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

[Willamena]

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.

Fair enough. Atheism to me is far from a default position. It relies on the ability to garner information, analyse it and form an opinion on it.

Edit: That is to say, it's an epistemic, rather than a grammatical, issue.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Eh, I don't think we need to relate cognative dissonance to agnosticism...The atheist/theist labels aren't NECESSARY, we don't have to 'choose' either.. this seems to be the crux of the argument in my opinion. It's not as if we have to be half/half in belief and non-belief. Agnosticism isn't contradictory, inherently.

 

[ChristineES]

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

I think it serves a purpose. In my opinion, either theist or atheist are conscious states: A person KNOWS that he/she either believes in God or does not believe in God. Agnosticism is for those who just 1. Don't know where they stand, 2. Never considered whether he/she believes in God or not, 3. Etc. I don't think wishy-washy really necessarily plays into it.

I am a theist now, as a child I was an agnostic although, at the time, I never stated what it was I actually believed or didn't believe. I just never put any thought into whether I was a theist or an atheist. I was raised without any religion so the question never really entered my mind. Some purists might think I was more defined by ignosticism than agnostic, here's a link to the wikipedia definition of ignosticism:
Ignosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheGunShoj]

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.

It is impractical. Not in terms of having a one on one or small group discussion. But when creating labels and using them to categorize a broad group of people it is very impractical. So I should not consider myself an atheist in general as I have not examined every single god concept in existence and determined whether I believe them all individually?

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.

I will have to look more into cognitive dissonance when I am not at work, I am responding quickly when I have some downtime. From the example you gave, it is exactly what I said. They have two separate beliefs and two parts of it overlap and contradict, but they aren't holding the position I believe in this thing and disbelieve in the same exact thing at the very same time.

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.

The difference is that theism is a positive assertion that a god does exist, therefor Schrodinger's cat is not a very accurate analogy. Theism is essentially "the cat is dead" and atheism is simply the rejection of that claim until the box is opened and we can actually determine the state of the cat. That's why it is the default. The person making the positive claim holds the burden of proof, not the other way around.

Also, theism and deism require you to be convinced either by being raised, taught, studying the bible or however else you may come to this conclusion but you are not born a theist. When you are born, you have no belief in a deity, therefor your default, natural human position from time of birth is atheism.

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].

This I will also have to look into when I have more time. Sorry I cannot be more thorough at this very moment.


The reason "I don't know" equals atheism, is because if someone makes a positive claim, lets say "the cat is dead" and you say "Sorry, I just don't know yet" do you believe them? the answer is no. You don't necessarily disbelieve but you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist because you either believe in a god or you don't. Most likely a weak atheist. You aren't making the opposite assertion that a god absolutely does not exist, but you are rejecting their claim of theism.

 

[Desert Snake]

You aren't making the opposite assertion that a god absolutely does not exist, but you are rejecting their claim of theism.

But agnosticism isn't rejecting belief in theism,,,that's...atheism, I think.

 

[HexBomb]

It is impractical. Not in terms of having a one on one or small group discussion. But when creating labels and using them to categorize a broad group of people it is very impractical. So I should not consider myself an atheist in general as I have not examined every single god concept in existence and determined whether I believe them all individually?

I would say not. I personally would feel that such a label would be a lie. Besides which, agnosticism can also be 'because I don't have anything defining a god, I cannot make a claim as to belief or non-belief.'

I will have to look more into cognitive dissonance when I am not at work, I am responding quickly when I have some downtime. From the example you gave, it is exactly what I said. They have two separate beliefs and two parts of it overlap and contradict, but they aren't holding the position I believe in this thing and disbelieve in the same exact thing at the very same time.

I did, when I was a Christian. I fully believed God was both omnibenevolent and Jealous, because Scripture said it was both. Had you asked me to describe God, I would have used both.

When you are born, you have no belief in a deity, therefor your default, natural human position from time of birth is atheism.

I disagree. I know someone whose parents are strict antitheists. She's five, and she has a strict belief in a deity. She doesn't know what a god is, she's never heard the term, but she has a belief in an all-power that created everything in the world. This is despite having everything around her monitored, and no one allowed to say so much as "Bless you," if you sneeze.

atheism is simply the rejection of that claim until the box is opened and we can actually determine the state of the cat.

Actually, its not. Atheism can be the stance that the cat is alive, without proof. These are the "I know God does not exist," atheists. That is not a default position. Frankly, I hold the belief that gods both do and do not exist until we can observe one way or the other. Copenhagen theorem. That's not atheism.

do you believe them? the answer is no

Actually, I would both believe and disbelieve them.

you are an atheist because you either believe in a god or you don't. Most likely a weak atheist. You aren't making the opposite assertion that a god absolutely does not exist, but you are rejecting their claim of theism.

Except, I reject neither claim. I believe it is just as likely for a god to exist as for it to not exist. Like the cat, I both believe and disbelieve until observation makes it one way or the other.

 

[Uberpod]

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.

Amazing - you can tolerate two senses of the word agnostic but not the word atheist. WoW! I do not think you are being consistent.

 

[bobhikes]

What I am interested in is why is it only Atheists that have a problem with agnosticism. They want to show it as not valid. In all these agnostic threads it is atheists that want to make agnosticism atheism. Its never the theists. They actually seem to prefer agnosticism over atheism.

Why are atheists so concerned about agnostics. Why can't we live as we want pure agnostics.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I am interested in is why is it only Atheists that have a problem with agnosticism. They want to show it as not valid. In all these agnostic threads it is atheists that want to make agnosticism atheism. Its never the theists. They actually seem to prefer agnosticism over atheism.

Why are atheists so concerned about agnostics. Why can't we live as we want pure agnostics.

I'm of the opinion that they don't actually understand what agnosticism actually is.

 

[bobhikes]

I'm of the opinion that they don't actually understand what agnosticism actually is.

First off thanks, your saying that agnostics aren't intelligent enough to understand or look up a definition.

Second that still isn't an answer. Even if all agnostics are of low IQ (which they aren't) why do you need to make them atheists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

I suppose agnostic would indicate the most honest position to take on the subject. Simply due to the fact nobody can go beyond the limitations of our senses and technology.

I prefer a position of neutrality, if that's what agnostism is, or ought to infer.

 

[Desert Snake]

First off thanks, your saying that agnostics aren't intelligent enough to understand or look up a definition.

Second that still isn't an answer. Even if all agnostics are of low IQ (which they aren't) why do you need to make them atheists.

Huh?! I meant the atheists who seem to have issues with agnosticism.

 

[bobhikes]

Huh?! I meant the atheists who seem to have issues with agnosticism.

Sorry, the problems of debating, you get caught up in your own world and lost to the actual words on the page. :thud:

 

[Desert Snake]

I suppose agnostic would indicate the most honest position to take on the subject. Simply due to the fact nobody can go beyond the limitations of our senses and technology.

I prefer a position of neutrality, if that's what agnostism is, or ought to infer.

Could be, though hard atheism is just an opinion, so still valid.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, the problems of debating, you get caught up in your own world and lost to the actual words on the page. :thud:

Lol yeah that happens.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could be, though hard atheism is just an opinion, so still valid.

I agree. I lean considerably towards hard atheism.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree. I lean considerably towards hard atheism.

I see, I'm more agnostic to ag/theistic

 

[ChristineES]

The whole debate can be answered with this: I believe that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer while others obviously don't think it is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's fine. It's just a knowledge claim. I would say that everyone is truthfully an agnostic because we don't have facts about the existence or non-existence or gods, just beliefs and interpretations of experiences.

 

[zenzero]

Friend disciple,

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

an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]

Types of 'agnostics':

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]

So it is just a play of words. Personally take it as the Middle path and follow it accordingly. As TRUTH is universal except each one is saying it in their own words and then sticking to their guns are fighting. Since find that everyone is right from their perspective and find no need for any argument though may have few differences take this middle approach. Its like the neutral gender neither male nor female Its both or neither but not This or That.

Love & rgds