|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 23:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One thing I learned early on here is that, despite additional nuances that can be attached to the word "agnostic," all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostics. All flavors of not actively believing in a god are "not theisms," thus they are "a-theisms."
In my mind, there is no "default" form of skepticism. But if a person is both strongly skeptical and carries this skepticism to all areas of thinking, that person would certainly be an atheist.
Martin Gardener was something of an agnostic theist. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 23:56:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One thing I learned early on here is that, despite additional nuances that can be attached to the word "agnostic," all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostics. All flavors of not actively believing in a god are "not theisms," thus they are "a-theisms."
In my mind, there is no "default" form of skepticism. But if a person is both strongly skeptical and carries this skepticism to all areas of thinking, that person would certainly be an atheist.
Martin Gardener was something of an agnostic theist.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to call Gardner a "weak theist"? That's what this "agnostic theism" seems to be at base. I think the "agnostic" part is a misnomer.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 00:11:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Wouldn't it be more accurate to call Gardner a "weak theist"? That's what this "agnostic theism" seems to be at base. I think the "agnostic" part is a misnomer.
I don't think it would be more accurate it seems about equally accurate to me. In practice of course most self-labled agnostics do turn out to be closet atheists. So agnosticism winds up with a wishy-washy reputation. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 03:29:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Our best default position is "I don't know"
No skeptic passes 70 on the skeptometer, but if the default position is "I don't know," that is atheism, or lack of belief in god.
Better to be skeptical in most areas than none, but can one be said to be skeptical in the area of medicine if he is a homeopath? If not, can one be said to be skeptical in the area of religion if he is a Christian? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 05:27:49 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: quote:
Holding a religious belief not supported by facts or evidence is holding it above facts and evidence.
I completely disagree. Whenever a religious person holds their personal religious beliefs personal rather than trying to force their beliefs to be law, they are having their religious beliefs play second fiddle to their rationally based humanism. There are thousands of people who personally believe that abortion is wrong because a fetus has a soul, but they vote pro-choice because they are not self-righteous enough in their beliefs to push them on others. That is humbleness. That is reason.
quote:
It's the same as saying facts and evidence play no essential role when determining beliefs, aren't a concern, and needn't be bothered with.
Just because science is only one source behind one's beliefs, doesn't mean it must be the only source. Plenty of people consider both science and spiritual experience to be essential to belief.
chaloobi wrote: quote:
Please note the scope of belief/skepticism for the purposes of this thread is not limited to 'revealed' religions but also to very basic questions such as "does the universe have a purpose or function?" A hard atheist will say "no." An agnostic, of my stripe anyway, would say "maybe some day science will answer that." And which is the skeptic? Both? Neither?
I gotta agree with Kil that there is no religious default position for any one skeptic. Skepticism as a tool can be applied to countless questions, claims, and situations. Belief in God or other supernatural concepts is only one. And while it may seem like a real important one, I don't think it actually is for most people in the modern world.
I read a case study of the Khoi San people in Africa (Bushmen) while in school, and it talked about how the Khoi San culture, which had previously been totally egalitarian and without any strong concept of property, was changing in morality. This change was caused by trade with nearby Bantu tribes, and evident by their actions. Individuals were more often hording stuff they did not need, and were less and less willing to give it away when requested. They were building bigger stronger huts and fences around their areas to secure their animals and other stuff. When anthropologists asked them about this in regards to a change in their morality or ethics, they seems totally oblivious. They made up excuses for their actions, while claiming that Khoi San are egalitarian and do not worry about things such as ownership.
Sociologists base a lot of studies on what people say they believe. But how much does what people say fall in line with what they do? How many people who say they are Christian, say they believe in God, and who say that atheists can't be trusted, themselves do not go to church, do not read the Bible, give little to charity, take little interest in the poor and politics in general, and live generally self-absorbed, materialistic lives? We know from stats that most do not go to church or read the Bible. We know that religious people are not likely to be nicer, more compassionate, or more giving than non-Christians. What percentage of the 80% of Christians in America actually act any kind of Christian? If this majority's actions are so indistinguishable from their non-theistic counterparts in the same social grouping, how important |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/31/2007 05:28:38 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 08:39:54 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Marf that people do self-identify as "agnostic theists," and that for obvious reasons they are unlikely to prefer my (better) term, "weak theists." Though in matters of religion I generally accept people's labels of self-identification for reasons of civility, that does not stop me from noting that such labels can be self-contradictory utter bullshit. "Agnostic theism," IMO, is such bullshit.
George H. Smith, in my mind, demolishes the notion of "agnostic atheisim," as quoted from his Atheism: The Case Against God in the Wiki article on "agnostic atheism":quote:
Smith concisely describes the paradox on pg 44:
To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions. [...] When one claims that something is unknowable, can one produce knowledge in support of this claim? If one cannot, one's assertion is arbitrary and utterly without merit. If one can, one has accomplished the impossible: one has knowledge of the unknowable. [...] The theist who is called upon to explain the content of his belief - and who then introduces the "unknowable" as a supposed characteristic of the concept itself - is saying, in effect: "I will explain the concept of god by pointing out that it cannot be explained."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/31/2007 08:44:12 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 09:16:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I agree with Marf that people do self-identify as "agnostic theists," and that for obvious reasons they are unlikely to prefer my (better) term, "weak theists." Though in matters of religion I generally accept people's labels of self-identification for reasons of civility, that does not stop me from noting that such labels can be self-contradictory utter bullshit. "Agnostic theism," IMO, is such bullshit.
So would you say that "Agnostic theism" is better or worse than other flavors of theism? 
quote:
George H. Smith, in my mind, demolishes the notion...
Which means it's all about faith. At least agnostic theism is honest about that. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 10:12:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave W. wrote: quote:
Someone who says "I can't know if God exists, but I choose to believe that he does" isn't an agnostic.
This runs into an argument over how the meanings of agnostic has evolved in common usage. I have met more than one person who calls themselves “agnostic” as a primary label, but who simultaneously tends toward very vague beliefs in God or souls, and who often participate in religious rituals that they find meaningful and comforting. Also, if we do not call what you've described an agnostic, what do we call it, for certainly there are tons of people who believe and say things exactly like this sentence you've quoted. I don' t think Halfmooner's term “weak theist” is likely to take off in popularity and usage.
I think "theist" is a perfectly appropriate word for someone who expresses a belief in one or more gods, no matter how "vague" that belief is. There really are two kinds of people in the world, atheists and everyone else. How strongly beliefs are held is irrelevant to the fact that beliefs are held, is it not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 11:01:12 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. wrote: quote:
I think "theist" is a perfectly appropriate word for someone who expresses a belief in one or more gods, no matter how "vague" that belief is. There really are two kinds of people in the world, atheists and everyone else. How strongly beliefs are held is irrelevant to the fact that beliefs are held, is it not?
There really are two kinds of people in the world, atheists and everyone else? Wow, not only do I think that is false, but I truly do not like the implication of referring to atheists and theists as two different kinds of people.
The reason I think it is false is because I do not accept atheist as a default position for people who don't bother thinking much about it. In other words, I do not regard animals or plants, or rocks for that matter to be atheists just because they don't have the mind power to think over the question of the existence of god/s. Likewise, many people have not really thought deeply about it, either because they aren't smart with regards to philosophical musings or because they truly do not care one way or another.
Another reason I disagree with what you have said is because I think that there are different mindsets of belief, and those mindsets have a relationship with the words we use to describe many abstract concepts such as faith, god, soul, grace, spirit, etc. In my readings and discussions with many theologically liberal theists, I've come to the conclusion that many of them bear a mindset that more closely resembles atheistic humanism than the beliefs of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. To simplify beliefs to absolute literal interpretations is to ignore how many people actually experience religious belief. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/31/2007 11:01:38 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 11:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I think "theist" is a perfectly appropriate word for someone who expresses a belief in one or more gods, no matter how "vague" that belief is.
"Theist" and "agnostic" define sets. "Agnostic theist" describes the intersection between the two sets.
quote:
There really are two kinds of people in the world, atheists and everyone else.
There's more than just one way to slice it.
quote:
How strongly beliefs are held is irrelevant to the fact that beliefs are held, is it not?
Then why do we need to make a distinction between strong and weak atheism? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 11:27:33 [Permalink]
|
I think you've gone way overboard, marf. I specifically addressed the difference between liberal theists and fundamentalists by stating that the degree of belief simply irrelevant to the fact that both groups are theists. It simply doesn't matter that one group "more closely resembles atheistic humanism" than the other, because they're not atheistic humanists, they are theists.
I agree completely that there is a continuum of belief, from minimalist "I've gotta go to church on Christmas" ideas all the way to an old friend of mine who was scrimping and saving to purchase fabric to make his own set of monk robes. But we're not talking about what's like atheism, we're talking about what is atheism. If a person has a belief in one or more gods, he or she is a theist. You can sub-categorize the theists all you like, marf, but it doesn't change the fact that they are theists.
Just like this: if an animal has hair, bears live young and gives milk, it's a mammal. Everything else is not a mammal. And of course, we can talk about cats and dogs and humans and guinea pigs, but it doesn't change the fact that they're all mammals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 11:42:30 [Permalink]
|
| Dave, why can't an agnostic also be a theist? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 11:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
"Theist" and "agnostic" define sets. "Agnostic theist" describes the intersection between the two sets.
Okay. We can work with that.quote:
There's more than just one way to slice it.
Whether someone is a theist or not defines precisely two sets. Just like whether or not someone is over 18 defines two sets. Age may be a continuum, but someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is not over 18, no matter that they're very close.quote:
quote:
How strongly beliefs are held is irrelevant to the fact that beliefs are held, is it not?
Then why do we need to make a distinction between strong and weak atheism?
We don't need to make such a distinction in this discussion. That distinction, in my experience, is usually used as a rebuttal to theists who claim that atheism is just another faith. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 12:27:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Dave, why can't an agnostic also be a theist?
You know what? I seem to recall having this discussion before, and I seem to remember changing my mind.
If agnosticism is about knowledge, and theism about faith, then one can be an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.
(I imagine that last one would be about having some sort of mystical knowledge that there are no gods.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 13:58:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You know what? I seem to recall having this discussion before, and I seem to remember changing my mind.
If agnosticism is about knowledge, and theism about faith, then one can be an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.
(I imagine that last one would be about having some sort of mystical knowledge that there are no gods.)
I agree. That's more or less how I see it as well. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Does Skepticism Default to Atheism?
