Slashdot Mirror

Agnosticism is to state that we cannot prove the unprovable.

But don't go around and tell me that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, because I can.

So, your faith in what is found, or not found in the "cracks" of human knowledge is superior and infallible? Do you really want to go with that answer?

Because, in reality, agnosticism is just a cop-out.

In reality, agnosticism is the scientist's answer. Agnosticism is to state that we cannot prove the unprovable. Atheism is faith no less than Theism.

Dude, do you even realize what vast, billowing clouds of Smug are coming off your post?

Seems to me this paragraph is mostly meaningless.

Seems to me you didn't grasp it. :)

It simple in fact. Theology will tell you that "time" and "space" were created. Furthermore, that "logic" and "mathematics" were created. More: that "possibility" and "causality" were created. And so on and so forth. Metaphysics will translate this into a logical hierarchy of "realities". Mathematical phenomena, for example, "includes" physics, since all physical phenomena are also mathematical relations, but isn't limited to physics, since non-physical phenomena also obey to mathematical laws. The study of these levels and how they interact with each other is called ontology, the study of being. And once you study ontology deeply enough, you see that it itself is encompassed by other non-ontological categories, such as those studied in henology, which analyzes non-dual relations (search the term on Google), of which the paragraph you didn't understood is a small overview.

That's nonsense. Are you sure you know what subsets are? Here's an example, the set of Men is a subset of the set of people. All characteristics shared by all people are also shared by Men. i.e. all people have skin, therefore all Men have skin. Now, if atheism were a subset of theism you could say the same thing: all characteristics shared by all theisms would also be shared by atheisms. The fundamental defining characteristic of a theism is the belief in god. All theists believe in god, therefore all atheists believe in god. Obviously this is not true, so atheism is not a subset of theism.

Sigh. After studying philosophy I came to the conclusion that atheists usually don't know what they're talking about. They take the term "god", think it means something like a comics superhero, only bigger, and proceed to denounce that as non-existent. To which I answer: yes, it doesn't exist. Now, since the gods of which religions talk about have nothing in common with this concept, the debunking doesn't apply.

Regarding subsets, yes, all atheists believe in god. They just call it by other names: nature, causality, mater. And under specific conditions: while mathematical relations. In other words: atheists "understand" god while immanence. Religious people add to that transcendence. Both are two sides of the same coin.

WTF are you talking about?

I give an example. Anthropology has a central methodological principle: the anthropologist must study any culture in an objective and value free way. If he adds any value judgment to his studies, he isn't being scientifically precise. And it's all good and well, except for when an anthropologist forgets he began by doing non-judgmental studies. When that happens, he takes years of his studies, look at them, and end up saying something like: "These results are a proof that all cultures are equal, one isn't better than the other." To which I answer: no, they don't. These results, which taken as a whole show that all cultures are equal, prove that you applied very well your method of not being judgmental. Regarding the value of these cultures, they say nothing, because judging the value of cultures isn't something that Anthropology does. Simply put, Anthropology has no method for that, and cannot say anything about that.

Yeah because all that crap up there was perfectly clear. Scientific terminology is plenty precise. Adding irrelevant philosophical mumbojumbo would just get in the way of getting real research done. It would be far more useful for philosophers to study science.

It takes some years for a person to understand the terminology of any field. Why do you think it would be different with Philosophy? :)

It must be really nice to not be expected to produce actual testable results.

Hehe, you inverted it. For something to be "testable", you must first know what "test" is. To test anything you need,

That's because this proposition is meaningless. If you go after the philosophical basis of the "creator" concept, you find that at some point, usually right above the Platonic Ideas level, the identity principle ceases to apply. The Good, or as Plotinus called it, the One, for instance, is the undifferentiated "sum" of all possibilities, past, present and future, including those that contradict each other, excluding everything that is logically impossible, reduced to pure simplicity (or, rather, not-hypostasized into full infinite multiplicity of finites). Thus, it "includes" conscience, lack of conscience, will, complete lack of will, existence of a creator, nonexistence of any creator etc., in such a way that they are all the same.

Seems to me this paragraph is mostly meaningless.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is simply that atheism isn't in opposition to theism. Atheism is merely a subset of theism. Take theism, remove any arbitrary number of elements from it (you choose which ones, although it's usually something you dislike in your culture), then take whatever remains, say it is all there is, and you have (an) atheism.


That's nonsense. Are you sure you know what subsets are? Here's an example, the set of Men is a subset of the set of people. All characteristics shared by all people are also shared by Men. i.e. all people have skin, therefore all Men have skin. Now, if atheism were a subset of theism you could say the same thing: all characteristics shared by all theisms would also be shared by atheisms. The fundamental defining characteristic of a theism is the belief in god. All theists believe in god, therefore all atheists believe in god. Obviously this is not true, so atheism is not a subset of theism.

But since the study of the subset doesn't include the study of anything outside it, any kind of "negation" at which it arrives of that which is outside its boundaries isn't a negation at all, but only a more detailed description of these boundaries. That's because the subset is defined by this negation, and arriving at it now and again down the line is simply expected.

WTF are you talking about?

Too bad scientists usually don't study philosophy. It would make their discourse much more precise.

Yeah because all that crap up there was perfectly clear. Scientific terminology is plenty precise. Adding irrelevant philosophical mumbojumbo would just get in the way of getting real research done. It would be far more useful for philosophers to study science.

It must be really nice to not be expected to produce actual testable results.

However, I hardly ever see an Intelligent Design advocate even consider the possibility that there is no Creator.

Lofty claims without evidence. Superman flies faster than the speed of light and reverses time, doesn't that mean he violates free will too? It's one thing to pontificate on nonsense, it's another to actually believe it.

I wouldn't call that "getting it primarily from Paul". I would call that using Paul to justify the claim. There's a lot to recommend the Calvinist position Biblically, a lot to disrecommend Calvinism ethically and a lot to disrecommend the Bible in general. One could argue that Superman could have sex if he wore a kryptonite condom. But, you still have a larger problem of unjustified beliefs. Reframing the problem with regard to causality still doesn't let you chose what you you won't choose (though, perhaps multiple universes allows for this). This entire thing does seem a lot like arguing about Superman's condoms. Sure, they could work, but you're still just assuming Superman.

"However there are still two common uses of the word: existence god is not knowable, or existence of god is not known (discussed here)."

The first sentence in the Wikipedia entry is wrong, because the "Gnostic" part of agnostic refers to Gnosticism rather than gnosis, i.e. those who claim to have knowledge about that which is mysterious. This is clear from Huxley's writings on the subject:

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant"

This confusion about the derivation of the term has led to the common misperception of what agnosticism is, because an agnostic isn't a person who doesn't know, but is someone who does not claim to have any knowledge of, or belief in, things that cannot currently be known.

N.B: I stopped reading at that first sentence, as it's hard to take any article which begins with such an obviously erroneous statement seriously.

"Theism refers to a belief in god, whereas agnosticism speaks to the question of knowledge, or the truth about a belief"

This quote from Huxley's, "Agnosticism: A Symposium" makes it quite clear that what you are saying is incorrect:

"... Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism....

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."

"I therefore maintain anyone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I believe that he does on faith" is both a theist and an agnostic."

Please see above, because one cannot be a theist and an agnostic any more than one can be an atheist and an agnostic, because agnosticism is antithetical to having any firm opinion on topics that cannot be proven or falsified.

"Please elaborate. Given the definition of agnostic in that essay, I don't see anything glaryingly contradictory when compared to what you quoted above."

This part:

"Agnosticism and gnosticism are dealing with knowledge, i.e., knowing or not knowing"

An incorrect definition of gnosticism leads to an incorrect definition of agnosticism, and the rest of the article builds its arguments around this incorrect definition. Gnosticism isn't "knowing", but claiming to have knowledge of that which is currently both unknown and unknowable; agnosticism is a negation of this, i.e. a recognition of the fact that the only reasonable and logical statement one can make about something that is both unknown and unknowable is that we don't know anything about it!

"...it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

Interesting. Thanks, I will investigate this some more. However there are still two common uses of the word: existence god is not knowable, or existence of god is not known (discussed here). So it seems as if I've got my notion of "classical agnosticism" completely backwards from how Huxley defined it compared to how it is used in modern "scientific literature in psychology and neuroscience."

The viewpoint you are describing was not therefore a part of agnosticism, so the following assertion is just plain wrong:

"In fact, it is not a contradiction to be both a theist and an agnostic, when one applies the classical definition of agnostic."

If we accept the definition of agnosticism as the one you quoted from Huxley (who is obviously authoritative), then we remove the word 'classical' from my sentence above (or leave it in, because we're using Huxley's definition which is clearly the classical one), this still seems perfectly consistent to me. Theism refers to a belief in god, whereas agnosticism speaks to the question of knowledge, or the truth about a belief. I therefore maintain anyone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I believe that he does on faith" is both a theist and an agnostic.

Unfortunately, that essay is based on a common straw man definition of agnosticism which only seems to exist among intellectually dishonest atheists who are trying to present their ideas as being the only logical ones.

Please elaborate. Given the definition of agnostic in that essay, I don't see anything glaryingly contradictory when compared to what you quoted above.

Oh the whole reality of God debate is just shot through with absurdities. Is a poem untrue because it asserts an impossibility? Is a novel a falsehood because it's truths were imagined by an author and constructed from dreams and visions?

The theism/atheism/agnosticism discussion generally relies on such a limited understanding of what religion is that it becomes simply boring.

The truth of God is the truth of poetry and imagination and emotion. God texts are literature. You are free to argue that all literature is equally a religious text, or to say that your pleasure is to elevate one particular text to a place of particular importance in your life and culture.

Either way, the religious position is no different at root from the theater or literature... it is a collective decision to take a literature or book very seriously and to live out a version of the truths found therein.

Broadway theater is a place of a dozen separate religions, each experienced for a few hours, and each lasting as long as the show runs.

Some people prefer the silly truths, other people prefer the deeper truths, from within a given literature (eg. fundamentalist Christians and thoughtful Christians.) But the argument against religion always comes down to an argument against literature, poetry and imagination, and to a claim that the scientific method produces "truths" while literature poetry and imagination produce "lesser truths" or "falsehoods."

That in itself is a failure of the imagination, and proves that people haven't had very good liberal arts educations.

Scientific atheists waste their time trying to prove that poems are untrue, or that if they are "true", they are not true in the sense that really matters. Well excuse me but poetry might be even truer than physics, and it is certainly true in a different way from physics, and that is all that religion is and has ever been. Lived poetry. People choosing to live out a particular set of loved and communally shared poems.

Within the poetic religious domain there is plenty of room for argument about beauty and ethics and which poems produce more happiness for more people.

But just forget please about silly arguments about how poetry isn't as true as science because that is all that most religion versus science, theism versus atheism, debates come down to in my experience.

Peace.

Agnosticism and atheism are orthogonal categories. I am both. I currently lack a belief in invisible friends in the sky (atheist) and am also unwilling to assert that there are not one or more invisible friends in the sky (agnostic).

I simply find it improbable to the point that it's not worth considering in my philosophy or daily life.

The religious wish to claim that everyone is slightly religious by making the definition of atheist as indefensible as their own belief system (thereby requiring it's own kind of "faith") and then claiming agnostics as potential believers. I intend to resist this rhetorical game by using the definition that makes the most etymological sense: atheist - a-theist - lack of theism - lack of belief in deities.

An earlier poster provided a better term for "hard atheism" -- antitheism. I think I'm going to begin using that as a retort to those who claim I'm not an atheist or who would pretend that atheism is "anti-Christianity".

Regards,
Ross

Wrong. Atheism is the lack of theism. A-theist. Non-theist.

Perhaps the word the GP was looking for is Antitheist: A disbeliever in the existence of God. (Of course, the term "disbeliever" needs to be nailed down, as I 'disbelieve' in the existence of God in the common sense, but not in the absolute sense.) Of course, Atheism is really a spectrum, in opposition to the GGGP's assertion that Atheists are just as nutty as he is. But then, Theism is really quite a spectrum, where probably the majority of Westerners who claim to be Christians are really Agnostics.

Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.

Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:

wordnet: atheism

# S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

# S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.

It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."

Agnosticism is more properly defined as the belief that god is unknowable, or that the question of whether or not there is a god is not a proper question. Sort of a "we can't know so don't ask" position.

The definitions are quite often mangled such as you have done. Start hanging around on Pharyngula.org to get a better idea of what atheists are all about.

completely misunderstanding libertarianism

1. Die of starvation - which I assume you will willingly welcome, because asking for government assistance will oppress all those healthy, rich people. Of course, you could try to make yourself useful via voluntary trade - good luck with that, I hear there's great demand for paraplegics with learning difficulties :-);
   
2. Confess that you adhere to your philosophy only because it's convenient for your original set of circumstances. Then we can both agree that you support libertarianism because it profits you (to the detriment of others), not because it's some moral ideal.
   

Way to miss the point. And you represent science eh? No wonder we are losing in the classroom. A little less vehemence, a little more comprehension. You don't believe, got it. You don't like religion, check. I am a silly liar, right. Got anything else you want to get off your chest? Oh, and for your 'What has God done' diatribe, wake me when the Quadratic Formula inspires the greatest music, art, and poetry in the history of civilization (cue the Crusades rant here - 'But they killed in the name of GOOOoooooOOOD!'). Go back and read what I posted with your blinders off. What i was trying to do was show why Joe Six pack is making the choices he is making. It is your very attitude that is driving the masses out of the lab and into the church because you are making a church out of the lab! I see God in everything, you see him in nothing, that is fine. So why do you feel the need to 'save' me by proselytizing, or was your point just to insult and demean? Read the last part again, science and theism are not a continuum no matter how much you and the religious nutters want to make it one.

Sera

At the same time though science asks for as much if not more faith. Not of itself you are correct, but of the unwashed masses. Science as a whole trumps out their giant PhD's and says "You may not have the intelligence we do, but what I speak is 'The Truth'. Believe. (to which the Angry Anti-Religion folk add) Oh, and put down that book of lies you half wit"

Now certainly, I am never going to get the education to really understand what goes on at CERN. But I have the belief that they know what they are doing and not going to anything stupid, and that they are pushing the bounds of human understanding. Read that again. Yes, I have "faith" in them, though I have never seen them, don't know how they do what they do, and I trust they are doing good. Sounds like the roots of most religions to me. 'But wait', you say, 'others know, their are others that can explain, I can draw a diagrams, here is a binder full'. Priests, prophets and a bible. How honest scientists ever got goaded into this debate by the rabid religious and the rabid Atheist/Anti-Religion crowd I will never know.

This is the dichotomy that has been thrust upon science as a whole. Remember the quote about no sufficiently high enough technology and magic? This is the beginning of that. The unwashed masses have a choice of what are in their eyes two priesthoods, They are going toward the one that they feel will take care of them. Remember, baby monkeys will stave on a terry cloth 'Mommy' rather then feed on a cold wire one. Most of what I see is some version of "Your Sky Man is stupid, and you are brain damaged if you believe in him" Yeah, that's going to change their minds about science. Theism |-----| Atheism is a continuum, Theism |-----| Science is not.

Sera

Atheism is as much a belief as theism - it's a belief that the person in question *knows* the truth about the existence of God or Gods.

An atheist is making a positive statement that they do not believe in God or Gods, period. Atheism is as much a belief as theism - it's a belief that the person in question *knows* the truth about the existence of God or Gods.

Atheism covers a whole multitude of disbelief - from actively saying that someone believes there is no god, to saying they have no belief in god. Note that this isn't the same thing. It's the difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I have no belief in god". Many have tried to get around this by coining new terms; things like "anti-theist" or your cutesy "apatheist", etc. The truth is, most self-proclaimed atheists have very little faith, or proportion their beliefs to the evidence. It makes sense when you break the word down, too: "theist" = believes in god; add the greek prefix "a" to "theist" to negate it = no belief in god. Therefore, there is no "positive statement"; there is no belief to challenge.

As for agnostics, everyone is an agnostic; no one knows whether god exists or not.

Actually, you're wrong about what agnosticism and atheism are.

Theism is the belief in God. Atheism (A + Theism, making it an opposite in English) is a catch-all term that described everyone who does not have a firm belief in the existence of God, including those doubtful of God's existence. (I use capital G, but it could apply to gods in general.)

Agnosticism is the idea that one cannot prove whether god exists or not. This is an opposite to gnosticism.