Atheism, theism and agnosticism

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am open to your interpretation of the linguistics and subjective perspective of what is and what isn’t a definition for atheism or theism. However I am interested in your take on the definition of deists and nihilists,
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
1660s, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing something here. What if you don't believe God exists, but you're open to evidence? You seem to have left that possibility out, when in truth it's exactly how any intelligent atheist would describe themselves. Even Dawkins, who is the bane of theism, says he'd be open to evidence, and he's the guy who calls people stupid for believing in myths.

Perhaps atheism used to be different, but today's atheist is someone who can say with certainty that the gods of men are false, and can say with near-certainty that the very concept itself is man-made, but would of course be open to evidence to the contrary. To qualify atheism with "agnostic" implies that atheism is not inherently a position arrived at by the evidence, when that's exactly what it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fifu:

 

James R,
The fourth item I think is wrong. Types of agnosticism.

And I think it is important to note that an agnostic is not a religious follower.
He pronounced on the existence of one or more gods.

 

Fair enough, but you left out probably the most common form of atheism.

Nor does a person who would positively identify with both of those claims have to call themselves an agnostic atheist. Atheist suffices.

By studying how they came to be, by watching new ones born in modern society.

I didn't say it was for everybody. I said it was true for any intelligent atheist.

Not giving a damn doesn't mean you're not open to it. But please, I'd love to be introduced to someone who came to atheism irrationally.

 

This definition is on the boundary between agnostic and atheist .
An atheist believes there is no God.
Therefore discussions are harder between teist and atheist.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

 

James, where do you see Ignosticism fitting in?

From Wiki:

 

Somewhere on the trash heap. The concept of God is defined by each religion making the claim. Expecting a detailed, scientific or even coherent definition from texts thousands of years old (or based on those texts) will only leave you disappointed. However, we're in luck, because nobody in their right mind would demand such a thing. Atheism is a reaction to the theism and based on evidence (or lack thereof). It does not need to define a deity in order to lack belief in it, nor does it need to accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition. The reason we even have a word for it is because it's a relevant proposition. No, we don't define ourselves by a lack of belief in alchemy or astrology, but neither of those practices are relevant. Religion is.

 

This is the point exactly. I don't expect a coherent definition from any source, including you. The concept of "God" is meaningless or at the very least unknowable. How can one contemplate something that is unknowable by definition? One may as well consider a square circle.

This would seem to incorporate Ignosticism within the Atheistic conceptual framework. I'm fine with that and would even concede the point, broadly speaking. I just happen to feel that one can be more precise with the nuances as opposed to sweeping every flavor into the broad generalization of "Atheism". But I'm not really hung up on labels, so have it your way.

Says you.

Agreed.

Yes, religion is in the sense of the impact it makes on society. This implies nothing about the literal significance of "God". In fact, it could be said that strong Atheism actually affirms the "God" concept because it implies that there is something comprehensible to not believe in. This is the bit I have trouble with.

 

Do you make the difference between:
1) "I believe" (close to "I know" ) there is no God.
2) "I don't believe" (close to "I don't know") there is a God.
These two statements are identical (similar)?

 

Because they claim it is knowable. Remember, we're not considering some potential thing behind the Big Bang, we're considering this thing that is being put forward as a first cause by a large group of people. That's the other point: if religion was practiced by a couple of hundred people once a year at Renfest, then atheism wouldn't be a word. But since it's practiced by billions of people and is considered when drafting policies, it must be contemplated, or the default position will be "God exists."

I think ignosticism applies well to the contemplation of a potential being "behind" the creation of the universe, but to take that position on a very real debate seems silly.

Really? You don't think religion is a relevant issue?

"God" is, for all intents and purposes, the religion that purports its existence. And while I appreciate not wanting to give credence to the concept, it's too late for that.

 

I agree with your distinction, but I think that I'd prefer to describe it a little differently.

The way I see it, atheism is about ontology, in other words, it's about about what does and doesn't exist. And agnosticism is about epistemology, about what is and isn't known. (The 'gnosis' in 'agnosticism' is Greek for 'knowledge', so 'agnosticism' literally means 'without knowledge'.)

So there seem to be four broad possibilities:

1. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can be known, and who also believes in God's existence. I guess that the majority of theists fall into this category.

2. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can't be known, but nevertheless still believes that God exists. Some religious mystics belong in this agnostic-theist category, since they believe that God totally transcends human thought, language and cognition. And pietistic theists will typically place greater emphasis on faith than on knowledge.

3. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can be known, and believes that God doesn't exist. This seems to be a classic hard-core atheist position.

4. Somebody who believes that God's existence or non-existence can't be known, and who doesn't believe in God's existence. I'd probably include myself in this agnostic-atheist category.

Of course if we really want to get technical, we can probably subdivide each of these categories into several different sub-categories. There's a non-committal 'I don't know whether or not God exists' position in-between theism and atheism. There are weak (I don't currently know) and strong (no human is likely to ever know) varieties of agnosticism. (I lean towards the strong variety there.) There are even people (I'm one of them) who would object that the word 'God' is so vague and has been used so many different ways, that it often isn't clear what it's supposed to mean or refer to.

I think that it goes a little further than that -- the agnostic isn't just demanding evidence, the agnostic is also saying that he/she doesn't possess that evidence. (And may indeed be suggesting that the needed evidence doesn't exist, even in principle.)

Right. I personally think of myself as being both an atheist and an agnostic.

True.

I think that virtually all of the 50-50 people tilt one way or another in practice. Perhaps they can't be sure in a logical/cognitive sense, but they are still going to have to choose whether or not they are going to behave as if they think that God exists. As you suggest, if they choose to behave as if God doesn't exist, they would seemingly be some variety of agnostic atheist (like me). But some people out there believe like I do that it can't be known whether or not God exists, but still choose to behave as if he does. These people may even exalt doing that as the essence of faith.

That assumes that everyone agrees on what the word 'God' means and what it's supposedly referring to. I think that different people often mean different things when they use the word. For example, I'm much more inclined to reject the personalized and mythologized Judeo-Christian and (especially) the Islamic versions of 'God', than I am to reject the more philosophical ideas of a first-cause or an ultimate ground-of-being. I'm much closer to the 50-50 non-committal position when it comes to 'the God of the philosophers'.

Yes, that's very true and important to keep in mind.

 

4, is wrong? should be theist? Believing you have evidentiary grounds is like believing itself? Doesn't qualify you to be agnostic?

What do we all make of this?:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree.
But it would be interesting to analyze to know that there is no God.
Or the belief that there is no God is similar to the absence of belief that God exists.

 

I am not sure it has been made clear that -

(1) "I do not believe that God exists"

is not the same as -

(2) "I believe that God does not exist"

Both are often used as if they are interchangeable but that is incorrect. (2) is a statement of certainty, whether the belief is based on evidence or not is another issue, but (1) is simply a statement of skepticism for the proposition that God exists. It is entirely rational to be unconvinced that a proposition is true without having to believe the proposition is false.

The usage of the terms agnostic and gnostic as prefixes for atheism and theism are perhaps technically interesting but are not in common usage and would require printed guidelines for anyone involved in their usage. Or IOW they have no real practical application.

What most will understand is -

(1) Theist - belief that a god exists. Whether based on real or perceived evidence is a separate issue but shouldn't result in subcategories of theism.
(2) Agnostic - unconvinced that a god exists or not.
(3) Atheist - belief that a god does not exist. And again whether the conviction is based on evidence or not is an additional matter.

The atheist argument that their perspective is one of an absence of theistic belief is semantic gibberish when what they really mean is that they are agnostic but want to appear more assertive about their skepticism. The argument really doesn't work well and leads to endless confusion in debates. And similarly for the arguments concerning so-called weak or strong atheism.

The prefixes attempt to place people in separate buckets, a digital concept, but in reality the range of beliefs is a sliding scale of belief strength.

E.g. Theist..........................Agnostic.........................Atheist.
E.g. 100% Theist......................0%....................100% Atheist.

Various degrees of conviction or doubt will place each person somewhere on that line.

The Brights movement have attempted to remove themselves from such a debate by asserting they hold a "naturalistic worldview". In effect it means they are pure agnostics but will not move along the line without significantly convincing empirical evidence.

For myself, I simply do not like to be labelled as each label carries with it significant baggage, i.e. presumptions and assumptions about what the label means, and more often than not those perceptions are not well informed.

In real life situations when religious topics arise I simply state I do not hold any religious beliefs and refuse to be tied to any potential labels.

 

One important thing you're missing is that the vital concept is "believe in" - not merely "believe."
Ie. "believe in" as in 'to find valuable, to appreciate, to look up to'.
This shifts the matter of belief in God from mere cognitive matters into the domain of ethics.