Henry Thomas Huxley back in the 1860's.  Here's the link to a Wiki page discussing Huxley and agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Thomas_Henry_Huxley

You know what....I think I confused it with when Wicca was coined.  My mind gets a bit jumbled sometimes when dates are involved.

 :oops:

SteveS

#22
Bah - dates are bunk.  I've been discussing the ideas of this thread with my brother who keeps me up to date on this Huxley character.  In fact, if Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", I think maybe my brother is "Huxley's Bulldog"!  Haha - I mean this as a compliment.

donkeyhoty

#23
I've been busy.  I'll get back to this eventually.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Mister Joy

#24
I think, to an extent, an assumption is being made here as to the nature of 'agnosticism' as a commitment of some kind. For me it's quite the opposite; I'm not agnostic because the evidence for the presence/absence of God is lacking either way & same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think many if not most agnostics simply don't see a point in making the statement "I am an atheist" or "I make my sacrifices to Apollo" because no matter which way they'd choose to go they'd be committing to something which is ultimately fairly meaningless. God, Pan, Zeus, nihilism et cetera; what's the point? You've got a one in several billion chance of being correct so why place bets at all? Better to just enjoy what you have, really.

Also, a lot of agnostics don't like the 'atheist' label. Too often it gets seen as some form of rebellion when, certainly in my mind, fascinating as it is in terms of human behaviour, it's just one pointless & irrational institution to counteract another.

joeactor

#25
Hi Mister Joy - Welcome!

I'm with you 100%.  It's very easy for both Atheists and Theists to label Agnostics as "On the Fence" or "Wishy-Washy"...  Personally, I don't even see a fence!

It turns into a very "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.  I'm not one or the other - I just don't know and am not afraid to admit it.

Hope you're having a great weekend in Ole' Blighty,
JoeActor

Mister Joy

#26
Cheers for the welcome :D And congratulations, you managed to use a bit of British slang there that I wasn't even aware of until now.

I agree, it is somewhat "If you're not with us, you're against us" yes. Bit of a tribal, war-like attitude if you ask me. This thread is in itself a testimony to that. The idea of 'lending validity to religion' - assuming it's true - is stated as some sort of enemy action & let's be honest, it doesn't really effect us if there are a few more or less Christians knocking about. They aren't exactly poisonous maggot infested zombies looking to ingest the flesh of puppies, bunny rabbits and small children.

rlrose328

#27
They may not be ingesting the flesh of anything cute and cuddly but at least here in America, the Evangelical and Fundie Christians are trying to take over the country using politics and laws based on their religious belief.  Therefore, a stance must be made.  That is one of the reasons why I embrace atheism.

I don't think that if you're not with us, your against us, but the threat of a theocracy is very real right now... if not a theocratic government, at least a theocratic atmosphere and way of thinking.  There are two moms at my son's school with whom I'm friends who truly BELIEVE the 10 commandments should be made into laws, including making belief in god one of them.  "It would eliminate crime, adultery, lying, etc." like merely making them laws will eliminate the behavior.  Has worked SO well with murder, stealing, etc. because those are ALREADY against the law.

So... in my mind and in my life, there are certainly fences and I'd LOVE to see them fall, so that we all accept each other for their differences of belief... but with the fundies and gellies continuing to force their beliefs on everyone using laws (stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion being the main issues), I will stick with atheism as a point of view and (non-) belief system.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


SteveS

#28
Hello Mister Joy - I understand your views on agnosticism.

I do not agree that atheism is an "irrational institution to counteract another".  In particular, I view atheism as a rejection of an irrational institution.  Stay with me and I'll explain myself:

In its simplest definition, and in the manner in which I call myself an atheist, the word "atheist" simply means "not theist".  The only "commitment" that I'm making is that I do not believe the claims of the theist.  That's all - sum total.  I'm saying "theism is irrational, so I am not a theist.  I am an atheist;  an a-theist; a not-theist".

How can this be irrational, especially if we agree that theism is irrational?  If theism is irrational, then my only rational choice is to reject it.

I understand that the 'atheist' label does not appeal to you  -  one of my brothers calls himself agnostic for the same reason.  In particular, he thinks that the label "atheist" carries a lot of social/political baggage with it.  While this might arguably be true in practice, there is certainly no statement being made as to social or political philosophy by declaring oneself to be an atheist - one is merely declaring that they are not theists.

Now, for the part that might bug you (and joeactor, for that matter), I'm going to appeal to the word roots here:  everyone must be either a theist or an atheist, the same way all shapes must be either symmetrical or asymmetrical.  "A" and "not A" describe all possibilities; there is no third choice.

Strictly speaking, then, if an agnostic is not a theist then he is an atheist.  You do not have to commit to the statement "there is no god" to be an atheist - you merely have to say "I do not accept as true the claim that there is a god".  This could be because "god" is a meaningless word, "god" is an undefined word, you have never heard of the idea of god (in which case you can't hold a belief that god exists), you have chosen to suspend judgment on whether or not god exists (in which case you would still not accept the statement as true, merely possible, or unknown), etc.  Any reason for not accepting "god exists" as true would qualify you as an atheist.

If you reject this, then understand that the reason you are doing so is that you view an atheist as a person who asserts "I know what god is, and god does not exist", but this is not the way most atheists, and me in particular, would describe themselves.  If you choose to call yourself 'agnostic' rather than 'atheist' due to the negative inferences you feel people will make against you if you go with 'atheist', well, this is certainly something that I understand.  I am not, under these circumstances, telling you that you should change your own label (not my decision to make - yours), but I am telling you why I use the label 'atheist' for myself and would not agree that an atheist is a person who asserts "I know what god is and god does not exist".  I reject theism on the basis that god is sometimes undefined in a clear way such that I don't know what "god" means, and other times god is defined in a way that is self-contradictory and therefore must be false.  In both cases I reject the assertion of theism, so I am not a theist, so I am an a-theist.

Verstehen Sie?

Steve

Mister Joy

#29
rlrose:

I'll happily submit to that. Here, 4/5 people are atheist/agnostic, and the only fundamentalists that we have tend to get themselves arrested for trying to blow things up, so the chances of an evangelist movement taking over in Britain are pretty slim and I appreciate that I probably have less to worry about than you do. Then again, thanks to our current sycophantic & misrepresentative government, it would probably effect us quite a bit too if it were to happen over there... so I suppose, with that connection in mind, your "I'm an atheist" is equivalent to my "I'm a Tory".

I would be interested to learn more about the unorthodox methods which powerful Christians are employing in their efforts, actually. It's been mentioned to me before but all I've heard thus far is vague speculation. Any good links you could throw my way?

SteveS:

Crikey! I love a nice juicy response.

QuoteI do not agree that atheism is an "irrational institution to counteract another". In particular, I view atheism as a rejection of an irrational institution. Stay with me and I'll explain myself:

In its simplest definition, and in the manner in which I call myself an atheist, the word "atheist" simply means "not theist". The only "commitment" that I'm making is that I do not believe the claims of the theist. That's all - sum total. I'm saying "theism is irrational, so I am not a theist. I am an atheist; an a-theist; a not-theist".

How can this be irrational, especially if we agree that theism is irrational? If theism is irrational, then my only rational choice is to reject it.

I understand that the 'atheist' label does not appeal to you - one of my brothers calls himself agnostic for the same reason. In particular, he thinks that the label "atheist" carries a lot of social/political baggage with it. While this might arguably be true in practice, there is certainly no statement being made as to social or political philosophy by declaring oneself to be an atheist - one is merely declaring that they are not theists.

*Appy-polly-lodges: my incompetence when it comes to HTML (or whatever it's called) prevents me from being able to label the originator of the quote, if that matters to you at all*

I hear you & having taken into account what rlrose has said, I can see that your position is different to mine. I have no real need to reject something so awkwardly unfalsifiable (I have been an atheist and I've been in the thick of some vicious arguments over it in my time so I know what a bleedin' pain it is :lol: ) because it doesn't effect me for the most part. You, on the other hand, may be under different circumstances.

I also think that the Christian v. Atheist feud can get needlessly over the top at times; having a nasty tendency to target the wrong end of the stick. As rlrose highlighted, the real problem only comes out of one side intruding belief upon the other, whether through forceful politics or simple persuasive rhetoric. In my mind what they believe is irrelevant; it's what they do with that belief that can be the problem, the actions themselves, & that, if anything, is what the main bulk of the ongoing dilemma should be about, not whether or not God exists.

QuoteNow, for the part that might bug you (and joeactor, for that matter), I'm going to appeal to the word roots here: everyone must be either a theist or an atheist, the same way all shapes must be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. "A" and "not A" describe all possibilities; there is no third choice.

Strictly speaking, then, if an agnostic is not a theist then he is an atheist. You do not have to commit to the statement "there is no god" to be an atheist - you merely have to say "I do not accept as true the claim that there is a god". This could be because "god" is a meaningless word, "god" is an undefined word, you have never heard of the idea of god (in which case you can't hold a belief that god exists), you have chosen to suspend judgment on whether or not god exists (in which case you would still not accept the statement as true, merely possible, or unknown), etc. Any reason for not accepting "god exists" as true would qualify you as an atheist.

Doesn't bug me at all. You're talking in terms of 'old-school technicality' and words are nothing but words, after all. Also, word origins ultimately hold far less applicability than their present boundaries and distinctions anyway. Language evolves like everything else.

QuoteIf you reject this, then understand that the reason you are doing so is that you view an atheist as a person who asserts "I know what god is, and god does not exist"

If I were to reject it (and since I am agnostic, I neither accept nor reject anything :wink: ) I would indeed do it on that basis. But then it comes down to nothing but how we define certain words, as you've illustrated; you see them by their roots, I'm more modern, so if you don't think that "God does not exist" then I'd define you as an agnostic and you'd define me as an atheist. I don't really mind because I don't think it matters what words we label one another with.

For the record, though, I do believe in the possibility of a 'higher power' as an abstract, undefinable, unfathomable thing, so to speak. I just don't believe anything that's written about it is at all likely to be true (including the parts about creation, love, hate and other such anthropomorphic silliness). I just remember that the human mind is finite, reality is infinite, so ultimately people can argue for eternity over this and that but we're never going to understand anything, nobody's ever going to find any answers and if we keep it up we'll all fester away into oblivion.