There goes all my karma, and here comes the troll accusations, but I've got a genuine question...
Isn't the correct scientific view agnosticism?
I mean it boils down to whether or not there was something/someone sat around twiddling their thumbs before the big bang, with religion going with YES and atheism NO. Neither position has been proven, so from a rational, scientific standpoint isn't the jury still out? Aren't atheists just as irrational as religious people?
Please understand I'm not trying to annoy anyone or cause offence, I've just been wondering about this recently and haven't tracked down any articles yet...
edit:
O holy crap (sorry atheists...) I was hoping for a quick question, followed by a sleep, a brief stint at work, and then read the answers. And now I've got 568 comments to go through! Thanks reddit!
Posted Nov 11, 2009, 12:41 AM UTC · edited
gnostic theist: I know there is a god.
agnostic theist: I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I believe there is a god.
gnostic atheist: I know there are no gods.
agnostic atheist (most of us): I don't know whether or not there is a god, and I don't believe that there is a god.
In other words, theism/atheism is a true dichotomy. Agnosticism is not a middle ground.
EDIT: A lot of people are confused about how general these definitions are. Everyone necessarily fits into one of the four categories. You may have more specific ideas, but in every case they will be consistent with one of the general four options.
It may help to differentiate between what's commonly called weak atheism and strong atheism, and to understand that the latter is consistent with the former but not logically identical (i.e., it's more specific). There are also weak and strong versions of agnosticism, and they also move from the general to the more specific respectively.
Notice that this is perfectly consistent with the statement "I do not believe that no god exists." Apatheism ("don't know, don't care"), also called pragmatic agnosticism, is a form of weak atheism.
This statement is consistent with the first one, but it's more specific. It is not consistent with the statement "I do not believe that no god exists."
Notice again that the second statement is consistent with the first, and that the second one is more specific.
I hope that helps!
Supplementary material
This is a good explanation. There are countless people out there who don't understand that insisting that one must be one of atheist, theist, or agnostic is akin to insisting that a car is one of moving, not moving, or blue.
His question wasn't whether one must be agnostic, but whether it was the most scientific position. In practice, scientists provisionally believe theories are true, while accepting they could be proven otherwise. I believe there's no God. For me, the fact that I can't prove there's no God doesn't make me agnostic. I'm an atheist until gods and fairies burst from the sky and disprove atheism (even then, I'd probably assume I was dosed, or the "gods" were simply aliens fucking with us on some intergalactic chan raid).
You might quibble and say if I'm willing to accept the chance of disproof of atheism, then by your definition I'm an agnostic. To this, I say bull. I don't believe that the moon is a titanium space station filled with telepathic leprechauns. Yes, future evidence might help me believe in that ridiculous postulate. But I absolutely don't believe in the leprechaun hypothesis; I'm not agnostic about it. 1 chance in 10^1000^10000^100000 would be a drastically optimistic estimate of such a probability.
And so with gods.
But you yourself just pointed out the difference. The claim that the moon is filled with leprechauns is potentially physically possible to prove or disprove (even if it requires technology that doesn't exist at the moment). But the claim that God exists is inherently physically unprovable as true or false, therefore it is a questions that is 100% outside of the realm of what science can answer. Thus the most scientific opinion on the existence of God is to have no opinion about it.
Please note: Specific religious claims are entirely potentially possible to prove or disprove (even if it requires technology that doesn't exist at the moment), so you definitely can have a scientifically valid opinion on for instance whether or not Jesus' body physically was resurrected, or whether Mohammed miraculously split the moon in half. But since there isn't even a definition of what God physically is, then its presence or absence can never be tested for in any way, so the most scientific opinion about it is to not have an opinion on it either way.
I take objection to this statement, and the following is pertinent; bear with me. In a desperate attempt to unify gravity with other forces, some physicists have resorted to using the same old tricks and symmetries in an ungodly number of dimensions. Yes, using gauge invariance and employing symmetries in 4 dimensions can be elegant, and string theorists insist it's beautiful in 10, 23, or N dimensions. However, string theorists all agree that string theory isn't falsifiable. Yes, some versions of string theory could predict deviation from gravity at small length scales, but if those deviations aren't found, parameters can be tweaked in such a way to make variants of string theory compatible with absolutely any gravitational measurements or non standard model results from the LHC. Other physicists have protested that a theory that isn't falsifiable isn't science. Such a theory isn't only not right, but worse such "scientific theories are "not even wrong" The phrase not even wrong is used to derisively criticize theories that can't possibly be proven wrong (even with galaxy sized accelerators). Such "theories" are new and controversial in modern physics.
Scientists do have opinions about string theory. Some scientists, like the one who wrote the book and blog above, believe that string theory is worse than false. A theory that can be false is respectable. A theory with absolutely no basis in any kind of empirical reality, is dismissed out of hand. Some scientists, however, disagree.
As atheists, we're not questioning the fact that agnostics exist. And we're not questioning that agnostics have a right to be agnostic. Some physicists believe in versions of string theory that can't be disproved. However, we stridently disagree with the frequent agnostic position that atheism is logically untenable. We feel that it is far better a thing to entertain the possibility of moon leprechauns than to entertain the possibility of the unprovable.
Why? Because there's a reason modern gods are defined to be outside of the realm of proof or disproof. Zeus used to live on Mt. Olympus. Odin used to frequent the massive coniferous world tree by the North pole. The reason gods live today, is because people insist they can never been seen nor heard, by their own definition. If you allow the possibility of invisible whatzits, theist's arguments seem stronger to the hordes of stupid.
Good point. However, I would say that if the existence of god is outside the realm of science then the natural universe is outside the realm of religion. Also, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of what God spiritually is, so the most theistic opinion about it is to not have an opinion on which religion's God is the real God either way.
This position is called ignosticism, but I don't think it's correct. If there is truly no definition, then "God exists" is a totally meaningless statement - no different from "quuxfloom exists". Unless you are asserting such a meaningless statement, there's generally some core properties being communicated by "God exists". A definition that's as broad as possible, but which I think still covers what is generally meant would be:
This is very vague, and untestable by any conceivable means, but it's still a definition. Since it's untestable, the question comes down to "What is the a-priori probability that a being with the imagined properties above actually exists"? I believe that that probability is very low - it's an arbitrary assumption of a property (being some kind of being), with an event "caused the universe to exist", and it seems even less likely than making any other such assumption of properties like:
AFAIK science tries to explains the observable world for what it is, and makes us tools to manipulate that physical world.
Since god doesn't and haven't left any analizable proof of any impact in the physical observable world, the most scientific opinion about it is therefore to ignore just as it wouldn't exists.
Science is a method for vetting assertions for truthfulness, not a doctrine or dogma.
Where there is very low, or zero, evidence or rationale for an assertion, it is correct to assign a very low, or zero, level of truthfulness to it.
If that were not true, then there would be no correlation between evidence/rationale and truthfulness for anything.
Or is the claim that 'god' is the only thing for which evidence/rationale and truthfulness have no correlation? If that's the case, all that's happening is that 'god' is being redefined as an axiom.
Things without definition - without qualities or characteristics - do not exist.
The agnostic position is that there are limits on what can be known. While agnosticism does not prescribe exactly what cannot be known, a common interpretation (especially when it comes to religious arguments) is that it is not possible to make observations - directly or indirectly - outside of our universe.
An agnostic scientist will therefore conclude that it is possible to establish with certainty that leprechauns do or do not exist (with the described behaviour & characteristics), or that Santa Claus does not exist. However it is not possible to establish with certainty the existence or non-existence of a creator-deity that must necessarily be (or be able to be) outside the universe.
By definition, if you hold the view that you cannot provide the non-existence of a creator-deity (by virtue of the limits of knowledge caused by an inability to observe beyond the universe), then you are agnostic.
DOUBLE FACEPALM. The assertion "something exists outside the universe" is self-refuting, because by definition everything that exists is part of the Universe. That is what the word "Universe" means, you dolt. Self-refuting assertions are prima facie false -- there is no evidentiary requirement for or against an assertion that is logically contradictory, because it is -- let me repeat myself -- FAL-SE.
Is that the great insight of agnosticism? Of course there are limits on what can be "known." How brain damaged would someone need to be to think that this obvious fact needs an -ism of its own?
All that science can do is look as hard as it can and fail to find evidence of leprechauns. That does not mean that leprechauns do not exist.
... and this is the irony. There is no amount of proof or evidence that could convince many atheists God exists. It will be discounted as a delusion, technology, aliens, drugs, or any other alternative. Atheists like to think of themselves as open minded and just following the evidence, but then readily admit to dismissing any evidence, no matter what it might be: time travel, bring the dead to life, etc. that points to God. It leads me to believe these people simply don't want God to exist, when they are unwilling to accept any type of knowledge as evidence.
From a Christian standpoint, I have seen this a lot over the decades. The Bible states, and I now believe after seeing it myself, that knowledge of God is built in to every human being. It takes an effort of personal will to push it out of mind. then it just takes a life event - usually something extremely good or horrific for one of them to break down with a, "OK God, this is your chance. If you are real, prove it, speak to me, something." The problem for most people is that believing in God comes with some accountability they don't want. After all, what if God answered?
So what if I think that we can't know whether there is a god or not, I believe that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God doesn't exist, but I also believe there might be some sort of higher power or god out there?
Where does that place me?
[deleted]
Not exactly. I believe there may be a god, but I'm unsure. I hold out the possibility, but I don't actually believe there is one.
I know this is sort of nebulous, but with things like this it's really hard to make a clear-cut statement of my thoughts.
Or that a country need to be Liberal or Conservative? Racist or Not-Racist? Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, with no alternative?
Americans were raised to only see two ideological pole, and then we wonder why they do.
Wouldn't the insistence resemble more: moving, not moving, or doesn't matter.
EDIT: I acknowledge that this is really no different than clessa's analogy.
More like TRUE, FALSE or FILENOTFOUND.
Ah yes, that makes more sense. Thank you.
I did not use examples like that because the non-coaxialness of atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism is not accentuated, and we run into the same problem.
In your example, the philosophies can be broken down to: "moving, and I care", "moving, but I don't care", "not moving, and I care", and "not moving, but I don't care". But this is not immediately obvious to a lot of people.
Ah, I see where my example was wrong. Thank you.
Nope, that's the same misunderstanding the OP had. I'd go with something else binary: Moving, not moving, on road, off road.
I see my error.
[deleted]
I am sorry. Edited.
No, it doesn't. Please bother to read the very simple explanation above before making a fool of yourself.
Thank you. Edited.
You forgot: agnethists, who believe that Agnetha Fältskog is God.
EDIT: removed an indirect article and properly capitalized.
Agnewsticism?
The condition of not knowing if Spiro Agnew exists?
lol
I could really get behind warping ABBA lyrics into a FSM-esque theology. Ideally, it'd be like Elvis plus scientology plus hot swedish blondness.
Yes! For instance, "Me and I" and "Knowing Me, Knowing You" are sexy Scandinavian takes on Martin Buber's I and Thou.
I hope you aren't implying she's not.
Great Agnetha Fältskog reference.
To be clear about the term agnostic, a lot of people do intend it to mean, as you've put, "I don't know". But this is a pet peeve of mine.
agnostic = The existence of god is unknowable. There is a difference.
The word itself means "without knowledge". Just sayin.
Please don't confuse the etymology of a word with its definition. The former is what it meant hundreds or thousands of years ago; the latter is how it is most widely and clearly used today.
No, no it's not.
http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html
pretty good link. There might be a little bit of ambiguity in the paragraph coining it, but it seems to imply that he meant that it meant that the person to whom it was implied thought that the problem was 'insoluble.'
No, it doesn't. It is formed from Greek roots which mean "without" and "knowledge," but it's not a Greek word, and etymologies aren't meanings anyways. Television doesn't mean "far vision," it means a specific technological innovation dating back to the 1930s.
If you want to be pedantic about word origins (which isn't going to get you very far, regardless), it means "without gnosis," in a context in which its author referred specifically to the early Christian concept of gnosis as dealing with a personal certainty about spiritual knowledge:
That doesn't settle the question of what the word means-- meanings of words are complex cultural phenomena, grounded both in the intentions of users and the interpretations of listeners-- but, I mean, you're hella wrong.
Yes, there's a difference. A lot of people differentiate between the two as strong and weak agnosticism.
Isn't that more in line with ignosticism
That doesn't sound like agnosticism to me -- it more sounds like wilful ignoranticism and inconsistency in application of principlisms.
Unknowable until it is. Which boils down to not known. Which boils down to I don't know. I don't know because I can't know but either way, I don't know.
I've heard a lot of people say this, but I don't understand where they feel like their authority comes from.
I guess the specific reading of Huxley? Almost every dictionary ever says that it can mean 'unknown' or 'unknowable.' Why do you feel so firm?
agnostic = [anything specific, not necessarily god] is unknown
FTFY
No, unknowable. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, a philosophical stance on the limits on knowledge.
The agnostic view of "god" (as in a creator-deity) is that the existence of god is unknowable - it is unknown now and will remain unknown for all time because there are limits on knowledge (e.g. we cannot observe beyond our universe and thus cannot establish facts about a being that must necessarily be able to exist outside our universe).
The word simply means "without knowledge". It says nothing about whether or not the knowledge is knowable.
Thanks for making you pet peeves based on the recent and disputable Dawkins. Originally agnosticism was just honoring the possibility that god may exist in some form. Dawkins literally just poofed this definition up and now there is not one for this idea.
The word originally "was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860 to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge".
I don't think there's a useful distinction to be made between "rejecting all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge" and saying something is "unknowable".
"I don't know if there is a god" is a much newer definition of "agnostic".
Just curious. What if you don't believe one way or another? I neither believe there is a god, nor do I not believe there is a god. (people may call this a cop-out) The only thing I do know is that I don't know. Belief has nothing to do with my perspective on the existence of god.
You don't get it. You either have a belief or you do not. Not having a belief is not the same as believing its opposite claim. For exampe, do you believe that I have a dollar in my pocket? No. You being a rational person begin with the default lack of belief. I've provided no proof whatsoever. You also don't believe that I don't have a dollar in my pocket. You have neither of those beliefs as no evidence has been provided for either claim. That makes you agnostic regarding the existence of a dollar in my pocket, but it also makes you an a-dollarist (in the context of my pocket).
It helps to think of being convinced rather then believing. Are you convinced that I have a dollar? Are you convinced that I don't? Are you convinced that one or more gods exist? Are you convinced that no gods exist?
Good analogy; whether I have a dollar in my pocket.
I'd take it one step further after that. Ask them if you have a frafenee in you pocket. When they ask what that is, say things like "Frafenee is good.", "Frafenee will not hurt you.", "Frafenee is not your momma."
Insist that this choice you are giving them is the most important decision they will ever make, and that all morality and other values hinge on it being true or false.
That's a better analogy.
eyes glaze over Must.. Get.. Frafenee...
No, seriously, where can I get one of those. I keep hearing great things about them.
I have been thinking about this a while, and I think I have come to my own understanding that belief is not a binary, but a spectrum - although I imagine I will get downvoted for this. If I believe a storm is coming because I saw the weather, I may believe that it is 'probably' going to rain. So maybe my belief indicates a 60% chance of rain. I then go outside and it is bright an sunny, so my belief drops down to 25% chance. Storm clouds start approaching, and I revise it to 90%. My belief changed due to external knowledge. If I apply the same thing to god, I have no external knowledge, so my belief sits at exactly a 50% chance of a god existing. Being convinced about something is just a probabilistic belief that rises above a certain personal threshold.
That means then, that you assign a 50/50 percent probability for every claim for which you have no external knowledge. Don't you see the problem with that? I can say I have an invisible leprechaun in my pocket. According to you, there's a 50% chance that I'm right.
Then you are apathetic to the question.
Edit:
You say that, "the only thing [you] know is that [you] don't know". This means you likely have an absence in a belief in God whilst you remain 'undecided'. A bit like a baby having an absence of belief in God because they are unable to think about the question and decide. An absence of belief makes you an atheist.
I'm not an apathest because I care about the question, I'm a maybeist because I enjoy considering all possibilities, even if I don't firmly believe any of them.
Some would refer to us as Free Thinkers. I personally hate labels since that implies I'm supposed to be everything that label represents. Even labels like Atheism and Agnosticism require a fairly specific definition of what God is, and then there's the issue as to what defines an Atheist and an Agnostic.
I forget who said it, but here's a favourite of mine: I have no problem with God. It's his fan club I can't stand.
There is a difference between a strong atheist ("I believe there is no God") and a weak atheist ("I don't believe there is a God"). You care about the question but are unwilling to declare that there is no God, so you are not a 'Strong Atheist'.
However being a 'maybeist' implies that whilst musing over the possible existence of God (in the manner that all thinking people should), you don't actively believe in a God. That makes you a weak atheist.
I know it seems like that seems like you are being thrown in with 'the other crowd' - particular as, like hencethus said, the atheist-theist divide is a true dichotomy.
However placing you amongst weak atheists only seems like a strong measure because of the social/political etc implications. It emotionally seems like you are being associated with strong atheism, even if it specifically stated that you are a weak atheist.
Strong atheists are nutbags in the same way that gnostic theists are. Pretty much all atheists you meet will be 'weak atheists'. And you are among their ranks.
Surely there is a difference between 'absence of belief' and 'belief in absence'.
Yes, weak atheism vs strong atheism.
There certainly is. The second is a 'faith position' - you can't prove the non-existance of the non-existant.
I, and many other atheists, define atheism as a 'lack (or absence) of belief'. This is far more appropriate than a 'belief in absence'.
The American Atheist society, I believe, uses the 'lack of belief' definition, so this isn't a fringe, squirmy way of phrasing. It really is the superior way of describing the position most atheists hold - that of weak atheism.
I guess it also would be a question in how one defines god. I don't believe in an omnipresent god that watches over it's only sentient creation in the Universe here on Earth, but for me the question comes down to whether time is an infinite line, or whether there was some origin (even prior to the big bang). If there was some origin, then that would be god for me. So for me the real question on believing in god is based upon whether time is an infinite or finite construct. That is my entire philosophical perspective on god. For me, I would be an atheist if time was infinite, and a theist if time was finite.
Redefining the word "God" to mean "origin" does not answer the question of whether gods exist or not. It is nothing but a semantic trick to diffuse the question. Not to mention that you are basically painting yourself into a corner since the word "God" absolutely does not mean "origin" to almost anybody.
Well according to your beliefs, you then believe in god. Since all matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed, what we are composed of is in fact what was the origin of time and space. However, just a small fragment of it. Since matter and energy is now God, as it was here before the origin and it is the creation of all things, we can also assume god is sentient. This is because you can think and since you are part of all matter and energy, God can think.
To conclude, your ridiculous assertions mean that you believe in a sentient god. However, it is also a completely pointless assertion since this "god" has no powers or even knowledge that it is god.
*edit: hmmm... I don't think I was clear. I mean to say that to consider the blob of matter as god is ridiculous since it exhibits none of the attributes of god. Additionally it would not matter where the matter comes from, since it would still be the origins.
So you believe in the god of the gaps, it's not a very original position..
r/apathy
Then you are what is called "undecided."
But still and agnostic undecided. Also, undecided might imply that I still will make a decision, but my decision is not to have any belief or lack of belief in god.
I will once again chime in here to demonstrate the fuzziness of your statement.
"Lack of belief" is not a codephrase for "active disbelief". I'll break it down more simply for you:
Do you actively, currently, believe god/gods exist? If the answer to this is "yes", then you are theist. If the answer is ANYTHING OTHER THAN YES -- then you are an atheist.
It's as simple as that.
If you do not believe that there is a god then by the definition that I'm using you're an atheist, even if it's also true that you do not believe that there are no gods.
You'd be a weak atheist: "I do not believe a god exists."
As opposed to a strong atheist: "I believe that no gods exist."
But I neither believe nor do I not believe. I leave belief completely out of it. I just have no knowledge of whether god exists. Just like if there were an invisible dragon in my garage, I have no knowledge that it exists, so belief doesn't even enter my mind.
Then you are not a believer, you are an atheist.
You can't. Either you believe, or you do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_excluded_middle
You may not have a positive belief that god(s) do not exist, but that is separate from not believing they do.
If belief doesn't even enter your mind, then you don't believe. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It's like saying: "I am neither thinking of ice cream nor am I not thinking of ice cream. I leave thinking completely out of it." Well, no. You're not thinking of ice cream, simple as that.
*edit: Except that this is perhaps a poor example since as soon as you say that you're not thinking of ice cream, you are of course thinking of ice cream. But you get the idea.
"Theist" describes a person with a specific category of belief.
"Atheist" describes a person who is not a theist.
You have said that you do not maintain the belief that defines a theist. This makes you, by definition, an atheist. Positive belief in the non-existence of god/gods is not a requirement for atheism.
Sounds more atheist than theist to me. Are you saying that you actually entertain the possibility that an invisible dragon exists in your garage? A thought experiment. Say someone seriously asks you whether or not you think you could survive a jump off a 100 meter cliff with jagged rocks at the bottom because an invisible flying dragon might exist to save you. You have already claimed that you are ambivalent to the existence of such dragons.
Generally whether or not you believe in types of things like invisible dragons or a god, there isn't usually a direct consequence to that belief. At least not one that can't be avoided by some mental shuffling. And as such there isn't really any pressure to choose. But in my case above (or for god, an example is withholding medical treatment) there is pressure to make a decision and in most scenarios people will choose the choice that doesn't require reliance on something invisible. And those that don't have dead kids.
People employ or sort of intuitive probabilistic logic when making decisions. They asses risks, liklyhoods, benefits etc derived from the available evidence and try to make the best decision. However, this process can be short circuited if that answer has no apparent pros or cons. It is my thought that it is better and more philosophically consistent to limit these types of short circuits. How can you employ one definitive decision making process at one time and another type, or absence thereof, at another time and still consider yourself as being a consistent and reliable decision maker?
I kind of imagine your position as being on the very peak of a mountain. As long as their is no wind, then everything is fine. But as soon as it starts to blow you have to roll one way or another. So the question is this, which way would you roll?
I've had this discussion tons of times on reddit, and they don't like it when you simply leave it at "I don't know" like I do. But I agree that it seems to be the most scientific response to the existence of a god, rather than belief vs disbelief.
That makes absolutely no sense. Knowledge and belief are entirely separate things. Using your dragon garage analogy. Surely if someone were to ask you whether or not you believed such a thing existed, you'd say no.
Bam, atheism.
The fact that you don't have a belief in god means that you are an atheist. It is irrelevant whether or not that belief swings into strong atheism or not.
You do not have a belief in a deity. Period. You are an atheist.
I'm with you on this one. I don't believe one way or the other, I just don't know. Like Benjaphar said in regards to the possible dollar in his pocket; is it there? I don't know. Is it not there? I don't know. I've been told that my stance is a cop-out like you stated, but it seems to fit me better than saying I'm an atheist or a theist. I also agree with the OP's sentiments that the answer of "I don't know" is the most scientific response to the question.
It's not a cop out, realy. You are an agnostic atheist in regard to the dollar in his pocket.
You think it might be there, or not, but you do not actively believe it is there.
If you do not know what you believe, this is effectively the same as not having belief; i.e. you are an "agnostic atheist" (to use the term above), or just plain atheist in my book. Since "agnostic atheist" is what almost every self-described atheist is.
[deleted]
That violates the law of the exluded middle. Logically, it makes no sense.
To rephrase what you said:
"I do not believe there is a god and I do not not believe there is a god."
Removing the double negation:
"I do not believe there is a god and I do believe there is a god."
Which is it? It can't be both because that's a contradiction.
[deleted]
I think that's ignosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
That is, you're ignostic if you insist that nobody else knows either.
you are an atheist
It's all a matter of what is causeless.
Steady State Theorist: The Universe is Causeless
Big Bang Theories: The Big Bang is Causeless
Theist: God is Causeless
To assert that something is causeless seems unavoidable.
Big Bang theorists would more likely be of the opinion that asking what caused the big bang is a meaningless question, since time, and therefore causation, started with the big bang itself.
And a critic would rightly call that a cop-out, simply evading the causation question by redefining the word.
I wasn't defending it, just saying what Big Bang theorists would in fact say.
Having said that, how do you define "causation" in a time-independent manner?
I think you're wrong about that.
I can only speak for myself here but I believe something caused the Big Bang. I just think it was a natural phenomenon that we don't know enough about and should try to learn more about and not some supernatural God figure.
I think the world is bigger and more complex than we know but instead of saying "Durr, God did it!" I say "We need to learn more."
I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with you there, but it's not exactly the opinion of the astronomers developing the theory. At any rate, even after we identified the cause of the big bang, then we'd need to look for its cause. Say we identify a previous big crunch as the cause of the last big bang, then we have to go and look for a cause for the previous situation and it's big bang. If we assert the whole process is in steady-state and timeless (infinte big bang/big crunch cycle) then we're back asserting that the universe is causeless.
I really think asserting that something is causeless is unavoidable.
I'm pretty sure they ruled out the big bang/crunch cycle thing already.
At this point in time I think we can fairly say we don't know enough about the universe to make an informed guess about it.
My question always was when the universe was just a single incredibly tiny point...what was around it? What is past the "end" of the universe? Is space truly infinite? Really what it boils down to is we don't know. But saying that God did it and ignoring it doesn't help us find out more.
The terms "gnostic atheist" and "gnostic theist" are only used by internet atheists. Why do you consider terms useful that cut yourself off from centuries of discussion?
Strong evidence for their absence in scholarly literature: "gnostic theist", "gnostic atheist" (here both hits are found because they contain the sentence "He was labeled a mystic, gnostic, atheist, theist, materialist and a quack besides,...".
In this schema, where does: "I believe there are no gods" fit?
Is it cadging away from the gnostic atheist response?
Would you simply reduce it to "I don't believe there is a god."
Or is it a fifth position?
You can split atheism up into strong and weak atheism:
strong atheism: I believe there are no gods.
weak atheism: I don't believe there is a god.
Neither position implies knowledge, so you could split both again into agnostic and gnostic positions.
*edit: Actually, gnostic weak atheism is incoherent, but you get the idea.
I never liked "weak atheism". I always felt like it was a barb from someone who considers himself a strong atheist.
As if I didn't have the sack to make a firm commitment - a commitment which takes you dangerously close to making a declaration of faith.
Yeah, you could use hard/soft or positive/negative, but I think those have basically the same problem. Strong/weak is the most recognizable, so it's the one I used. Do you have a better suggestion?
I've always liked mild instead of weak.
It's not meant to be; unfortunately the term "weak" carries negative connotations in other areas.
It simply refers to the degree of atheism: a simple lack of belief, vs professed disbelief.
[deleted]
"I believe there are no gods."
That would be the fourth one.
Gnostic Atheist. The existence of active belief is predicated on some form of knowledge -- be it personal or empirical. You have a personal, unverified, knowledge of the non-existence of Gods. While you are open to being corrected on this, if new evidence arises, it is your current belief based on the evidence available that there is no God.
Given the nature of the negative proof, that's to be expected.
God either exists or he does not. If you believe believe there are no gods, then you don't believe there are gods. I.e. reduction.
Where can this dictionary/reference material be found from which you derived these definitions?
Wikipedia has good information. There are articles on agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.
[deleted]
"Agnostic Theism": The belief in belief in God.
false. wikipedia is not an authoritative source on theism, too many collectively wrong, or misguided, opinions.
aren't the definitions fairly self evident? Theism, belief in god; gnosticism, belief that you can know whether or not there is a god; privative 'a', the absence or lack of something.
I have entered debates concerning this "Theistic terminology" and it appears that an agnostic, though professing to neither believe nor not believe in the existence of unicorns, apparently does not believe in unicorns (Obviously, I have replaced 'unicorns' with 'God'). I don't agree with that. It's a problem with language, I suppose. My fault for bringing it up. These terms do fine for our purposes in labeling people.
That's really just your set of definitions. It's also possible to be squarely on the fence, neither theist nor atheist. I know that people in both camps love attaching labels, but these do not fully express the range of degrees of belief, and exclude many of them.
No it isn't, that is the root definitions of the words, that's as close to undiluted true meaning as you're going to get.
Just because you choose to use words that are appear to be binary opposites doesn't mean those words are the best choice to describe the situation. I don't disagree that those words describe what you think they do, but I do disagree that they have the coverage that you think they have.
In essence, you are attempting to apply the law of the excluded middle in an inappropriate setting. Just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean they believe there is no god and vice versa. Atheism and theism appear to be mutually exclusive, but there is also a neutral case which includes neither.
Mr. Hencethus has it down completely. For a visual aid, consult this.
As has been said, there is no middle ground, whether you resent the term "atheist" or not - if you don't really believe in a God (theistic or deistic) then you are an atheist.
Atheists often frame it like this: we can never prove there isn't a God, but neither is there any positive evidence of his existence. Therefore, we live our lives as if there isn't one. It's the same way we can't prove there aren't unicorns, but there's never been any proof of their existence and if someone is under the impression they exist we would be very skeptical, point out that it's very unlikely, and demand proof should you insist on their reality.
how do you distinguish more outspoken atheists from regular agnostic atheists?
I think any kind of atheist, including an agnostic atheist, can be outspoken. Just use the word outspoken like you already have.
this post should be in the description of this subreddit, just so people don't get confused about the terminology.
thank you so much! i have actually been struggling with that
Actually, the difference lies within the phrases "I believe x" and "I do not believe X".
The true scientific viewpoint is the hypothesis, "There is no god". Not "I believe there is no god", not "I do not believe in evidence of a god". It's a hypothesis that is easily falsifiable.
The scientist can also say "I do not believe there is evidence to support the existence of god". That is a very different statement from, "I believe there is no evidence to support the existence of god". The latter is an active belief based on something, the former is the default state of being; the absence of belief is not a belief itself.
[deleted]
Personally I prefer the term "antitheist" for what you describe as "gnostic atheist", and "atheist" for what you describe as "agnostic atheist".
Someone make a facebook quiz quick !!!
I love what you are saying, but most people outside Reddit still follow these definitions:
Theist: I know there is a god(s) (usually Jesus or Allah) Athiest: I know there are no gods. Agnostic: I don't know (but I personally believe..). This can be broken down into both scientific and religious reasons.
I personally think a lot of confusion arises through unclear semantics (as to what means what.) Just be aware of that when you argue with people.
hey hencethus. you're always on my internet.
Fuck yeah.
can I just add Deism. The belief that Deity(ies) created the world but do not interfere it.
In the same way I can't prove that the external world exists, but can't really do much if it doesn't, there's no real point in believing or worshipping a God that doesn't affect your life.
check out Theism Pragmatism
This looks like a space left for the..
Teapot Athiest: I don't beleive in god anymore than I beleive that there's a teapot in close orbit around the sun. Sure, there might be one there, but it's a bit silly spending any time and effort trying to prove it.
What about me? I don't know if there is a god and don't believe one way or the other. There is no word up there for me.
I was thinking about this today just to come home and find the answer. Thanks redditors!
rational agnostic atheist I don't know whether or not there is a god. However, the ridiculous shit the local religious extremists are doing and saying can not possibly be correct and their more moderate compatriots acquiesce with their silence.
I'm an agnosic towards god the same way that I am towards invisible pink unicorns. But no one calls me irrational when I say I know they don't exist.
[deleted]
Apathetic?
people that just don't give a shit: I don't really give a fuck but living around a bunch of southern dipshits means I'm pretty sure they aren't right about much of anything.
To extend your statement..
In the context of Theism
Belief is "accepting something as true without evidence". Knowledge is "accepting something as true with evidence".
Gnostic/Agnostic is about knowledge or the ability to know. Gnostic - I know or can know of god/gods/FSM. Agnostic - I do not know or am unable to know of god/gods/FSM.
Theism/Atheism is about belief.
Theist - I have a belief in god/gods/FSM/etc.
Atheist - I do not believe in god/gods/etc.
To reiterate a point made in the comments. Not having a belief does not mean you have an opposite belief.
The distinction between these is lost on most people due to a variety of reasons including how organized religious try to demonize those who do not share their beliefs.
I agree with all of the above, but with the qualifier that "I'm not sure if I believe a God exists or not" cannot be mapped to either the theist or the atheist category.
"I'm not sure if I believe a God exists or not" is incoherent if you mean your words to be interpreted literally and precisely.
If you're not sure that you believe (whatever that's suppose to mean), then you do not have positive belief. You lack belief. You do not believe.
I intend the statement to mean, "I have no belief that a God exists, but no conviction that one -- of all kinds -- does not." (Sidebar: It's not about what I believe. I'm simply trying to categorize a statement that appears to fall between the cracks. But it sounds like you're saying this stance falls into the category of weak atheism, yes?)
Yes, that's weak atheism. If you believed that no god exists then you'd be a strong atheist. That's the whole point of the distinction.
Thanks, yes that helps me understand! It's also made me a lot more confused but I'm getting used to that...
I think the OP was wondering about this from a scientific standpoint, and so, isn't there an important difference between "know" and "believe"?
i.e. "I do not know whether or not a god exists" would be "scientifically acceptable", since it is an admission of ignorance and not so much a statement of fact, and "It is impossible to know whether or not a god exists" is not so "scientifically acceptable", because we can never know this for sure? (As in, we do not know for certain that it is impossible to know if god exists.)
As a "Buddhist" (and not the "supernatural" Buddhist, so no flaming please), I'm more of the "the question is completely beside the point" type of thought, would this be akin to "apatheism"?
that's me!!
Define knowledge. (Do you agree with Plato's "justified true belief"?)
[deleted]
No, seriously. I believe the distinction between gnostic and agnostic atheists is wrong. You're the first self-described gnostic atheist I meet. I would like to find out how your views really differ from self-described agnostic atheists I've met.
[deleted]
And pragmatic agnosticism is a kind of agnostic atheism.
[deleted]
I know what it is. Apatheism would be a form of agnostic atheism. If you don't know and you don't care, then you also don't believe.
except agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. You're essentially saying not knowing is the only logical position have when discussing belief.
The not knowing is a given, but the fact remains that beliefs and knowledge are separate.
The OP's point does not stand at all. It essentially amounts to, well we don't have knowledge either way so belief is silly. Which would all be well and good except you will by default have a belief position. That default belief position is not belief. Or atheism.
[deleted]
Again. Belief is not dependent on knowledge.
I am an atheist in regards to the megatronasaurus, because I have no belief in such a thing. It doesn't matter whether I know it exists or not. I do not believe in it.
You are confusing weak and strong atheism. You are assuming belief, while related to, is dependent on knowledge. These are incorrect assumptions.
It hinges on what you believe to be the 'default' position. Just as our default belief in unicorns is set to "off", so should be our default belief in God.
Pragmatism, skepticism, open-mindedness - all good things. But our default should be to defer belief in something until we have enough evidence... which essentially is an atheist position.
[deleted]
The atheist position is entirely compatible with the opinion that you "don't know". As per hencethus's post to which you originally replied.
You are right: the default position should be "I don't know". And we should seek a definite answer. But tell me - whilst seeking this answer... should you hold an active belief in a God?
agnostic atheist (most of us):
Then why are the vast majority of posts by gnostic atheists?
They're not? Very few atheists claim to know that there are no gods, anymore than we know that there are no such things as fairies. But we don't believe in either because the evidence is scant.
For a group of people who aren't sure they sure insult / trash anyone who thinks their might be a god or who believes in one.
agnostic atheists would not feel the need to attack like so many in r/atheism do. They way you and I think they should behave isn't the way the masses behave.
Please note I have already receive multiple private messages trashing me for being religious - despite having made no such statements.
"I am not arrogant enough to think I know and I am not gullible enough to think that you do"
Keep in mind that agnostic atheism does not preclude a lack of knowledge with a positive belief in the nonexistence of any god or gods. That's actually how I would classify myself. I positively believe that there is not such a thing as a god, and I think I'm justified in that belief despite my unfortunate lack of perfect and absolute knowledge. Just like it's pretty likely that both of us believe that there are no such things as fairies, even though there's no way to know that with absolute certainty.
Not that I'm defending the use of gratuitous insults, but maybe that perspective helps.
[citation needed]
agnostic atheist would not feel the need to attack / insult those they disagree with like so many in r/atheism do.
You can mock without certainty. Especially in regards to those who do have certainty.
And I've yet to see an example of what you mention above.
Let's make some more generalizations, shall we?
You forgot those of us who have no idea whether not not there is a god, don't give a shit, and maintain a perfect middle ground view on the subject.
No I didn't. You're an agnostic atheist by the definition I gave. If you have no idea whether or not there is a god then you don't have positive believe or knowledge that there is a god. You're not a theist; therefore, you're an atheist. But theses definitions (which aren't actually original to me) are not universally accepted, so call yourself whatever you want to.
Taking the quoted text into consideration alone does not confirm any atheistic/theistic notion. In your original reply, you acknowledged that an agnostic atheist is described by:
There is an extra step in each of your choices. If one does not take the extra step, one can only be considered agnostic, but neither atheistic or theistic.
The following statements are not logically identical:
Nor are these:
These are compatible:
These are not:
This is incorrect. "I don't believe that there is a god" is perhaps more clearly stated as, "I lack an active belief that there is a god". In other words, unless you actively believe there is a god, you are an atheist by default.
This is why I dislike the term "atheist" - it forcibly classifies me in a way that is unimportant to me. It's like having a special term for a person who doesn't actively believe in flying pink unicorns. This would include the vast majority of people just on the basis that they've never even thought about it. But it would tell you nothing meaningful about what they actually DO believe.
Oh, a fellow apatheist.
[deleted]
I don't think you need to care whether or not there is a god to find the discussion interesting.
Laughs?