A modern explanation of the terms "theist", "atheist" and "agnostic"

[ольга]

But exclusion of your term doesn't "exclude religion" from the package. I don't follow why you think it would.


I'm not saying it's irrelevant; I'm just saying it's a different kettle of fish. Which is fine; it just sort of blurs the line between a primary glossary of terms and a secondary glossary of terms.

I mean, I think churches ought to be collecting one-twentieth in taxes, rather than a tithe, and that should be enforced by law - but is my personal argument about what believers ought to be doing really a top-level glossary term in the discussion at-hand? See my point?

Anyway, I have no real objection, so I am happy to concede the point.

В православной церкви нет обязательных платежей, десятин и т.п. Она живёт на добровольные пожертвования.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are no mandatory payments, tithes, etc. in the Orthodox Church. It lives on voluntary donations.

It was a spurious example, to make a point to pinball. I'm not sure any modern churches have mandatory payments. It doesn't matter.

 

[Changeling]

Glad to see things haven't changed around here!

I'm still not a theist or an atheist but I have come to appreciate the psychology of religion.

 

[James R]

I'm still not a theist or an atheist but I have come to appreciate the psychology of religion.

Don't "theist" and "atheist" cover all the possibilities? How can you not be one or the other?

In the opening post of this thread, I wrote: "A theist is a person who believes that one or more deities exist. That is, they are convinced that the claim 'One or more deities exist' is either true or very likely to be true. An atheist is a person who does not believe that one or more deities exist."

There aren't any other possibilities, as far as I can tell. Either you're convinced that God exists, or you're not convinced. In the former case, you're a theist; in the latter case you're an atheist.

 

[ольга]

Don't "theist" and "atheist" cover all the possibilities? How can you not be one or the other?

In the opening post of this thread, I wrote: "A theist is a person who believes that one or more deities exist. That is, they are convinced that the claim 'One or more deities exist' is either true or very likely to be true. An atheist is a person who does not believe that one or more deities exist."

There aren't any other possibilities, as far as I can tell. Either you're convinced that God exists, or you're not convinced. In the former case, you're a theist; in the latter case you're an atheist.

Он может быть агностиком.

 

[James R]

Olga: Please read my initial posts in this thread, on page 1.

 

[ольга]

Olga: Please read my initial posts in this thread, on page 1.

Джеймс, агностики похожи на "благоразумного Мойшу" из анекдота.

Идёт урок атеизма в советской школе. Учительница говорит детям: " Дети, сейчас все поднимайте головы к небу, и кричите - Бога нет!" Все дети выполняют её указания и кричат. Один только Мойша остаётся стоять, опустив голову. Учительница спрашивает его: "Мойша, почему ты не кричал вместе со всеми?" На что Мойша ей отвечает: "Я подумал, если там никого нет - то зачем кричать? А если всё же кто то есть - то зачем портить отношения?"

 

[DaveC426913]

Don't "theist" and "atheist" cover all the possibilities? How can you not be one or the other?

In the opening post of this thread, I wrote: "A theist is a person who believes that one or more deities exist. That is, they are convinced that the claim 'One or more deities exist' is either true or very likely to be true. An atheist is a person who does not believe that one or more deities exist."

There aren't any other possibilities, as far as I can tell. Either you're convinced that God exists, or you're not convinced. In the former case, you're a theist; in the latter case you're an atheist.

I see the logic in what you're trying to do, and I acknowledge the sentiment, but I keep going over it in my head, and it does seem like the creation of a false dichotomy. I think it sort of obfuscates understanding and dialogue.

It's kind of like saying there are two types of whole numbers: zero and not zero. Either you have a zero or you have not zero. I mean, it;s technically true, but of what use is that particular distinction? It artificially singles out one side of the equation, reduces it to an all-or-nothing choice, while expanding the other side to contain an infinitude of nuance.

I mean, isn't it just as informative to assert the opposite?

There are two types of people: there are those who believe God does not exist, and there is everyone else, who has some degree of skepticism from 'almost completely' to 'none-what-so-ever'.

 

[Changeling]

Don't "theist" and "atheist" cover all the possibilities? How can you not be one or the other?

In the opening post of this thread, I wrote: "A theist is a person who believes that one or more deities exist. That is, they are convinced that the claim 'One or more deities exist' is either true or very likely to be true. An atheist is a person who does not believe that one or more deities exist."

There aren't any other possibilities, as far as I can tell. Either you're convinced that God exists, or you're not convinced. In the former case, you're a theist; in the latter case you're an atheist.

Hi James, thanks so much for the reply! I'm glad for a chance to speculate on the topic, but I'm not married to these ideas so there's plenty of room for debate.

First of all, I don't agree that there is one flavor of theist, The Convinced. I know a lot of theists of the "Are you there God? It's me" variety, who have beliefs and act on them, but if pressed will admit that they don't really know for sure. They still regard themselves as theists, so I don't find the categories that rigid.

Secondly, I am trying to avoid belief about gods generally, either "for" or "against". Some god stories obviously do not conform to observable reality; others might. It's a big universe, I think it's very likely there have been 'godlike' entities and true god stories. Either way, I find gods to be an incredibly useful organizing principle, and so I make use of the concept often without regard to their actual existence. They could be real or not for my purposes, and it would work exactly the same.

Really, the gods are the least interesting part...as Loyal Rue says, religion is NOT about God. Theism or non-theism are beside the point.

Perhaps that makes me one or the other in your book but it's not at all useful to me to make the distinction. Thanks for speaking about it with me! I look forward to chatting with you further.

 

[C C]

[...] Secondly, I am trying to avoid belief about gods generally, either "for" or "against". Some god stories obviously do not conform to observable reality; others might. It's a big universe, I think it's very likely there have been 'godlike' entities and true god stories. Either way, I find gods to be an incredibly useful organizing principle, and so I make use of the concept often without regard to their actual existence. They could be real or not for my purposes, and it would work exactly the same.

Really, the gods are the least interesting part...as Loyal Rue says, religion is NOT about God. Theism or non-theism are beside the point.

Perhaps that makes me one or the other in your book but it's not at all useful to me to make the distinction. [...]

Yes, in the spirit of decolonization of knowledge, we[1] might resist a particular Western system of distinguishing and classifying people/things. But ultimately the bureaucrats and their bean-counters (and social science researchers) must have their measurements to plug into their demographic labels and slots.

On the bright side, though, an incoming awareness over the years of the cultural biases and interpretative presuppositions of WEIRD societies has probably led to more of the "none of the above" option boxes to checkmark on forms.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] However, I can't imagine why the indigenous tribe that I'm a tenuous one-eighth degree member of would go down that route (in this particular context). They were reputedly monotheists to begin with, and thereby easily accommodated the Christian God of the invaders European migrants.
_

 

[James R]

Dave:

I mean, isn't it just as informative to assert the opposite?

There are two types of people: there are those who believe God does not exist, and there is everyone else, who has some degree of skepticism from 'almost completely' to 'none-what-so-ever'.

Forget God for a moment. Consider a different belief. Like believing that the Loch Ness monster is real, say. Or, the belief that human beings have been to the Moon. Either you're convinced that the Loch Ness Monster is real or you aren't convinced. Either you're convinced that humans have landed people on the Moon, or you aren't.

If you're skeptical that humans have landed on the moon, then you're not convinced they have done so. Maybe you'll learn something that convinces you of the reality of the moon landings some time in the future, but right now you're just not willing to say "I believe that they actually happened." If that's where you're at, then if somebody asked you "Do you believe in the Moon landings?" you probably wouldn't say "Yes I do." You'd say "No. I'm skeptical of them. I think maybe they didn't happen. I've seen nothing that has convinced me that they actually happened, so far." You might be open minded to the possibility of something convincing you in the future, or you might not be. Either way, you're a "Moon landing atheist" for the time being.

Similarly, when a person is asked the straightforward question "Do you believe that God is real?", people who are convinced will usually say something like "Yes. I'm a Muslim. God is Great." or "I don't believe in the gods of organised religion, but I believe there is some kind of Higher Power which is equivalent to a God." People who aren't convinced with say "No. I don't believe that." Again, some who say they don't believe might also tell you other things. They might give you arguments against God's existence. They might tell you they are open minded but haven't seen any good evidence so far.

Lots of people, when asked these kinds of questions, will also spontaneously tell you what they know. They will say things like "I can't be sure that humans have landed on the Moon. I'm inclined to say that the Moon landings are a hoax." or "I don't know for sure that God exists, but I believe in him." But statements about knowledge are on a different axis to statements about belief, as I described in the opening posts to this thread.

Your suggestion here is to count everybody who is not certain that God does not exist as a theist. That would make me a theist. It would make theists of most of the people we usually call atheists (and who identify themselves as atheists). We are not starting with a blank slate here, defining terms in the absence of any historical context of how those terms have typically been used - or of how they are typically used by most people in the world today.

 

[James R]

Changeling:

Hi James, thanks so much for the reply! I'm glad for a chance to speculate on the topic, but I'm not married to these ideas so there's plenty of room for debate.

Same with me.

First of all, I don't agree that there is one flavor of theist, The Convinced. I know a lot of theists of the "Are you there God? It's me" variety, who have beliefs and act on them, but if pressed will admit that they don't really know for sure. They still regard themselves as theists, so I don't find the categories that rigid.

In my opening posts to this thread, I was careful to try to distinguish the idea of knowing there's a God from the idea of believing there is a God. Lots of people believe but do not claim to know. Lots of other people do not believe and also do not claim to know.

If somebody is praying to God and asking "Are you there, God?", then that person clearly believes that the praying is a useful exercise. It is either useful because they believe that God is real and might pop in to provide some clarity to the individual involved, or it is useful because, in the absence of an "answer" from God (or some "sign" that the person can assume is an answer from God), the person might then decide that they are now no longer convinced that God is real.

How would a person who is honestly praying to ask God to reveal itself, if it exists, describe themselves? If we were to ask them "Do you believe in God right now?", what would they say? If they were to say "Yes, I do believe in God, despite the fact that my prayers haven't yet been answered", I'd say that makes them a theist. Obviously the failure of god to answer prayers isn't a deal breaker for them. On the other hand, if they were to say "No, I can't bring myself to believe in God unless I have some sign that my prayers are answered", then I'd say that person is an atheist.

I would not necessarily expect the person themself to describe themselves in such black and white terms. People like to have an "out". They don't always want to commit (or even admit) to being on a particular "side" of a debate, especially a contentious one like the topic of God's existence. So, they'll say things like "I'm not sure if I believe in God or not. I'll wait and see if God answers my prayers." But I say that if you're not sure you believe in God, then you don't believe in God.

There are certainly lots of wishy-washy theists: the kind that say "I believe in a Higher Power, but I don't believe in any of the mainstream religions". Well, if your "higher power" is a supernatural being that has all or many of the attributes that the mainstream religions ascribe to their gods, I say welcome to the Theist club.

Secondly, I am trying to avoid belief about gods generally, either "for" or "against". Some god stories obviously do not conform to observable reality; others might. It's a big universe, I think it's very likely there have been 'godlike' entities and true god stories.

It sounds to me, then, like you are a theist in that you are convinced that gods existed at one time, even if they don't exist now.

Either way, I find gods to be an incredibly useful organizing principle, and so I make use of the concept often without regard to their actual existence. They could be real or not for my purposes, and it would work exactly the same.

What you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter to you whether gods are real. You're going to believe in them regardless, because the concept is somehow an "incredibly useful organizing principle"? I would ask: incredibly useful for organising what? But that's probably a discussion for a different thread.

A book about the history of witches through the ages might be incredibly useful for helping you organise your understanding about what people have thought about witches through the ages, for instance. But it doesn't necessarily address the question of whether any witches actually exist or existed in real life.

Really, the gods are the least interesting part...as Loyal Rue says, religion is NOT about God.

Religion without gods really reduces to things like mythology, moral philosophy, human power heirarchies, politics and other things. Religion is what you get when you add ideas about supernatural entities to all of that.

What use are the gods if they are not real - other than as opium for the masses and such?

Perhaps that makes me one or the other in your book but it's not at all useful to me to make the distinction.

I'm curious. Do you care whether the things you believe are true? Or do you only care whether they are useful to you?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Some off-topic posts have been split to a new thread titled "Mr. G's personal thread", which can be found in the About the Members subforum.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm a visual guy. Before I posted post 31, I was trying to construct a diagram with orthogonal axes.
X axis: theist; atheist
Y axis: I believe strongly; I believe weakly

I was having real trouble creating a diagram that captured the nuances of the issue, especially when I tried to place myself or others on it.

What do you suggest the axes be labeled?


I mean, you said so in the OP:

"... we have the theist/atheist distinction and another, independent, gnostic/agnostic distinction."

But I'm trying to interpret those in plain language.

For example: which of these makes more sense:
I believe god(s) exist <-> I do not believe god(s) exist
I believe god(s) exist <-> I believe god(s) do not exist

And what about the other axis? I've looked up gnosticism and agnosticism and there are many definitions that seem to have little to do with knowledge of God.

OK, you've said that in the OP as well, but it doesn't translate well to axes of the diagram. Gnostic/agnostic doesn't cut it for me, since they then need to be subsequently defined with careful wording.

 

[Changeling]

James, it's been a while since I have had the honor and pleasure of speaking in depth about this topic. I thank you.

It sounds to me, then, like you are a theist in that you are convinced that gods existed at one time, even if they don't exist now.

Only in the Arthur C. Clarke sense that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic. Perhaps we would be gods to some, lol.

What you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter to you whether gods are real. You're going to believe in them regardless, because the concept is somehow an "incredibly useful organizing principle"?

I don't have to "believe" in gods to use them as an organizing principle. As I said, I am interested in the psychology of religion, and I can see the psychological utility of the god concept. It organizes a set of human needs into a self-delivering package. It gives people the ability to channel their own wisdom in ways that support personal well-being and provide social cohesion.

Additionally, theism seems to be spontaneously occurring in large numbers of people and fairly resistant to logical persuasion, so it's extremely useful to accept that this is how some people think, and work with it instead of against it.

I would ask: incredibly useful for organising what?

Psychological phenomenon. Confirmation bias, synchronicity, placebo effect, hyperactive agency detection. Inner voice, problem solving, emotional catharsis. Meaning-making, personal narratives, anxiety-management. Resilience. Hope against insurmountable odds. This is what it's for. It's a big part of human psychology that evolved with our consciousness. That makes it a powerful lever.

Religion without gods really reduces to things like mythology, moral philosophy, human power heirarchies, politics and other things. Religion is what you get when you add ideas about supernatural entities to all of that.

That is a lot of what religion is, but you don't have to have supernatural entities, for example Buddhism often does not. The mythology, the moral philosophies, the hierarchies, the politics and the other things ARE the interesting parts of what makes religions work for personal and social needs. "The gods" are just a cipher.

What use are the gods if they are not real - other than as opium for the masses and such?

They are fun.

I'm curious. Do you care whether the things you believe are true? Or do you only care whether they are useful to you?

As I said, I try to avoid belief. I care that the things I claim are accurate. If I claim something is true, then it's something that you yourself can verify to be true, or why bother? That is one reason I specifically avoid making existential claims about gods. But I don't have to believe in them to use them for what they are for.


Again, this has been an exhilarating conversation, so thank you very much.

 

[gmilam]

As I said, I try to avoid belief. I care that the things I claim are accurate. If I claim something is true, then it's something that you yourself can verify to be true, or why bother? That is one reason I specifically avoid making existential claims about gods. But I don't have to believe in them to use them for what they are for.

Then you are an atheist. It's OK. I tried to avoid the label for years, but then I realized that it's just the way it is. There may be something out there that corresponds to a definition of god. I just haven't seen any evidence of it. As such, I do not believe in any gods - therefore - atheist. It's just how words work.

 

[Changeling]

Then you are an atheist. It's OK. I tried to avoid the label for years, but then I realized that it's just the way it is. There may be something out there that corresponds to a definition of god. I just haven't seen any evidence of it. As such, I do not believe in any gods - therefore - atheist. It's just how words work.

Tell that to my gods, lol.