The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

rejection = agnostic atheism
rejection + opposite assertion = gnostic atheism

Agnosticism is a positive claim of its own ("the existence of god is unknowable"), not the absence of a position.

And it annoys me when people use the phrase "gnostic atheism" (or "gnostic theism" apart from actual gnosticism). While the word "gnostic" has its etymology with a term meaning "know", it now has a specific, narrow meaning that does not apply to all knowledge claims. Not all theists who claim to know that God exists are "gnostic".

 

[Domibucks]

I don't know of there is a God (or gods), but most of the time I believe there may be. "Agnostic"fits me better than any other philosophical or religious term does.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Methodological naturalism is to metaphysical naturalism as "weak" atheism is to "strong" atheism". In both naturalism and atheism we will find MANY adherents who loudly promote their position as the negative and more reasonable variety while simultaneously betraying their own unreasonable positions of "strong" belief in word and action.

Actually, no. A methodological naturalist doesn't need to believe in a naturalist philosophy at all. They do need to see it as the only way we can test and measure knowledge and hypothesis.

But is this theist then a methodological naturalist simply because he believes in the scientific method?

Yes.

I've already made my point on the dubious goal of universal definitions which thus far you've dodged responding to.

Sorry...might have dodged, but not purposely. I thought your point about universal definitions was with regards to anti-theism, but might be wrong?

So far, according to your beliefs, Jesus and I are anti-theists because we have a distaste for atrocities in spite of our avowed theism and theist scientists and I are methodological naturalists because of our confidence in the scientific method in spite of the phrase's distinctly atheistic connotation.

According to Flint. My point was only that there is no universal definition of anti-theism. Your comments on universal definitions being dubious then kinda confused me, but I wasn't aware you wanted a response on something.

Ask away, I'll answer as best I can.

 

[Prophet]

Actually, no. A methodological naturalist doesn't need to believe in a naturalist philosophy at all. They do need to see it as the only way we can test and measure knowledge and hypothesis.

Yes.

As I've been frustrated in my attempts to find clear information about people who identify as methodological naturalists, I'll just take your word for this.

Sorry...might have dodged, but not purposely. I thought your point about universal definitions was with regards to anti-theism, but might be wrong?

I suspected, perhaps wrongly, that you were again trying to pull theists into a group that was dominated by atheists by means of a universal definition that would only serve to confuse.

According to Flint. My point was only that there is no universal definition of anti-theism. Your comments on universal definitions being dubious then kinda confused me, but I wasn't aware you wanted a response on something.

Ask away, I'll answer as best I can.

The accusation made by Mr. Flint upon polytheists was hypocritical. He denies the existence of their god(s) at least as much as they deny his. I do not believe a faulty accusation is solid grounds for expanding or universalizing definitions.

If I went around accusing you of murder, would there be some impetus to universalize the definition of murderer to fit you as well?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As I've been frustrated in my attempts to find clear information about people who identify as methodological naturalists, I'll just take your word for this.

Fair enough. I'm not leading you up any garden paths, but I'd be trying to independently verify if I was you as well.

I suspected, perhaps wrongly, that you were again trying to pull theists into a group that was dominated by atheists by means of a universal definition that would only serve to confuse.

Actually, my suspicion is that it's the other way around. It's unsubstantiated, but I reckon a lot of atheists would simply identify as naturalists, or philosophical naturalists if push came to shove. Methodological naturalism is more often used as a way of theists separating religious belief/allowance from scientific method.

I describe as it since I think all people bring bias to things. A theistic scientist who follows scientific method rigorously is no better or worse (generically) than an atheist scientist who does the same, in my opinion. It's a methodological approach separate to belief.

The accusation made by Mr. Flint upon polytheists was hypocritical. He denies the existence of their god(s) at least as much as they deny his. I do not believe a faulty accusation is solid grounds for expanding or universalizing definitions.

If I went around accusing you of murder, would there be some impetus to universalize the definition of murderer to fit you as well?

*chuckles*
Actually, I think you have a point. So what's your working definition of an anti-theist? Perhaps it's something we can both agree on, even if we allow for the fact that there will be others who do not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with your definition as you've stated here.

Cool...sorry it's taken me a bit to respond.

There is some confusion on my part.

Mine too. I think we're using slightly different terms of reference, and it's leading to the confusion. Let's see if I can clarify...

If i understand you correctly, you're using the term 'agnostic atheist' to include both positive (or strong) atheism AND negative (or weak) atheism.

I think our definitions of these terms are different. First off, I could very well be wrong on my terminology usage. Technicalities of language are not my strength. But for clarity, I see agnostic atheism = weak atheism = negative atheism. And gnostic atheism = strong atheism = positive atheism.

I have been trying to address the issue of weak/negative atheists making claims about God when they are not supposed to, at least by definition.
Weak atheism involves having no belief about God, that means no view, no opinion, but from my observation that is hardly sustainable once this types of atheists wants to hang out with positive atheists and argue 'against' the Christians and their God.

To my mind, that's not true at all. Weak atheism relates to the concept of proof. I am a weak atheist because I absolutely believe there is no God, but admit I cannot prove there is no God (of any type).

You and another person mentioned that you argue more against religion and fundamentalism than you do for God, but religion and God are tied together, in some cases. If you're gonna call Christians dumb for believing in such stories then you're also knocking the god that those stories pertain to, as well.

This is an important point, and I agree with you to some degree. I'll try and carefully articulate my thoughts in relation to this;

1) I'm not anti-religious, or anti-theist at all. Best man at my wedding is a practising Christian, best friend at Uni was too. Our closest current friends (ie. my wife and I) compose of an agnostic and a Christian.
But there are some religions, or religious practices that I am against. If a religion demanded females were married at 12 to older men, as a simple example. So it depends on the practice. In general, most of the religious practices I am against are more on the fundamentalist side. I'm also against non-religious fundie behaviour, for what it's worth.

2) If I am against a religious behaviour (eg. marriage at age 12) and a religion believes their God demands it, then I'm either against their God, or I'm against their religion. However, by definition, I can't be against their God. I don't believe in him. What I am against, is the human behaviour driven by the religion. I simply don't believe in the God, and would see these sort of negative outcomes of religion as a sign of human failing. Indirectly, a difference between behaviour proscribed by a religion, and the claimed properties of their God supports me speaking against their God. But I'm never LITERALLY speaking against their God, since I simply don't believe there is one. It just gets impossible to couch all language in such terms without compromising coherency.

3) I don't call Christians dumb. Never have. I attack the ball, not the man, and there are too many intelligent Christians (generally) for me to allow myself to be so lazy and loose with my thinking. But I realise you were just using that as shorthand/example, so no probs.

You did not really answer one of my original questions to you which was if you accepted naturalism (the type that rules out supernaturalism). You responded with you're a methodological naturalist. Do you accept metaphysical naturalism? This is how I've caught so called 'weak' atheists in the past because they claim to not believe in God but then they find talking donkeys and spirit beings to be absurd. That by implication shows a lack of belief in God's existence since those stories are possible in a supernatural realm. THat would mean these atheists are not the 'weak' atheists that they claim to be.

Not sure I agree with the equivalency in your argument, but it might not matter. I wouldn't describe myself as a philosophical naturalist. Not entirely sure what metaphysical naturalism is though, so you might need to give me your definition before I can respond.

Think of me as an agnostic in terms of philosophical naturalism, and you'll be close to the mark, even if that's a bit of a word fudge.

 

[gnomon]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

It's useless.

There's a direct question one can ask another. Does one possess a belief as to one believe's in a divinity or not. The agnostic answer to that is absolutely useless. Namely that the basic response that such a being may exist or not is not an answer to the question whether to one believes or not.

Add to that the logical ideals of whether or not such a being exists given the nature of evidence leaves everyone to being agnostic, on a logical level as it is expressed to other based upon evidence, leaves the question of the actual existence of such an ineffable being open to question the ideal of agnostic is such a given that declaring such is moot.

In other words. It's just a cop out. On a personal level you, as an individual, either believe or not. Declaring agnosticism is a declaration of nothing. It's meaningless. On a personal level it means you don't understand yourself.

So yes. It is wishy-washiness. If someone does not understand themselves enough to make a declarative statement as to whether or not they believe in a divinity there's not much more useful to infer from that individual upon such matters.

It's not a question of proof. It's a question of belief. By the way, this has practically nothing to do with religion.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It doesn't matter why you reject it. If you reject it, you are then neutral. If you have strong enough feelings about it to the point where you are going to be a gnostic(positive atheist as you refer to it? I've never heard this term before but rather strong or weak) atheist then you are then making a claim of your own. It's a rejection and then going a step further to make your own positive assertion. It's not the same as simply not accepting the first proposition.

rejection = agnostic atheism
rejection + opposite assertion = gnostic atheism

You are making an inaccurate distinction. I understand that there is a difference between being neutral (no belief or disbelief in God) and accepting the opposite assertion (God does NOT exist) but they aren't totally different. The only difference is that one involves accepting a claim but besides both being called atheism, both types still both involve rejecting. A gnostic or positive atheist would also not accept (reject) the theist claim, as well.

The term 'positive' and 'negative' atheism was coined by philosopher Anthony Flew in his writing called, The Presumption of Atheism. Positive atheism is the same as strong atheism. Negative atheism is the same as 'weak' atheism.

I don't know if I would call it a positive claim but I can certainly discuss a god in a debate and it's still completely compatible with my agnostic atheism. One way to do it would be to ask someone what God they believe in and then when they explain that to me, to address that God and the characteristics given to it. Essentially, they are the ones making all the claims about their God and I am just responding to it.

My point is that making claims is incompatible with weak atheism (ONE type of agnostic atheist) but not agnostic atheism, overall. Making claims or opinions about God (e.g. he is evil, etc) is NOT a 'neutral' position which is what weak/negative atheism is supposed to be. Also, agnostic atheism encompasses positive atheism and negative atheism just as long as both of these positions don't involve knowledge claims.

As for your other comments about claims, if you make some judgement about God or the story and you agree with it then that is also your claim. You are not just saying he is evil because the story says so (a story describing something doesn't mean it's calling the god evil), but rather you are making your own judgement or at least agreeing. The key here is your ACCEPTANCE and judgement which serves as a reason for not accepting the story and/or calling it false, especially when you use it in a debate against someone.

They might not be neutral in terms of their feelings for that God, depending on what type of character he is or what type of impact his followers have on our world but they are still neutral in the sense that they don't believe in it and they don't assert for a fact that it doesn't exist.

Based on this specific scenario of yours, I agree with your point. You are saying that weak/negative atheists are not completely neutral on the issue of God but rather they're just neutral in terms of his existence. Then my point would apply to those weak/negative atheists who make arguments that God is false or doesn't exist. From my experience, some of these weak atheists make claims about God's existence from time to time instead of everytime, but I guess some times they get caught up in the hardcore atheist crowd or they're really not the type of atheist they claim to be.

 

[Willamena]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

I don't have a problem with it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Cool...sorry it's taken me a bit to respond.

It's okay, I'm not in a rush : )

Mine too. I think we're using slightly different terms of reference, and it's leading to the confusion. Let's see if I can clarify...

I think our definitions of these terms are different. First off, I could very well be wrong on my terminology usage. Technicalities of language are not my strength. But for clarity, I see agnostic atheism = weak atheism = negative atheism. And gnostic atheism = strong atheism = positive atheism.

I would also include positive/strong atheism as being part of agnostic atheism, as well. Positive or strong atheism is the 'belief' that God does not exist. Gnosticism relates to 'knowledge'. The funny thing is that in practice, positive or strong atheists tend to debate as if they're gnostics no different than how some theists.

To my mind, that's not true at all. Weak atheism relates to the concept of proof. I am a weak atheist because I absolutely believe there is no God, but admit I cannot prove there is no God (of any type).

You're actually a positive or strong atheist. Weak or negative atheist have no belief about God's existence.

This is an important point, and I agree with you to some degree. I'll try and carefully articulate my thoughts in relation to this;

1) I'm not anti-religious, or anti-theist at all. Best man at my wedding is a practising Christian, best friend at Uni was too. Our closest current friends (ie. my wife and I) compose of an agnostic and a Christian.
But there are some religions, or religious practices that I am against. If a religion demanded females were married at 12 to older men, as a simple example. So it depends on the practice. In general, most of the religious practices I am against are more on the fundamentalist side. I'm also against non-religious fundie behaviour, for what it's worth.

2) If I am against a religious behaviour (eg. marriage at age 12) and a religion believes their God demands it, then I'm either against their God, or I'm against their religion. However, by definition, I can't be against their God. I don't believe in him. What I am against, is the human behaviour driven by the religion. I simply don't believe in the God, and would see these sort of negative outcomes of religion as a sign of human failing. Indirectly, a difference between behaviour proscribed by a religion, and the claimed properties of their God supports me speaking against their God. But I'm never LITERALLY speaking against their God, since I simply don't believe there is one. It just gets impossible to couch all language in such terms without compromising coherency.

3) I don't call Christians dumb. Never have. I attack the ball, not the man, and there are too many intelligent Christians (generally) for me to allow myself to be so lazy and loose with my thinking. But I realise you were just using that as shorthand/example, so no probs.

Thanks for explaining.

Not sure I agree with the equivalency in your argument, but it might not matter. I wouldn't describe myself as a philosophical naturalist. Not entirely sure what metaphysical naturalism is though, so you might need to give me your definition before I can respond.

Think of me as an agnostic in terms of philosophical naturalism, and you'll be close to the mark, even if that's a bit of a word fudge.

Metaphysical naturalism is about the nature of reality, that is all that exists is natural. There is no supernatural realm under this view. If by philosophical naturalism you're referring to what I just described then I see that your response is that you're agnostic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would also include positive/strong atheism as being part of agnostic atheism, as well. Positive or strong atheism is the 'belief' that God does not exist. Gnosticism relates to 'knowledge'. The funny thing is that in practice, positive or strong atheists tend to debate as if they're gnostics no different than how some theists.

Okay...your definition makes sense, although I don't think it's universal. For the sake of our discussion, I have no issue working to your definitions, though, since they seem consistent and understandable.

To your mind, do all propositions hold equal value until proven or disproven? Pragmatically, if not philosophically, I would say they do not. Instead, I would use historical trends, etc, to make a determination of the more likely outcome/response to a proposition.

You're actually a positive or strong atheist. Weak or negative atheist have no belief about God's existence.

By your definition, I agree, I'd be a strong atheist.

Metaphysical naturalism is about the nature of reality, that is all that exists is natural. There is no supernatural realm under this view. If by philosophical naturalism you're referring to what I just described then I see that your response is that you're agnostic.

Okay...sounds like metaphysical naturalism equates to what I was calling philosophical naturalism.
Pretty much, yeah, I'm agnostic. Not quite that simple, since I'd see naturalism as almost a self-fulfilling prophecy (ie. our definition of what is natural would develop in line with our undestanding and knowledge of the world)

 

[Prophet]

Fair enough. I'm not leading you up any garden paths, but I'd be trying to independently verify if I was you as well.

That is EXACTLY what Littlefinger would say! When I walk through the garden I'll watch my back. (Two separate HBO references in a single thought!)

Actually, my suspicion is that it's the other way around. It's unsubstantiated, but I reckon a lot of atheists would simply identify as naturalists, or philosophical naturalists if push came to shove. Methodological naturalism is more often used as a way of theists separating religious belief/allowance from scientific method.

I feel like I'm finally understanding you. I'm sorry if it's taken me some time. I don't really disagree with any of that, but I'd interject that theism isn't mutually exclusive from scientific realism, particularly deism, the view I hold. And before people say that deism is a meaningless form of God, I would argue that nearly all of history's great religious freedom fighters (Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, etc.) became such with deistic principles as guidance.

I describe as it since I think all people bring bias to things. A theistic scientist who follows scientific method rigorously is no better or worse (generically) than an atheist scientist who does the same, in my opinion. It's a methodological approach separate to belief.

I'm realizing I should really be bashing on theists' inconsistency instead on the issue of methodological naturalism. Honestly, I probably have already without knowing it.

*chuckles*
Actually, I think you have a point. So what's your working definition of an anti-theist? Perhaps it's something we can both agree on, even if we allow for the fact that there will be others who do not.

I believe an anti-theist is someone who is against belief in god(s). When they attack theists it is motivated by this principle. Atrocities or errors in reasoning made by theists are referenced, but are not the thing being attacked nor are they the impetus for the attack, but rather convenient ammunition to use against the believers and their belief in God.

 

[TheGunShoj]

You are making an inaccurate distinction. I understand that there is a difference between being neutral (no belief or disbelief in God) and accepting the opposite assertion (God does NOT exist) but they aren't totally different. The only difference is that one involves accepting a claim but besides both being called atheism, both types still both involve rejecting. A gnostic or positive atheist would also not accept (reject) the theist claim, as well.

Again. Did you read the post? That's exactly what I just said. The difference between strong and weak atheism is not a small distinction.

The term 'positive' and 'negative' atheism was coined by philosopher Anthony Flew in his writing called, The Presumption of Atheism. Positive atheism is the same as strong atheism. Negative atheism is the same as 'weak' atheism.

I understood what you meant. I'd just never heard those specific words used before.

My point is that making claims is incompatible with weak atheism (ONE type of agnostic atheist) but not agnostic atheism, overall. Making claims or opinions about God (e.g. he is evil, etc) is NOT a 'neutral' position which is what weak/negative atheism is supposed to be. Also, agnostic atheism encompasses positive atheism and negative atheism just as long as both of these positions don't involve knowledge claims.

It's not incompatible. The only thing that would be incompatible with weak atheism is a claim of knowledge about God one way or the other. Atheists can make claims about all sorts of things, unless that claim puts them in the position of asserting that there is no god or in the position of belief in God, but then they wouldn't be an atheist would they?

When we refer to a neutral position like weak atheism we are referring to neutrality in regards to belief, not feelings, emotions or opinions. if I say a god is evil (but I still don't believe in the god) then my position has not changed in the least and my belief is still neutral. My feelings about the God being evil may not be neutral but they don't effect whether I believe in him or not just like my opinion that lord Voldemort being evil does not make me believe in him. As long as I'm not making the claim that god either exists or doesn't then I'm still a weak atheist, no matter what other claims I make.

Also, agnostic atheism encompasses positive atheism and negative atheism just as long as both of these positions don't involve knowledge claims.

No it doesn't. Positive/gnostic/strong atheists do not simply lack belief of a god, they assert that there is no God. It is incompatible with agnosticism. That position would go something like this, "I don't know if there is a god, there is no god" it doesn't make sense.

Based on this specific scenario of yours, I agree with your point. You are saying that weak/negative atheists are not completely neutral on the issue of God but rather they're just neutral in terms of his existence. Then my point would apply to those weak/negative atheists who make arguments that God is false or doesn't exist. From my experience, some of these weak atheists make claims about God's existence from time to time instead of everytime, but I guess some times they get caught up in the hardcore atheist crowd or they're really not the type of atheist they claim to be.

The person you described is not a weak atheist. If someone is an atheist and they are making the assertion that god does not exist, they are by definition, a strong atheist and they hold the burden of proof at that point.

Sometimes its more effective to simply ask someone what they believe rather than what they label themselves because there is often confusion and different interpretations of labels. Also, it is possible to argue a viewpoint that you don't actually hold, playing the devils advocate if you will, like a weak atheist arguing a theistic viewpoint or a strong atheist position for arguments sake.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Again. Did you read the post? That's exactly what I just said. The difference between strong and weak atheism is not a small distinction.

So both strong atheism and weak atheism involves rejection of the theism? That's what I was saying and if you said the same then we're on the same page here.

It's not incompatible. The only thing that would be incompatible with weak atheism is a claim of knowledge about God one way or the other. Atheists can make claims about all sorts of things, unless that claim puts them in the position of asserting that there is no god or in the position of belief in God, but then they wouldn't be an atheist would they?

A claim to knowledge would not be the only thing that would be incompatible with 'weak' atheism. Asserting that no god exists can also be based on belief, and that would also rule out a person from being a weak atheist. Weak atheists neither believe nor disbelieve that god exists.

When we refer to a neutral position like weak atheism we are referring to neutrality in regards to belief, not feelings, emotions or opinions. if I say a god is evil (but I still don't believe in the god) then my position has not changed in the least and my belief is still neutral. My feelings about the God being evil may not be neutral but they don't effect whether I believe in him or not just like my opinion that lord Voldemort being evil does not make me believe in him. As long as I'm not making the claim that god either exists or doesn't then I'm still a weak atheist, no matter what other claims I make.

Yes, I agree that weak atheists are only neutral in terms of beliefs that has to do with God's existence but they can have other beliefs about God. The difficult thing is that some atheists do believe that the Bible God does not exist based on the belief that he is evil so it is hard to keep those opinions apart from conclusions about God's existence.

No it doesn't. Positive/gnostic/strong atheists do not simply lack belief of a god, they assert that there is no God. It is incompatible with agnosticism. That position would go something like this, "I don't know if there is a god, there is no god" it doesn't make sense.

Asserting that there is no God is not necessarily a knowledge claim. It can be but it can also be a claim based on belief.

 

[TheGunShoj]

So both strong atheism and weak atheism involves rejection of the theism? That's what I was saying and if you said the same then we're on the same page here.

Yes I said they both reject the Theist claim that a god exists but Strong atheists take it one step further and either accept or make their own positive claim that no god exists. It sounds like we agree on this.

A claim to knowledge would not be the only thing that would be incompatible with 'weak' atheism. Asserting that no god exists can also be based on belief, and that would also rule out a person from being a weak atheist. Weak atheists neither believe nor disbelieve that god exists.

Okay, you're technically right. But what I was trying to say is that it doesn't matter what claim an atheist makes about a god, as long as it does not directly jeopardize their position such as a knowledge or belief claim that god either does or does not exist. It sounds like we agree on this too.

Yes, I agree that weak atheists are only neutral in terms of beliefs that has to do with God's existence but they can have beliefs about God. The difficult thing is that some atheists do believe that the Bible God does not exist based on the belief that he is evil so it is hard to keep those opinions apart from conclusions about God's existence.

I don't think so. It doesn't really matter why you don't believe in God. I could disbelieve because my favorite color is red, it's not a good reason but I don't believe none the less so I would still be an atheist. Why does their reason for not believing matter? It doesn't effect their position.

Maybe some people might disbelieve because the God of the bible is evil in their opinion but I've never heard a single person give that as their reason for disbelief. I've heard people say that if the God of the bible did exist for a fact they would choose not to worship it because in their opinion it's evil but that's something different altogether.

Asserting that there is no God is not necessarily a knowledge claim. It can be but it can also be a claim based on belief.

You're right. One is a knowledge claim and one is a belief claim. That doesn't change the fact that the positions are contradictory. The example was "I don't know if a god exists" which is the agnostic half and then turning around to assert "God does not exist" That is the Strong atheist half. Do you see how the two beliefs clash?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't think so. It doesn't really matter why you don't believe in God. I could disbelieve because my favorite color is red, it's not a good reason but I don't believe none the less so I would still be an atheist. Why does their reason for not believing matter? It doesn't effect their position.

My point is about the 'type' of atheist that someone claims to be. It's also not so much about the reason behind the belief unless that belief or reason relates to God's existence, even through implication. If a weak atheist claims something about God's existence or their reasoning leads to that then they are no longer a WEAK atheist (I didn't say not an atheist at all) but rather a strong atheist.

Maybe some people might disbelieve because the God of the bible is evil in their opinion but I've never heard a single person give that as their reason for disbelief. I've heard people say that if the God of the bible did exist for a fact they would choose not to worship it because in their opinion it's evil but that's something different altogether.

I've encountered lots of atheists who don't believe the Christian God exist because of the 'problem of evil' argument. The Christian God is supposed to be ALL-good so they view the problem of evil as a logical contradiction and contradictions can't exist in reality or can't be true.

You're right. One is a knowledge claim and one is a belief claim. That doesn't change the fact that the positions are contradictory. The example was "I don't know if a god exists" which is the agnostic half and then turning around to assert "God does not exist" That is the Strong atheist half. Do you see how the two beliefs clash?

Not if you say I BELIEVE that God does not exist but I don't know that for a fact.