The term Agnostic was coined by Aldous Huxley, the author of 'Brave New World' in an attempt to express his own religious belief.
Relationship of agnosticism to theist/atheism
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Until the '90s I wasn't interested in religion enough to give myself a label regarding my attitude toward any god or gods.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Indeed. As every human does.
No human ever had need of labeling themselves as an a-unicornist until unicorn believers came along.
No human ever had need of labeling themselves as a Luddite until technology came along.
No human ever had need of labeling themselves as anti-Flying Spaghetti Monster until FSM came along.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, but all these were beliefs in described objects.
Like this:
This God is "food for thought".
I say this little prayer every time I have spaghetti for dinner! It never fails to satisfy the wish.
The biblical God is a nondescript object. I am confident that no one has really ever "heard" God's voice. We know about hallucinations.
Like this:
This God is "food for thought". I say this little prayer every time I have spaghetti for dinner! It never fails to satisfy the wish.
The biblical God is a nondescript object. I am confident that no one has really ever "heard" God's voice. We know about hallucinations.
Isn't Agnosticism more about holding a view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown in fact and probably unknowable in principle, or is really committed to holding such a belief.
Seems more that an agnostic theist would not believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant their belief, but instead would readily admit they can't support their beliefs in any way.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
There's a spectrum there, from soft agnostic to hard agnostic. A few hundreds worth of material on that issue alone if you want it.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I sometimes chuckle at the thought of a being that controls the entire universe and is interested in where I've put my dick.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Religion is a self-centered expression of hubris.
The Problem of Self-Centeredness and the Paradox of Religion
Religious sages throughout history knew that self-preoccupation was a serious problem, but something went wrong.
www.psychologytoday.com
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Of course they would. Tell other BS so what not that.
Ligurian
Registered Member
IMO, Agnosticism is not knowing yet which Gods to believe.
Ligurian
Registered Member
Faith seems to be the polar opposite of Reason.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Same as the relationship of I don't know to True/False.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Religious faith yes. Jesus himself described it as a virtue and put Thomas down for wanting to challenge it.
I am with Thomas.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I had faith in my boat and crew.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I would argue that faith in that context meant two things, faith and confidence.
Faith - that thing, that either serves us or leaves us dying on the mountain.
Faith - Experience of your boat and crew, they work, perform, are professionals. You trust them to do their god damn job or die doing it.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
One of my favorite misquotes: "In fact, it rather denotes a lack of courage." (Practical Magic, 1998)
Last edited:
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
More like the opposite of doubt.
The Obvious Point, and Other Notes
Has anyone, in the three years of this thread, stopped to ask the obvious question: Why does it matter?
It's one thing to criticize religious belief and the strange things believers pretend, but when it comes to the difference between agnosticism and atheism, why does anybody try to hold onto both, simultaneously?
If they're different things, then trying to be both at once is a strange proposition. The would-be atheist who is so uncertain is simply agnostic.
But trying to be both at once raises the obvious question: Is one trying to preserve a place within atheistic culture, or do they secretly hope for God to justify them?
Inasmuch as there's nothing wrong with being agnostic, there still remains a question of why the question is important. It's also the question that arises when we try to parse the difference between an unknown answer and a lack of answer. Why is it important to do so?
Similarly, why redefine atheism, or, at least, atheists? Think of it this way: A Christian is not "atheist" toward Islam; to be "atheist" toward particular religions is not necessarily atheism, but, rather, simply not believing in that religion. So loose a definition of atheism would result in everybody in the world being atheist, because precisely nobody believes in every god on the planet. If one is an atheist toward particular religions, but still seeks God, that is theism, at least, if not also religion.
In that way, while I think Pascal's Wager has become pabulum in recent years, Dave's question, "If you were a betting man," is important. A certain amount of trembling and grasping about can make an atheist look as if they really are hoping for a God to save, or at the very least, justify them.
That word, apparently around since 2003, seems to have very little impact; a version of the idea has been around Sciforums at least since 2011↗, at least:
I included the longer excerpt because, well, I guess it works well enough somewhere in this thread, these years later. Meanwhile, a couple↗ posts↗ from the last fifteen months or so recall and contextualize the Apathism I've described, here, for over a decade.
Depending on what people want from their atheism, "Apatheism" is either the better route for them, or else utterly insufficient and wholly inappropriate.
Speaking of 2011:
If I didn't answer you back then, Sarkus, well, I'm actually looking at my own words ("satisfied and catbird seatish", "Maybe I'm just high") and thinking I wasn't going to argue with you on that point; I'd have to figure out what all was going on in reality to tell you why I didn't affirmatively build on your point.
However, I happened to recall 2011 by looking for my earliest use of "apathetic" in this context; that might be it. And if that feels like a disclaimer, never mind, it's just something about today.
Anyway, it's thirteen years later, and your point still holds well enough.
Has anyone, in the three years of this thread, stopped to ask the obvious question: Why does it matter?
It's one thing to criticize religious belief and the strange things believers pretend, but when it comes to the difference between agnosticism and atheism, why does anybody try to hold onto both, simultaneously?
If they're different things, then trying to be both at once is a strange proposition. The would-be atheist who is so uncertain is simply agnostic.
But trying to be both at once raises the obvious question: Is one trying to preserve a place within atheistic culture, or do they secretly hope for God to justify them?
Inasmuch as there's nothing wrong with being agnostic, there still remains a question of why the question is important. It's also the question that arises when we try to parse the difference between an unknown answer and a lack of answer. Why is it important to do so?
Similarly, why redefine atheism, or, at least, atheists? Think of it this way: A Christian is not "atheist" toward Islam; to be "atheist" toward particular religions is not necessarily atheism, but, rather, simply not believing in that religion. So loose a definition of atheism would result in everybody in the world being atheist, because precisely nobody believes in every god on the planet. If one is an atheist toward particular religions, but still seeks God, that is theism, at least, if not also religion.
In that way, while I think Pascal's Wager has become pabulum in recent years, Dave's question, "If you were a betting man," is important. A certain amount of trembling and grasping about can make an atheist look as if they really are hoping for a God to save, or at the very least, justify them.
• • •
That word, apparently around since 2003, seems to have very little impact; a version of the idea has been around Sciforums at least since 2011↗, at least:
[Certain] skepticism requires, at some point, a certain degree of literacy. That is, in order to not drag ourselves down into nitpicking—unless, of course, that is the point—we have various tools to help us identify the boundaries of any given context. Who is complaining? What are they complaining about? To what does the complaint compare? We can easily start fixing the contextual coordinates of a functionally amorphous term.
Who is a Christian? By what terminology do we define it? John 3:16? Curtis Lee Laws? John Calvin? The pastor of my childhood church? The Pope?
Who is a Muslim? Again, by what terminology do we define it? Such questions have tremendous implications in the context of moral considerations of action. What if I told you there is no such thing as a Muslim suicide bomber? I mean, sure, if I tried, I could create some narrow definition that excludes suicide bombers implicitly. I have no idea how many other Muslims I would disqualify by such a standard, but that's part of my point ....
.... But, there comes a point where we can all agree on colloquial definitions. Or maybe not, since that seems to be something people spend a lot of time fighting about.
Who is an atheist? Does the label rightly include the theologically apathetic? Those who don't think a damn thing about God one way or another? Or is one obliged to declare the identity in order to be an atheist? Is the label significant of anything other than a rejection of other people's beliefs?
The current atheistic movement is entirely an anti-identification. And that term splits both ways this time. First, it is an identification not of anything internal, but against something external. Also, it seems a product of rising "anti"-myth in the late twentieth century .... Atheism is antiheroic in its own aspect. Not only does it refuse to proactively identify itself in favor of identifying against other labels, it also demands a certain weight and benefit while desperately trying to elude its obligations.
Who is a Christian? By what terminology do we define it? John 3:16? Curtis Lee Laws? John Calvin? The pastor of my childhood church? The Pope?
Who is a Muslim? Again, by what terminology do we define it? Such questions have tremendous implications in the context of moral considerations of action. What if I told you there is no such thing as a Muslim suicide bomber? I mean, sure, if I tried, I could create some narrow definition that excludes suicide bombers implicitly. I have no idea how many other Muslims I would disqualify by such a standard, but that's part of my point ....
.... But, there comes a point where we can all agree on colloquial definitions. Or maybe not, since that seems to be something people spend a lot of time fighting about.
Who is an atheist? Does the label rightly include the theologically apathetic? Those who don't think a damn thing about God one way or another? Or is one obliged to declare the identity in order to be an atheist? Is the label significant of anything other than a rejection of other people's beliefs?
The current atheistic movement is entirely an anti-identification. And that term splits both ways this time. First, it is an identification not of anything internal, but against something external. Also, it seems a product of rising "anti"-myth in the late twentieth century .... Atheism is antiheroic in its own aspect. Not only does it refuse to proactively identify itself in favor of identifying against other labels, it also demands a certain weight and benefit while desperately trying to elude its obligations.
I included the longer excerpt because, well, I guess it works well enough somewhere in this thread, these years later. Meanwhile, a couple↗ posts↗ from the last fifteen months or so recall and contextualize the Apathism I've described, here, for over a decade.
Depending on what people want from their atheism, "Apatheism" is either the better route for them, or else utterly insufficient and wholly inappropriate.
• • •
Speaking of 2011:
If I didn't answer you back then, Sarkus, well, I'm actually looking at my own words ("satisfied and catbird seatish", "Maybe I'm just high") and thinking I wasn't going to argue with you on that point; I'd have to figure out what all was going on in reality to tell you why I didn't affirmatively build on your point.
However, I happened to recall 2011 by looking for my earliest use of "apathetic" in this context; that might be it. And if that feels like a disclaimer, never mind, it's just something about today.
Anyway, it's thirteen years later, and your point still holds well enough.