I would like to make a point on theism, atheism and agnosticism. First, I would like to define the terms above. There is theism, which is, obviously the belief in a higher, unprovable power or diety. Secondly we have atheism, which can be broken into two main (though, as many opinions exist as people, as we all say) sections; weak atheism and strong atheism. The former is the belief that we have no evidence for a diety or high power so there is no reason to believe in it or give it any credibility, the standard squid-rhino-hybrid arguement comes up here; this is, from my understanding, the classic logician and science answer. The latter of the two classic atheisms is a more hard posiition. Perhaps alike to theism in the same way many have likened applied communism to fascism, strong atheism is a position that states a sureness that there is no god - like theism, there is no way to prove this. The final position is agnosticism. This is commonly used to describe a person who holds the belief that since there is no proof 'either way', one must take the position in the middle. That is to say, one must be as sure of atheism as theism to take the stance. Many have said this is the more scientific approach (though, I've yet to see a philosopher argue it is logical), and perhaps the most interestingly ridiculous. Having clearified what definitions I'm using for each terms, I would like to make a brief word on all the positions. Theism - I will hope that few will try and argue that the existence of a diety can be proven. In fact, most theists would agree that it is a matter of faith. Simply for the fact that I can't imagine anyone reading this post is a total hardline theist, I will refrain from going on much a discussion on why theism is not logical - but simply put, not proof = no logic to believe in. Weak Atheism - My position if I must choose any of these is weak atheism. To sum up the squid-rhino arguement for those who haven't heard it; would you believe in a giant purple squid-rhino hybrid living at the bottom of the ocean if you had no proof or evidence? This arguement holds to debating with agnostics as well - but I will get to that in a minute. Strong Atheism - Exactly like theism, strong atheism holds a 100% position in something that has no evidence. It is true that it is the position of the theist, not anyone else, to prove a diety's existence, but to say that one is 100% sure that a diety does not exist is, philosophically speaking, ridiculous. Agnosticism - To squid-rhino arguement I am willing to count on few people arguing agnosticism towards the existence of said squid-rhino. The reason people claim agnosticism towards religion is because they seem to give the claims of diety some credibility. I honestly cannot see why. Just like the squid-rhino, there is no proof or evidence of a theistic position - thus, like the squid-rhino, there is no reason to be "agnostic" on the debate. Like I've said before, another fault in the position is that it demands the atheism side to prove that dieties do not exist - while we all know proving a non-existant is impossible. Now, what is my point? Actually, my point has nothing to do with all this. Of all the above I said I was a weak atheist. In fact, in my logical thought, I hold no position. I said that the agnostic gives too much credibility to the theistic side. Well, I would like to rephrase that slightly; we all give too much credit to the question. I have already shown to you, or assumed you understand the reasons behind, why three of the positions stated do not contain logic. The last one, the one I claim to hold, is the only one that so far likely seems logical. Well, frankly, I now reject that. The reason I reject this is based on the nature of the question, as I said. The question, of course, being; does a deity, multiple dieties or a higher power exist? I would like to explain why I reject the question outright by using another similar question. Let me take the question; do dogs have a sense of honour and/or a soul? I expect that each of you are quite capable of and have already come to the conclusion that this question is not verifiable in any way. I would now like to refer you to the definition of "science" and "scientific" at the bottom *1. After reading these definitions it should be glaringly obvious that if a question is not possibly "verifiable" it is not a scientific question at the moment. Now, here's where we encounter some problems, and likely someone will put up debate. It is possible now to argue that if any question that is not verifiable is not scientific, that for an astromer to have asked Why does the sun burn? five hundred years ago would have made the question not scientific. I believe I take care of this problem with the adding of "not a scientific question at the moment". Perhaps one day the question of whether or not a diety exists will become scientific, perhaps the squid-rhino, too, will be the subject of science - but at this point in time it is not. Just like a belief that the Earth was round 7000 years ago would not have been a scientific belief. Again, I believe many will say that this indicates flaw in my arguement, and say that, obviously, 7000 years ago the world was indeed round and thus it is a scientific belief. However, this rebutal to my arguement would be a poor flaw in our use of language. To say that "non-scientific" is equal to "false" is a grave mistake. Look back at the dictionary definition given and you will see that all it means is "non-verifiable"; and that hardly means it is false. I cannot prove to you that at this moment French President Chirac is currently alive - however this does not make it a falsity that Chirac is alive. The second rebutal some may have to my definition of a scientific question is that it eliminates theorizing (in philosophy rings, some may say it eliminates metaphysics). I agree, it does in some cases. To theorize without any evidence is to make an unscientific claim. Some may say, like many in rebutal to Bertrand Russel's similar definitions, that my definition eliminates all possible theorizing on matters of science and nature as many theories are non-verifiable at the moment. I don't think my definition does this. In fact, I would argue that a theory is still scientific as long as the construct of the theory currently allows for it to be possible to verify. That is to say, if, while we may not have the evidence at the moment to verify or deny a theory at the moment, the construct of the theory is in such a manner that currently unheld specific evidence detectable by empirical means would verify or deny the theory, it is a scientific theory. Some may say this includes our theism question as a scientific theory. However, the construct of the theory does not actually fit the bill. I said that 'currently unheld specific evidence detectable by empirical means would verify or deny the theory' must be part of the construct of the theory. However, the theory that "theism is true" does not hold such a position. It does not depend on empirical proof. A scientific theory may be "if god was empirically proven, theism would be the logical choice". But "god exists, thus theism is true" does not depend on empirical or logical proof, and thus is not a scientific question. Around this time most will have forgetten that I'm trying to show why weak atheism is as ridiculous as any other belief. Well, allow me to change the phrasing of this a bit as well. What I would like to say is that to claim weak atheism is a logical position is as ridiculous as to claim any other of the aforementioned positions is logical. The reason for this is that no logical position can be derived from a non-scientific question. At this point, please refer to the definition of logic *2. As we all know, for a position to be logical it must be true according to the nature of logic. That is to say, it must be a scientific belief. As I've shown, a scientific answer cannot be derived from a non-scientific question. Thus we can clearly see that, the matter of theism being a non-scientific question, weak atheism, while apparently logical, is not a logical position. Please note, once again, that for something not to be a logical position is not to say it is false. Mods are probably wondering why I put this thread in Free Thoughts. Frankly, I thought about posting it in Religion, Philosophy and even General Science (as the question is one of science and definitions). Religion I decided against as it is not a religious debate. Philosophy I decided against because 99% of the philosophy debate on this site has nothing to do with definitions and this really has more to do with science than all of the philosophy debate on this forum. And General Science I decided against because it has too much religion and too little room for actual scientific debate. So, while it may quickly end up on the third page of this forum, I posted it in Free Thoughts. I posted here because I could find no where particularily appropriate. If any Mods think it's more approriate in the aforementioned forums, feel free to move it. Thank you, Tyler
I think it is logical in many (but not all) cases. Many agnostics chose this position de facto. They simply abstain from casting a ballot pending further proof. If someone were to ask you if the solution they have to a complex mathematical equation is correct, and you do not have the knowledge of how to solve that problem for yourself, the only logical and honest thing you could do would be either tell them you do not know, or tell them you do not know YET, but will give them an answer once you learn how to solve the equation for yourself. Once you learn how to solve the equation for yourself, you can then solve it. Then and ONLY then would you be qualified to tell the person if their solution agrees with the solution that YOU came to. Granted, your solution may not be correct, but you did not come to it by hazzarding a guess or by unscientific means. In MY opinion, that would be the ONLY logical route to take. I am agnostic partly (or possibly mainly, depending on when you ask me) because of the simple fact that it doesn't matter. If someone proved to me scientifically beyond doubt tomorrow (or just convinced be to believe) that God either was real or was not, it would not change my life or my bahavior significanly in any way. It would not change who I am. It would not change my moral and social beliefs. I would still be me. I will fully admit that I am curious, but it is no more than that. One of countless curisoities I have about insignificant questions.
