metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
:clap
And it ain't "wishy-washy" as apparently someone suggested. Saying "I don't know" when there's no way of knowing with any certainly of being correct is not an act of ignorance, nor is it "wishy-washy".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
:clap
And it ain't "wishy-washy" as apparently someone suggested. Saying "I don't know" when there's no way of knowing with any certainly of being correct is not an act of ignorance, nor is it "wishy-washy".
brokensymmetry
ground state
I think it implies a deal of uncertainty in your position. You can be agnostic about anything, at least in the way I use the term.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
agreed
Last edited:
HexBomb
Member
I think that depends on who you're asking and what they consider proof. If you do the same thing two hundred times and get the same result, is it 'faith' to think when you do something for the two-hundred-and-first time that it will work? Or is it reasonable to take the two-hundred prior times as 'proof?'
Granted, that is something completely separate from scientific proof, which I think is what you are referring to.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
True. In general I was referring to scientific proof. However, even on a common sense level: while praying 200 times without having Morgan Freeman appear before you and talking about the responsibility inherent in omnipotence....may make one question the very existence of Morgan Freeman
or God .........I think everyone from the pope, to Steven Hawkings, to the basement janitor of a Hong Kong brothel should be able to recognize that their puny mote of hopes and desires is (nearly) as naught to an infinite omnipresence. And any lack of response to their prayers/wishes/hopes does not preclude the existence of an infinite divine.
Similarly, 200 perfect sunrises (and good odds on another one tomorrow) should not act as proof of God's existence for anyone, anywhere.
That said, most humans are childishly simplistic and the latter seems sufficient for billions of people across the globe and throughout human history.
I think it's important to remember that there are two different understandings of the word "agnostic".
1. the "Popular" definition: Someone who's on the fence regarding their belief in God. God could exist or not exist. They haven't decided. I call it the "popular" definition because this is how it's normally used in RL.
2. the "Technical" definition: Someone who believes that it is impossible to know with certainty that god exists or not. This person could be a theist or an atheist or an agnostic of the first sense. I call this the "technical" definition because this what it means in philosophy.
I think both senses are useful as shorthand descriptors. I spent some time as an agnostic in the first sense before I ultimately realized that I didn't believe that gods existed anymore, and I was just an agnostic of the second sense.
1. the "Popular" definition: Someone who's on the fence regarding their belief in God. God could exist or not exist. They haven't decided. I call it the "popular" definition because this is how it's normally used in RL.
2. the "Technical" definition: Someone who believes that it is impossible to know with certainty that god exists or not. This person could be a theist or an atheist or an agnostic of the first sense. I call this the "technical" definition because this what it means in philosophy.
I think both senses are useful as shorthand descriptors. I spent some time as an agnostic in the first sense before I ultimately realized that I didn't believe that gods existed anymore, and I was just an agnostic of the second sense.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Right, so agnosticism needs to be explained before discussion, basically.
HexBomb
Member
And isn't that, in and of itself, pigeonholding an idea that a god must be omnipresent or omnipotent?
But would it not be illogical to think that if someone did a spell 200 times and each time got the same result, to be proof that magic exists, if not god? Or if not magic, than at least that spell? What about ghosts or spirits? Is someone still agnostic after seeing them 200 times? You said lack of sightings of fairies was proof of their lack of existence, but just because you've never seen them, does that mean someone who has is still agnostic about their existence?
Or, as the word suggests, is agnosticism a lack of knowledge, and once the burden of proof, scientific or personal is met, is the person no longer agnostic? Is it still a faith?
TheGunShoj
Active Member
To me it does. When someone says they are agnostic, I feel like they are only telling me a part of what their beliefs are. I myself an am agnostic atheist because I don't claim to know for certain that there is no god as I have no way to disprove it but I am, so far, unconvinced.
Gnostic and agnostic = knowledge. Do you know if there is a god or not?
Theist and atheist = belief. Do you believe that there is a god or not?
The two terms are not mutually exclusive. As far as I understand, every theist or atheist is also either gnostic or agnostic.
Some people seem to think that saying "I don't know if there is a god" makes you agnostic, but that makes you atheist. If your ask yourself "Do I believe in a god?" and your answer is anything other than "yes" then you are an atheist, even if it is "I don't know".
I think a lot of people who identify as such are simply ignorant of what the terms actually mean. I'm sure that many agnostics also choose not to identify as atheist because of the baggage that comes along with the term as some others have said earlier in the thread.
In my opinion, all theists are agnostics, or at least all of those who hold their beliefs based on faith (which is most of them). You cannot know anything based on faith since by definition it is belief without evidence. Faith is simply a guess, thus they do not know, they only claim to know. Maybe that still categorizes them as gnostic but it seems arbitrary to me.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The term 'disbelief' seems to be used in the definition of atheism, also 'non-belief'.
If you're correct then it's confusing.
HexBomb
Member
I disagree with this entire premise. You're completely discounting the fact that there is no solid definition for god. What about someone who neither believes nor disbelieves, or believes as much as they disbelieve. You are saying it is impossible to have a neutral position. You're also saying you get to define someone else's belief for them. You're saying that "I don't know,' equals atheism, but why? That suggests that "I don't know is inherently negative. It's not.
And if it is yes and no?
TheGunShoj
Active Member
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you referring to this statement that I made?
I didn't mean that atheism is equal to belief. I meant that the terms atheism and theism address belief, not knowledge, that's what gnostic and agnostic are for. I can see that the way I typed it may be confusing. If you were referring to some other part of my post, let me know and I'll try to clear it up.
TheGunShoj
Active Member
How can an answer to a yes or no question be yes and no?
If your answer is I don't know/maybe then that means you have not been convinced to make your answer a yes. If your answer is not yes, then you do not believe, even if you may be on the fence. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. It's a simple logical conclusion.
It can be neither yes nor no, if it's, "I don't know." It's a declaration of ignorance.
Saying, "No," though, you have declared an answer to the question. "I don't know," isn't the same as, "No." It's not an answer.
HexBomb
Member
Because the question has multiple definitions. My very first thread on this board was trying to nail down a definition of what it would take for something to be a 'god.' Guess what? There was no final answer. If you don't have a concrete definition, then you can't have a concrete answer. "Is a frubal worth five dollars, yes or no?" You can't answer as a yes or no, because there is no frubal currency exchange rate. The parameters of the question are not defined.
Or what about again, you believe as much as you disbelieve? I have a very good friend, who will tell you she has as much evidence to believe as much as she does to disbelieve, therefore, she does both.
Humans have a great capacity for holding two contradictory beliefs and sustaining cognitive dissonance. At great detriment, eventually, but there are still people who do it.
Schrödinger's cat. Is the cat alive or dead before you open the box? You're saying to make the call before the box is open.
"Do you believe..." is never just a yes/no question because it's an epistemic question.
If I hold up a (something) in my hand and ask, "Do you believe in this thing?" well, here I am on this end of the Internets, I could be holding up something or I could be holding up nothing, or I could be delusional and think I'm holding up something. In any case, you don't know what the truth of the matter is. If it were something real, you do believe in it; if it were not, you don't.
To answer "Yes" or "No" is to take a stance on what I have in my hand. But if you don't know, just say so.
If I hold up a (something) in my hand and ask, "Do you believe in this thing?" well, here I am on this end of the Internets, I could be holding up something or I could be holding up nothing, or I could be delusional and think I'm holding up something. In any case, you don't know what the truth of the matter is. If it were something real, you do believe in it; if it were not, you don't.
To answer "Yes" or "No" is to take a stance on what I have in my hand. But if you don't know, just say so.
brokensymmetry
ground state
Besides the issues brought up by the other posters I think there is a further issue of phenomenology of belief. That is, you can be unsure about your own mental states and if you have a belief in something or not. Having been embroiled in this myself, and genuinely confused about what beliefs I hold on what seemingly ought to be a straightforward yes/no type response I've gained a better appreciation for why religion can be such a unique human endeavor. I have some examples below which I think genuinely happens in religion especially.
To draw this out, for instance, suppose you ask someone if they believe y. Sometimes they believe y, and sometimes they don't. What is an appropriate response? Sometimes seems the most accurate, that is neither yes nor no. Also, "I'm unsure" seems like an accurate answer, insofar as they recognize the fact that they sometimes believe and sometimes don't.
Another example would be if someone is unsure all of the time. This might happen if they have extreme doubts about the truth of y, but often act as if y is true. So it seems to them, perhaps they believe it but it's not an entirely clear matter to them if they do. You could think of many combinations of such things.
The point is, insofar as believing involves the complexities of human psychology it may not be clear upon introspection if an individual has the belief you as asking them about or not.
TheGunShoj
Active Member
Yes, of course there are tons of different definitions for God or gods. The way you're explaining it makes it sound like all of these labels are pointless. I shouldn't be an atheist because I don't know every god concept is out there so I can't be an atheist towards them. But generally, we talk in practical terms about god. Such as the Judeo-Christian God because it is so prevalent here in the united states. Obviously if someone wants to call their coffee mug a god, then I admit that it exists so I wouldn't be an atheist at that point.
It's absurd to think that we can define every possible god and give a firm "yes" or "no" to the "do you believe?" question.
That is non sense. You cannot both believe in something and disbelieve in it at the same time.
Two separate beliefs which may conflict, yes. But I can't say I believe in something and disbelieve at the same time.
I don't know. I never said that I don't know was an invalid response but that doesn't mean I think the cat is alive.
I may have over simplified the position. I didn't mean to imply that yes or no were the only possible answers. I don't know is a perfectly valid response. However, if I don't know if I believe what you have in your hand and I am reserving judgment until evidence is provided, then I do not currently believe that you are holding something in your hand. I am taking the default position, which is exactly what atheism is.
Edit** Maybe a better way to explain this is that theism is a positive assertion that a god exists and atheism is the default position. If you "don't know" about theistic claims then that means they have failed to convince you that they are true, you don't yet believe them. Therefor, "I don't know" is not a negative, but it puts you into to the default position which is "I am reserving belief in your claim until you provide evidence which convinces me that it is true"
Last edited:
HexBomb
Member
Just because you find it impractical doesn't mean it is impractical. If your definition of 'god' is an omnipotent creator god, then every polytheist I've ever known is an atheist. You need to define the parameters. Are fairies gods? Then I am a theist. Are fairies not gods? Then I am an atheist. But, then you are telling Celtic pagans that their gods are not gods.
Actually, you can. If you couldn't, there would be no such thing as cognitive dissonance. IE: excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time [A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, L. Festinger, Stanford University Press, 1957.]
In other words, humans are perfectly able to hold contradictory beliefs, it is only when the stress reaches an excessive level that cognitive dissonance enters into play.
For example, many Christians believe in a god who is omnibenevolent and yet jealous. These qualities are contradictory, but they still hold those beliefs.
Just because you can't doesn't mean no one can.
but you are stating that it is inherently an atheistic one. IE: if I say I don't know, I must therefore believe the cat is dead. By saying agnosticism must be a negative response, IE a disbelief, you are saying there is no neutral position, no one who can hold a fifty-fifty position.
Actually, it is perfectly possible to hold the Copenhagen theorem of quantum mechanics, which is to believe that there both is and is not something in her hand, until you observe it, at which point it when observation performed the wave function collapses into one of the two states. [Quantum physics & observed reality: a critical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Hermann Wimmel, 1992]
Please provide evidence for the fact that atheism is the default position, and in holding a position which is neither belief nor disbelief is inherently disbelief.