|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2007 : 14:36:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
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.
The problem is that I think there's a good argument to be made that the "mystical knowledge" suggested by the term "gnostic" is faith. It seems difficult to argue that one could have empirical knowledge of god but still be an atheist (without resorting to simple denial).
In that light, "agnostic theism" reads like "God hasn't revealed himself to me, but I believe in him anyway," which probably describes the majority of the church-going public. |
- 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 : 15:55:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The problem is that I think there's a good argument to be made that the "mystical knowledge" suggested by the term "gnostic" is faith.
I suppose that any "mystical knowledge" that can't be externally verified might be indistinguishable from faith to an outside observer.
quote:
It seems difficult to argue that one could have empirical knowledge of god but still be an atheist (without resorting to simple denial).
I think I see what you are getting at. But couldn't one have, or believe one has, empirical knowledge of God's non-existence? I do see the logical difficulty of proving a universal negative. But suppose one had knowledge of some aspect of the universe that excluded the possibility of God.
quote:
In that light, "agnostic theism" reads like "God hasn't revealed himself to me, but I believe in him anyway," which probably describes the majority of the church-going public.
Credo consolans I suppose. Well as far as theism goes I think that this is the form that is most reasonable. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 17:19:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
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?
This purpose driven Universe made me think about something. 14 billion years into current Universe/Time and 4 billion years after the Earth was formed an insignificant life form (considering the enormity of the Universe) on a itty bitty planet in an itty bitty galaxy among billions of galaxies and we are supposed to think the fact we evolved to believe things have purpose would have relevancy at all to the big picture?
Perhaps the emergence of intelligent life here, there or anywhere is the purpose of the Universe?
Then you would need to define intelligence. Just because we are the top of the brain chain here hardly makes us intelligent in the bigger scheme of the Universe.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 17:28:34 [Permalink]
|
Marf wrote, "...even though we are tiny in the universe with regards to physical size and the amount of time that we've been around, humans are way more important than all that other stuff because of our sentience, our emotional and intellectual experience of life. (Personally I find that insufficient when I consider the horrors that happen on a daily basis to people, or that are committed by people, and how based on circumstance they seem to be. I am firmly convinced that we are a mere animal, alone in our neck of the universe, and on our own to fix our own problems, however ineffectually.) The second possibility is people who believe that humans will in the long-run spread out beyond earth with our own technology, and eventually even connect to other sentient beings throughout the universe, thus becoming something much more grand in the grand scheme of things. But I think this view is probably only held by a minority of very nerdy theists who are probably deeply into sci fi."
I also don't think the first is supportable. Sentience didn't start when human beings evolved. Various religions make that claim but the genetic evidence and observable animal behavior contradicts it.
Distances in space and the limitations of the speed of light and relativity suggest that we may never travel to other stars. The idea we will travel to other galaxies is even more suspect. Unless we can "warp space" as they pretend to do in Star Trek it is unlikely to change.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 17:39:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
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.
Agreed, and agreed! If someone has to be a theist, the weakest, most "agnostic" type is what I'd prefer they be.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 18:14:22 [Permalink]
|
I think that this discussion is getting hung up on the horns of this beast: There are really two categories of definitions being used.
The first is a logical one, in which there are two sets, one set of those who are atheists, and everyone else who believes in the existence of god(dess)(es). That's the definition toolkit I'd prefer, but people also define themselves with illogic equal to theist faith itself. Despite the clear way Smith breaks it down, some people do and will persist in in thinking they can be both agnostic and theist at the same moment.
In a social setting, I think it is important to almost always accept people's own definitions of their beliefs on the subject of faith and religion. That is a matter of civility. But that's not the same thing as accepting nonsense just because others believe it.
So, what I'm saying is yes, there are agnostic theists, in the sense that real people do identify themselves as such (I am not the Dobson of atheism), and no, there really aren't any such people in a logical sense, because the very term "agnostic theist" itself is meaninglessly self-contraditory.
So I see our definitions falling onto two categories, civil, and logical. Both are useful (the logical one more so), but for different purposes.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 19:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I suppose that any "mystical knowledge" that can't be externally verified might be indistinguishable from faith to an outside observer.
I'd have to say that belief in anything that can't be verified is indistinguishable from faith. And it isn't hard to find it outside the standard religions. One need look only as far as those physicists who think that the "many worlds" of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum physics actually exist.quote:
quote:
It seems difficult to argue that one could have empirical knowledge of god but still be an atheist (without resorting to simple denial).
I think I see what you are getting at. But couldn't one have, or believe one has, empirical knowledge of God's non-existence? I do see the logical difficulty of proving a universal negative. But suppose one had knowledge of some aspect of the universe that excluded the possibility of God.
My point was that the words "gnostic" and "agnostic" refer specifically to mystical or spiritual knowledge, as opposed to empirical knowledge. (It occurs to me, just now, that there is no single word describing empirical knowledge of the divine, nor its opposite.) But assuming that someone could have empirical knowledge of the non-existence of any gods, such people would have to be atheists if they were honest with themselves. I suppose whether they were also agnostic or not would depend on how they view other matters of spirituality, such as reincarnation, enlightenment and the like.quote:
quote:
In that light, "agnostic theism" reads like "God hasn't revealed himself to me, but I believe in him anyway," which probably describes the majority of the church-going public.
Credo consolans I suppose. Well as far as theism goes I think that this is the form that is most reasonable.
I was trying to say that if most theists are actually "agnostic theists," then there's something wrong with that term as used by marf, especially after she seemingly objected to my calling her liberal theist friends theists. |
- 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 : 22:18:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'd have to say that belief in anything that can't be verified is indistinguishable from faith. And it isn't hard to find it outside the standard religions. One need look only as far as those physicists who think that the "many worlds" of the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum physics actually exist.
Verified by whom though. Many theists believe that God's existence is verified they just can't offer evidence to an outside observer.
quote:
My point was that the words "gnostic" and "agnostic" refer specifically to mystical or spiritual knowledge, as opposed to empirical knowledge.
Yes, I think I can agree with that. I suppose I must have misunderstood your previous point.
quote:
(It occurs to me, just now, that there is no single word describing empirical knowledge of the divine, nor its opposite.) But assuming that someone could have empirical knowledge of the non-existence of any gods, such people would have to be atheists if they were honest with themselves. I suppose whether they were also agnostic or not would depend on how they view other matters of spirituality, such as reincarnation, enlightenment and the like.
Technically, why couldn't they qualify as a gnostic atheist on the basis of their mystical knowledge of god's non-existence?
quote:
I was trying to say that if most theists are actually "agnostic theists," then there's something wrong with that term as used by marf, especially after she seemingly objected to my calling her liberal theist friends theists.
I don't think most theists are agnostic theists though. Many are just undecided or haven't really thought about it much. When push come to shove most will bristle at the implication that their belief in God has no basis whatsoever in logic and attempt to offer evidence for their belief. I tend to agree with Half's suspicion of the veracity of self-labling.
On the other hand even if most theists were actually "agnostic theists," why would that be indicitive of a problem?
BTW I didn't read marf's comment as objecting to you calling liberal theists theists. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 22:38:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
So, what I'm saying is yes, there are agnostic theists, in the sense that real people do identify themselves as such (I am not the Dobson of atheism), and no, there really aren't any such people in a logical sense, because the very term "agnostic theist" itself is meaninglessly self-contraditory.
The thing is that people are not required to only hold logical beliefs. I agree that agnostic theism is logically baseless but it is not a contradiction in terms as you seem to be suggesting. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 23:21:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Verified by whom though. Many theists believe that God's existence is verified they just can't offer evidence to an outside observer.
Well, we can get into the whole epistemological argument, I suppose... but without doing so I think there's a good reason to treat "I believe that God's existence is verified but can't offer evidence to an outside observer" as nothing more than a statement of faith. Along with "I believe that 'God's existence is verified but can't offer evidence to an outside observer' has been verified but can't offer evidence to an outside observer." And all the rest of the meta-meta-statements of faith. It's turtles all the way down.quote:
quote:
(It occurs to me, just now, that there is no single word describing empirical knowledge of the divine, nor its opposite.) But assuming that someone could have empirical knowledge of the non-existence of any gods, such people would have to be atheists if they were honest with themselves. I suppose whether they were also agnostic or not would depend on how they view other matters of spirituality, such as reincarnation, enlightenment and the like.
Technically, why couldn't they qualify as a gnostic atheist on the basis of their mystical knowledge of god's non-existence?
Because you said they had empirical knowledge of God's non-existence, not mystical knowledge.quote:
I don't think most theists are agnostic theists though. Many are just undecided or haven't really thought about it much.
Well, how can we possibly draw a line there, then? How much does one need to think about one's religious beliefs before they can be considered an agnostic?quote:
When push come to shove most will bristle at the implication that their belief in God has no basis whatsoever in logic and attempt to offer evidence for their belief.
I'm talking revelation here, not logic. "I believe in God, even though he's never spoken to me directly," that sort of thing. I'm not sure that "I see his handiwork in every blade of grass" is the sort of "knowledge" implied by "gnosis." Perhaps it is. I've never really experienced that sort of "knowledge."quote:
I tend to agree with Half's suspicion of the veracity of self-labling.
I do, too.quote:
On the other hand even if most theists were actually "agnostic theists," why would that be indicitive of a problem?
BTW I didn't read marf's comment as objecting to you calling liberal theists theists.
It's a problem with marf's usage, and nothing else. And she certainly did object to my lumping together of progressive theists with Robertson and Falwell. She said she disagreed with my statement, in part, because she thinks "that there are different mindsets of belief." But the atheist/theist question only addresses belief, not the mindset behind it.
Consider a radio. The volume knob, which is analogous (perhaps) to how deeply one holds relgious beliefs, only matters when the power is turned on. Atheism is analogous to having the power off. The positions of all of the other knobs and switches on a basic radio (one's "mindset of belief") are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the power switch is in the "off" position.
marf also objected to my use of the phrase "kinds of people," which I find overly PC of her (at least I hope she wasn't thinking I was using the Biblical meaning of 'kinds'), especially when she tried to bring rocks and plants into the discussion, even though I said "kinds of people."
Actually, the only reason I can think of for her to have brought up the "default mindset" thing in objection to what I said was that she equates atheism with antitheism. In other words, marf might consider someone who doesn't believe in any god simply because he's never thought about "the god question" (a quite insular life) to not be an "atheist." Perhaps she only thinks that people who "actively" disbelieve in god are atheists. But if all that "atheist" means is "without a belief in god," then certainly our hypothetical person is an atheist, along with all the rocks and plants (and almost certainly all other animals) in the world. Perhaps she'll clear this up.
That sort of thing, apparently, is why we need a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism, despite the fact that both groups are atheistic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 23:59:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_SkepticPerhaps the emergence of intelligent life here, there or anywhere is the purpose of the Universe?
Then you would need to define intelligence. Just because we are the top of the brain chain here hardly makes us intelligent in the bigger scheme of the Universe.
I define intelligence as the ability to wonder about whether or not is/are a god or gods. I never argued that humans were the specifically the ultimate be all and end all of the universe. There may be other species out there who are much more intelligent. I am arguing that the purpose of the universe could be to permit the emergence of intelligence - or perhaps the universe was a mistake. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 01:00:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, we can get into the whole epistemological argument, I suppose... but without doing so I think there's a good reason to treat "I believe that God's existence is verified but can't offer evidence to an outside observer" as nothing more than a statement of faith. Along with "I believe that 'God's existence is verified but can't offer evidence to an outside observer' has been verified but can't offer evidence to an outside observer." And all the rest of the meta-meta-statements of faith. It's turtles all the way down.
I see we are coming at this from different angles and drawing slightly different lines in the sand. My distinction relies on there being actual evidence (whether valid or not) at some point. If it is just turtles all the way down then you are right there is no distinction to be made. Perhaps an analogy might help.
Suppose you are asked what you had for breakfast three days ago. You think and reply, "bacon and eggs." You are then asked to provide evidence to back up your assertion but as it turns out you cannot as it is based only on your memory of the event. In that case would your interrogator be justified in assuming that your belief was based on faith, or would it be more resonable to assume that it was based on a type of evidence that you were unable to offer up for scrutiny?
The gnostic theist is potentially in a similar position.
quote:
Because you said they had empirical knowledge of God's non-existence, not mystical knowledge.
Yes for the point I was then making empirical vs. mystical distinction was immaterial. The point only required that the individual believe the evidence is valid.
quote:
Well, how can we possibly draw a line there, then? How much does one need to think about one's religious beliefs before they can be considered an agnostic?
Well the "agnostic theist" should at least express a position that is consistent with both agnosticism and theism.
quote:
I'm talking revelation here, not logic. "I believe in God, even though he's never spoken to me directly," that sort of thing. I'm not sure that "I see his handiwork in every blade of grass" is the sort of "knowledge" implied by "gnosis." Perhaps it is. I've never really experienced that sort of "knowledge."
I consider revalation to be more related to gnostic theism than agnostic theism. "I believe in God, even though he's never spoken to me directly." strikes me as a statement of faith rather than a revelation. "I see his handiwork in every blade of grass", though perhaps somewhat mundane, is closer to what is meant by revalation IMO.
quote:
It's a problem with marf's usage, and nothing else. And she certainly did object to my lumping together of progressive theists with Robertson and Falwell. She said she disagreed with my statement, in part, because she thinks "that there are different mindsets of belief." But the atheist/theist question only addresses belief, not the mindset behind it.
Obviously, I can't speak for Marf but my impression is that she objected to the idea that the theist, atheist distinction was sufficient for all categorisation purposes.
quote:
Consider a radio. The volume knob, which is analogous (perhaps) to how deeply one holds relgious beliefs, only matters when the power is turned on. Atheism is analogous to having the power off. The positions of all of the other knobs and switches on a basic radio (one's "mindset of belief") are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the power switch is in the "off" position.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I don't see that it addresses marf's point though.
quote:
marf also objected to my use of the phrase "kinds of people," which I find overly PC of her (at least I hope she wasn't thinking I was using the Biblical meaning of 'kinds'), especially when she tried to bring rocks and plants into the discussion, even though I said "kinds of people."
Obviously you didn't mean what she implied you meant by it but your meaning was unclear to me also. As for rocks and plants if that's going to far what about infants, children and people with greatly diminished mental capacity being considered as atheists? I think her point had to do with that there must be some threshhold of thought or consciousness before the lable atheist takes on any meaning.
quote:
Actually, the only reason I can think of for her to have brought up the "default mindset" thing in objection to what I said was that she equates atheism with antitheism. In other words, marf might consider someone who doesn't believe in any god simply because he's never thought about "the god question" (a quite insular life) to not be an "atheist." Perhaps she only thinks that people who "actively" disbelieve in god are atheists. But if all that "atheist" means is "without a belief in god," then certainly our hypothetical person is an atheist, along with all the rocks and plants (and almost certainly all other animals) in the world. Perhaps she'll clear this up.
I would be hesitant to lable someone who has never considered the question an atheist as well.
quote:
That sort of thing, apparently, is why we need a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism, despite the fact that both groups are atheistic.
Actually the distinction between weak and strong atheism is a completely seperate issue. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 08:27:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: quote:
she seemingly objected to my calling her liberal theist friends theists
I did no such thing.
quote:
Actually, the only reason I can think of for her to have brought up the "default mindset" thing in objection to what I said was that she equates atheism with antitheism. In other words, marf might consider someone who doesn't believe in any god simply because he's never thought about "the god question" (a quite insular life) to not be an "atheist." Perhaps she only thinks that people who "actively" disbelieve in god are atheists. But if all that "atheist" means is "without a belief in god," then certainly our hypothetical person is an atheist, along with all the rocks and plants (and almost certainly all other animals) in the world. Perhaps she'll clear this up.
If you consider a rock to be an atheist because it does indeed lack a belief in any gods, that is IMO taking the term "atheist" too literally. I do not equate atheist with anti-theist. I myself identify as an atheist, but I am not anti-theist. What I was saying is that there are fundamental differences in the mindsets of various theists and atheists, and so to merely draw lines between atheist and theist is not especially useful in a discussion over whether atheism or agnosticism should be considered the default positions of a skeptic. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 09:08:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I see we are coming at this from different angles and drawing slightly different lines in the sand. My distinction relies on there being actual evidence (whether valid or not) at some point. If it is just turtles all the way down then you are right there is no distinction to be made. Perhaps an analogy might help.
Suppose you are asked what you had for breakfast three days ago. You think and reply, "bacon and eggs." You are then asked to provide evidence to back up your assertion but as it turns out you cannot as it is based only on your memory of the event. In that case would your interrogator be justified in assuming that your belief was based on faith, or would it be more resonable to assume that it was based on a type of evidence that you were unable to offer up for scrutiny?
The gnostic theist is potentially in a similar position.
But what I had for breakfast three days ago is objectively verifiable in principle (there coincidentally happen to be register receipts that exist, and possibly security-camera video, but I had French toast and bacon - honest), while the existence of god(s) - especially the Christian God with His "working in mysterious ways" - is not. Besides, we're getting into the whole "extraordinary claims" realm, now. Had I told you that I'd eaten five pounds of raw purple zebra meat for breakfast three days ago, I'd expect you to question that for several reasons. But if accepting my claim of French toast and bacon is something which requires "faith" (were I to not have the receipt), then I submit we're talking about two different types of "faith."quote:
quote:
Because you said they had empirical knowledge of God's non-existence, not mystical knowledge.
Yes for the point I was then making empirical vs. mystical distinction was immaterial. The point only required that the individual believe the evidence is valid.
Then I've missed your point. Would you elaborate?quote:
quote:
Well, how can we possibly draw a line there, then? How much does one need to think about one's religious beliefs before they can be considered an agnostic?
Well the "agnostic theist" should at least express a position that is consistent with both agnosticism and theism.
Then what would you call a person who doesn't express a position on the question at all? "Non-religious?"quote:
quote:
I'm talking revelation here, not logic. "I believe in God, even though he's never spoken to me directly," that sort of thing. I'm not sure that "I see his handiwork in every blade of grass" is the sort of "knowledge" implied by "gnosis." Perhaps it is. I've never really experienced that sort of "knowledge."
I consider revalation to be more related to gnostic theism than agnostic theism. "I believe in God, even though he's never spoken to me directly." strikes me as a statement of faith rather than a revelation.
That's what I've been saying. "God has never spoken to me" is an expression of agnosticism - a lack of mystical knowledge - while "but I believe in God anyway" is a statement of theism.quote:
"I see his handiwork in every blade of grass", though perhaps somewhat mundane, is closer to what is meant by revalation IMO.
Okay, in that case I'm fairly certain you'd classify anyone who says something like, "all I have to do is look at a newborn child to see God's miracle of life" as a weakly (or mundanely) gnostic theist, then?quote:
Obviously, I can't speak for Marf but my impression is that she objected to the idea that the theist, atheist distinction was sufficient for all categorisation purposes.
But all I was examining was that distinction. Of course, for all categorization purposes, much more needs to be examined, including a person's preference for argyle socks. But when talking about whether or not some people are atheists, it's a binary condition - you're either an atheist or you're not. And a person who doesn't believe in God because he's never thought about God is an atheist.quote:
quote:
Consider a radio. The volume knob, which is analogous (perhaps) to how deeply one holds relgious beliefs, only matters when the power is turned on. Atheism is analogous to having the power off. The positions of all of the other knobs and switches on a basic radio (one's "mindset of belief") are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the power switch is in the "off" position.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I don't see that it addresses marf's point though.
Marf's point that there are different degrees of belief is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone is an atheist. If someone has a belief in one or more gods - for whatever reason, to whatever degree and however deeply considered - then they're not an atheist. If the question really is more complex than that, I don't see how. Atheism is the set-complement of theism, no?quote:
Obviously you didn't mean what she implied you meant by it but your meaning was unclear to me also. As for rocks and plants if that's going to far what about infants, children and people with greatly diminished mental capacity being considered as atheists? I think her point had to do with that there must be some threshhold of thought or consciousness before the lable atheist takes on any meaning.
What meaning does it need other than "without a belief in god?" I'm not talking about antitheism, just atheism. By analogy, some people claim that evolution is immoral, when really it's just amoral. And, of course, evolutionary theory is atheistic because it doesn't address "the God question" at all, but that doesn't mean one needs to be an atheist to understand and use evolutionary theory.quote:
I would be hesitant to lable someone who has never considered the question an atheist as well.
And I don't understand why, unless "atheist" means something more to you than "lacking a belief in God."quote:
quote:
That sort of thing, apparently, is why we need a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism, despite the fact that both groups are atheistic.
Actually the distinction between weak and strong atheism is a completely seperate issue.
No, as I understand it, "weak atheism" is a simple lack of belief in gods, while "strong atheism" is an active disbelief in gods. A rock or a pine tree, being unable to formulate beliefs at all, would be weak atheists. |
- 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 - 04/01/2007 : 11:27:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But what I had for breakfast three days ago is objectively verifiable in principle (there coincidentally happen to be register receipts that exist, and possibly security-camera video, but I had French toast and bacon - honest), while the existence of god(s) - especially the Christian God with His "working in mysterious ways" - is not.
That's a trivial detail for two reasons, there is no requirement that the evidence you assume exists must exist (there may not be a security camera or reciepts or other evidence), nor is it provable that the gnostic theist's position is not verifiable in principle.
quote:
Besides, we're getting into the whole "extraordinary claims" realm, now. Had I told you that I'd eaten five pounds of raw purple zebra meat for breakfast three days ago, I'd expect you to question that for several reasons. But if accepting my claim of French toast and bacon is something which requires "faith" (were I to not have the receipt), then I submit we're talking about two different types of "faith."
Extraordinary claims don't come into it. Whether I accept your claim as true or false is beside the point. In the thought experiment I am trying to determine if your belief is based on faith or evidence not whether it is true or false.
quote:
Then I've missed your point. Would you elaborate?
Well, it's moot. It was made based on a misunderstanding of your position. Since then, you've clarified your position and I've agreed with your clarified position. In a nutshell the point was that if an atheist has knowledge (as opposed to faith) of God's non-existence then that person qualifies as a gnostic atheist.
quote:
quote:
Well the "agnostic theist" should at least express a position that is consistent with both agnosticism and theism.
Then what would you call a person who doesn't express a position on the question at all? "Non-religious?"
I'd go with something like "unclassified".
quote:
quote:
I consider revalation to be more related to gnostic theism than agnostic theism. "I believe in God, even though he's never spoken to me directly." strikes me as a statement of faith rather than a revelation.
That's what I've been saying. "God has never spoken to me" is an expression of agnosticism - a lack of mystical knowledge - while "but I believe in God anyway" is a statement of theism.
Okay, thanks for clarifying, I read you as saying almost the opposite in your previous post.
quote:
quote:
"I see his handiwork in every blade of grass", though perhaps somewhat mundane, is closer to what is meant by revalation IMO.
Okay, in that case I'm fairly certain you'd classify anyone who says something like, "all I have to do is look at a newborn child to see God's miracle of life" as a weakly (or mundanely) gnostic theist, then?
Yeah, provided they see it as evidence in favor of their God belief.
quote:
Marf's point that there are different degrees of belief is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone is an atheist. If someone has a belief in one or more gods - for whatever reason, to whatever degree and however deeply considered - then they're not an atheist. If the question really is more complex than that, I don't see how. Atheism is the set-complement of theism, no?
I've already agreed with you on this point. I just don't think marf was attempting to address the binary nature of atheism.
quote:
quote:
I would be hesitant to lable someone who has never considered the question an atheist as well.
And I don't understand why, unless "atheist" means something more to you than "lacking a belief in God."
There's a rat's nest of unstated assumptions that have to be made explicit. Are we speaking only about conscious entities? Only humans? Only adults? Only people who have considered the question? How is god defined? Would Thor count as a god for the purpose of the question? What about fairies? What about super advanced aliens? Few people would describe inanimate objects as atheists so it is at least clear that "without a belief in god" is not sufficient for most.
quote:
quote:
Actually the distinction between weak and strong atheism is a completely seperate issue.
No, as I understand it, "weak atheism" is a simple lack of belief in gods, while "strong atheism" is an active disbelief in gods. A rock or a pine tree, being unable to formulate beliefs at all, would be weak atheists.
Okay. So in that case even a theist could be considered an athiest when unconscious. All of the constituent parts of a theist (with the exception of those parts that are actively involved in god belief) could also be considered athiests. Every individual atom of a theists body and brain could be considered an athiest.
If you ignore the unstated assumptions you destroy the utility of the concept. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Does Skepticism Default to Atheism?
