Agnostics don't have to be Atheists nor Theists

[AgnosticGuy]

This is a lingering issue but I will propose a few mechanisms for how someone can be an agnostic without fitting the atheist and theist label.

Cognitive reasons
A person who has conflicting or contradictory beliefs can not be said to be atheist or theist since those labels involve a 'consistent' belief about God's existence (ie God exist= theism or God does not exist = atheism). Inconsistent beliefs can arise when a person accepts that there's evidence for both sides of an issue which means that the truth of the issue is not known, or at least not fully. This could play out when a person forms a belief that God exist based on evidence/reason X (first cause argument, etc) and then later comes across another argument/reason/evidence for why God doesn't exist and the person accepts and believes it's valid. The beliefs are based on separate reasons but lead to conflicting conclusions which the agnostic is not able to reconcile just as with any other complex/unknown issue that has support for both sides.

Now some may say that in theory this can happen but is not practical. I of course would disagree with that not only because we form belief based on evidence and it's possible for there to be evidence for both sides of an issue, but I'll also proposed two other mechanisms.

One way that contradictory beliefs can exist is through mental compartmentalization. That is that we is that we tend to compartmentalize different ideas/beliefs in the brain or better way to put it:

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves. Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-minds-compartments-create-conflicting-beliefs/

Another way to have contradictory beliefs is by having 'split brain syndrome'. This can occur in those who have had a corpus calloscotomy which is surgically disconnecting the right brain from the left brain. This actually can lead to more than just contradictory beliefs but also to contradictory behaviors which is further described in my source below.
Source: http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/split-brains

I'm bringing up this issue because I feel that agnostics tend to be misunderstood and part of the problem is that many want to characterize the agnostic as being on one side or the other. Some agnostics tend to hold views or be extremely open to views on both sides so rather than frustrating yourself (certain atheists or theists), it would be better to not conclude which side I would be on based on one position that I have.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I agree.
And good luck with this.

 

[Revoltingest]

We agnostics take the big tent approach.
Anyone who remotely fits is very welcome.

 

[Augustus]

I agree.
And good luck with this.

Some people will try to forcibly convert Mr AgnosticGuy though. They will make him change his name to ImplicitAtheistGuy

 

[Jumi]

Some people will try to forcibly convert Mr AgnosticGuy though. They will make him change his name to ImplicitAtheistGuy

Forced conversion has gone through inflation recently?

 

[Laika]

This is a lingering issue but I will propose a few mechanisms for how someone can be an agnostic without fitting the atheist and theist label.

Cognitive reasons
A person who has conflicting or contradictory beliefs can not be said to be atheist or theist since those labels involve a 'consistent' belief about God's existence (ie God exist= theism or God does not exist = atheism). Inconsistent beliefs can arise when a person accepts that there's evidence for both sides of an issue which means that the truth of the issue is not known, or at least not fully. This could play out when a person forms a belief that God exist based on evidence/reason X (first cause argument, etc) and then later comes across another argument/reason/evidence for why God doesn't exist and the person accepts and believes it's valid. The beliefs are based on separate reasons but lead to conflicting conclusions which the agnostic is not able to reconcile just as with any other complex/unknown issue that has support for both sides.

Now some may say that in theory this can happen but is not practical. I of course would disagree with that not only because we form belief based on evidence and it's possible for there to be evidence for both sides of an issue, but I'll also proposed two other mechanisms.

One way that contradictory beliefs can exist is through mental compartmentalization. That is that we is that we tend to compartmentalize different ideas/beliefs in the brain or better way to put it:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-minds-compartments-create-conflicting-beliefs/

Another way to have contradictory beliefs is by having 'split brain syndrome'. This can occur in those who have had a corpus calloscotomy which is surgically disconnecting the right brain from the left brain. This actually can lead to more than just contradictory beliefs but also to contradictory behaviors which is further described in my source below.
Source: http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/split-brains

I'm bringing up this issue because I feel that agnostics tend to be misunderstood and part of the problem is that many want to characterize the agnostic as being on one side or the other. Some agnostics tend to hold views or be extremely open to views on both sides so rather than frustrating yourself (certain atheists or theists), it would be better to not conclude which side I would be on based on one position that I have.

Strong Agnosticism (the impossibility of knowledge of god's existence) is legitimately a middle position between theism and atheism. this idea occurs throughout the spectrum of beliefs such as agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists but is legitimately a position held independently in it's own right. Weak Agnosticism is simply not knowing if god exists or not and so is an "open" playing field for both sides of the argument, but I'd be surprised is there isn't overlap in practice. definitions can be neat whereas reality is much more messy.

You may also be intrested in "Cognitive Dissonance":

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

 

[Raahim]

Well how on Earth could someone be agnostic & atheist at the same time? People should really stop with oxymorons on the Internet to define themselves.
It's like saying I'm white -/& black (skin colour), you are neither white nor black, you're mulatto which is "a product" of combining black & white parents, also you either believe there is a higher power but don't have any strict edivence or rules to live by or you deny the existence. Forcing the evidence for God's existence is like forcing to write a book without words & writing tool.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well how on Earth could someone be agnostic & atheist at the same time?

Quite easily. It happens all the time.

An agnostic atheist is someone who decided that it is impossible to know whether there is a deity (hence agnostic) and at the same time does not believe there are any (therefore, atheistic).

Why do you think of those two terms as mutually incompatible?

(...) also you either believe there is a higher power but don't have any strict evidence

That person would be by definition a theist.

Possibly, but not very likely, an agnostic theist (if it turns out that said person is not fully willing to embrace that belief or does not think it can really be established either way). Agnostic theists exist, but seem to be less frequent than agnostic atheists.

or rules to live by

That would be... anarchism or having a feral nature, I guess. Not really related to matters of belief in deities.

or you deny the existence.

Or you lack the belief in said existence. Both are varieties of atheism.

Forcing the evidence for God's existence is like forcing to write a book without words & writing tool.

What are you describing here? Proselistism?

 

[LuisDantas]

About the OP: it seems to be that while agnosticsm is indeed possible and valid, it is nearly impossible to avoid also holding an opinion about whether there is any deity.

Not that such an opinion should be held as important (it should not), or be stable.

Once one learns of the existence of the concept of deity, it is arguably humanly impossible to avoid having some opinion about how likely it is to correspond to reality.

In recent years I have come to decide that Agnosticism sacrifices usefulness too much to have any practical significance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

An agnostic atheist is someone who decided that it is impossible to know whether there is a deity (hence agnostic) and at the same time does not believe there are any (therefore, atheistic).

Why do you think of those two terms as mutually incompatible?

^ This.

 

[atanu]

Quite easily. It happens all the time.

An agnostic atheist is someone who decided that it is impossible to know whether there is a deity (hence agnostic) and at the same time does not believe there are any (therefore, atheistic).

Why do you think of those two terms as mutually incompatible?

I think that the above is not correctly worded. One cannot believe in non existence of an entity that one holds to be unknowable in the first place.

However, the following position seems more coherent and plausible to me:

1. Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that the above is not correctly worded. One cannot believe in non existence of an entity that one holds to be unknowable in the first place.

I guess not. But that is not what I said. An unknowable entity would be presumed to exist, not to be of unknowable existence.

However, the following position seems more coherent and plausible to me:

1. Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

That works too.

 

[McBell]

One cannot believe in non existence of an entity that one holds to be unknowable in the first place.

Why not?

 

[atanu]

Quite easily. It happens all the time.

An agnostic atheist is someone who decided that it is impossible to know whether there is a deity (hence agnostic) and at the same time does not believe there are any (therefore, atheistic).

Why do you think of those two terms as mutually incompatible?

I think that the above is not correctly worded. One cannot believe in non existence of an entity that one holds to be unknowable in the first place.

However, the following position seems more coherent and plausible to me:

1. Agnostic-Atheist/Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief [, so I lack a belief in gods].

http://www.lackofbelief.com/

Why not?

In the position of atheistic agnosticism shown in blue, there is an explanation for absence of God belief (lack of sufficient evidence) despite emphatic acknowledgement of lack of definitive gnosis regarding presence or absence of God.

The position in Luis' statement lacks this bridging explanation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think an explanation is needed? We are, after all, talking about stances on god-beliefs. They are by nature rather arbitrary.

I have come to conclude that people may decide to alternate between theism and atheism on a whim or even a coin toss without any lack of coherence.

 

[McBell]

In the position of atheistic agnosticism shown in blue, there is an explanation for absence of God belief (lack of sufficient evidence) despite emphatic acknowledgement of lack of definitive gnosis regarding presence or absence of God.

The position in Luis' statement lacks this bridging explanation.

Sounds like you are saying that not believing something is knowable means you cannot have an opinion on it either.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

I think that the above is not correctly worded. One cannot believe in non existence of an entity that one holds to be unknowable in the first place.

I don't claim that God is unknowable but at best unknown. Also, you can have beliefs about something without having knowledge (justified belief?) of it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the agnostic does not fit atheism and theism because agnosticism is a middle ground between the two. In my example, the person doesn't fit atheism and theism because of the conflicting beliefs and agnosticism just happens to be one of many positions that a person with conflicting 'belief's can adopt. I can also call myself a 'freethinker' or an 'independent' since those labels don't involve beliefs.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I suppose that makes sense.

Agnosticism is the answer to what I know.

Atheism is the answer to what I believe.

Theism is the answer to what I hope.

 

[atanu]

Sounds like you are saying that not believing something is knowable means you cannot have an opinion on it either.

Opinion? Surely one can have opinions. In your opinion, does the "lack of belief" gel with 'presence of opinion'?

 

[atanu]

I don't claim that God is unknowable but at best unknown. Also, you can have beliefs about something without having knowledge (justified belief?) of it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the agnostic does not fit atheism and theism because agnosticism is a middle ground between the two. In my example, the person doesn't fit atheism and theism because of the conflicting beliefs and agnosticism just happens to be one of many positions that a person with conflicting 'belief's can adopt. I can also call myself a 'freethinker' or an 'independent' since those labels don't involve beliefs.

Yes. I see your point.