It seems a lot of the time agnostics misuse the term "agnostic" and use it to mean "non-aggressive atheist". Most agnostics will say they don't believe in god, Which makes them an atheist, Not agnostic.
If we look at what the word agnostic means we see it's definition is; A person who believes the existence of god is unknowable. Now, This isn't to say that they "don't know" if god exists, It is to say that regardless if god exists or not, They are of the belief that it impossible to know.
So given that the existence of god is unknowable either way, What possible rationale could they have to believe god doesn't exist? For Atheists the rationale is simple, There is no evidence. But for someone who believes that even if god does exist it would be impossible to know a lack of evidence can not be a contributing factor to their disbelief, Because their belief is that even if there is a god there is no way to know.
I personally believe that if god did exist we would know about it, Which makes a lack of evidence a reasonable reason for my disbelief. But if you don't believe a god exists and call yourself agnostic you need as much faith as someone who claims god does exist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If we look at what the word agnostic means we see it's definition is; A person who believes the existence of god is unknowable. Now, This isn't to say that they "don't know" if god exists, It is to say that regardless if god exists or not, They are of the belief that it impossible to know."
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what you are saying here. I believe there are two distinct types of agnostics in the world. Those who are unsure whether they believe in the existence of a supernatural being and those who claim that there is no way of ever finding out if there is a supernatural being or not whether one exists or not.
Just as a reference to "The God Delusion":
TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it.
PAP or Permanent Agnosticism in Principle. The PAP style of agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable.
I thought we had gone through this one before. Matt don't you mean atheists are aggressive agnostics. Lack of evidence and incredulity doesn't imply proof. There is only a lack of evidence if you look at the evidence through the eyes of a material atheist. I mean if say there was some weird christian cult lets for the sake of argument call them intelligent designers looked at the evidence another way and deduced that life was irreducibly complex and therefore there is loads of evidence god exists wouldn't that amount to the same argument that you have provided. The difference being the starting premise - One believes in god from the beginning so finds evidence of god and one doesn't believe in god so finds no evidence. The agnostic starts with no premise. I think you are still labouring under the premise that science has proved atheism confusing scientific fact with the philosophy of certain scientists. I mean just because some scientist theorises that life rose the way he says it does doesn't make it true. There was plenty of evidence for punctuated equlibrium but it was totally dismissed because it did not quite fit in with neodarwinism. It doesn't make neodarwinism (the prevailing philosophy) true or punctuated equilibrium false its come down to what you believe. So atheists believe material science, theists believe (insert religion here) and agnostics don't have a starting belief. I think atheists are the ones who need as much faith as theists not agnostics as material science, which I believe is a somewhat Victorian way of thinking, is under threat on the one hand from quantum theory scientifically and on the other hand by new age ideas philosophically or spiritually if you prefer.
ReplyDeleteLike i said, The first definition of "agnostic" is one who believes it is impossible to know whether there is a god. So if an agnostic believes there isn't a god, they require as much faith as a theist. An agnostic believes even if god did exist, It would be impossible to know.
ReplyDeleteAtheists don't believe a lack of evidence is proof that god doesn't exist like you dishonestly claim they do. Atheists use a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing in a god. It's as simple as that.
let's not get on to this facile roundabout where you constantly make false claims, create straw-man arguments, Drag posts off-topic and intentionally misinterprate what people are saying just so you are intellectually capable of producing an argument against it.
-Like i said, The first definition of "agnostic" is one who believes it is impossible to know whether there is a god. So if an agnostic believes there isn't a god, they require as much faith as a theist. An agnostic believes even if god did exist, It would be impossible to know.
ReplyDeleteMatt once again your logic is impeccable with one or two minor errors. if you take the position 'it is impossible to know whether there is a god' - Then for an atheist it requires faith to not believe in it. if you take the position the reason I don't believe in god is lack of evidence then this is still faith in the non-existence of god as lack of evidence does not equate to proof. If an agnostic says it is impossible to know whether there is a god its because there is no proof either way. TH Huxley a man often credited with coining the term agnosticism once said
'When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis' — had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble'
Couldn't have put it better myself.
As I have said before there is nothing wrong with being an atheist or a theist or an agnostic but seemingly atheists think they have this hold on the truth they put me in mind of the catholics who believe they are the only ones going to heaven. In fact the type of atheism you espouse is very similar to this sort of hellfire catholicism and also puritanism are you sure your an atheist or a fundamental christian in atheists clothing
-Atheists don't believe a lack of evidence is proof that god doesn't exist like you dishonestly claim they do. Atheists use a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing in a god. It's as simple as that.
so what is the difference? the reason you don't believe in god is a lack of evidence. so what would be the difference if an agnostic used a lack of evidence to not believe either way would this require faith? It is this simple theists BELIEVE in god Atheists don't BELIEVE in god and agnostics don't either way as maybe to them they are secure enough in themselves to not care.
-let's not get on to this facile roundabout where you constantly make false claims, create straw-man arguments, Drag posts off-topic and intentionally misinterprate what people are saying just so you are intellectually capable of producing an argument against it.
what false claims? for once we agree this argument is a facile roundabout. so round we go are we to just accept your claims on agnosticism or are we allowed to refute them. How am I dragging the post off topic is the topic slagging off other peoples beliefs or is it agnostics need as much faith as theists. where have I misinterpretted what you are saying.
"so what is the difference? the reason you don't believe in god is a lack of evidence. so what would be the difference if an agnostic used a lack of evidence to not believe either way would this require faith?"
ReplyDeleteAn agnostic thinks god is unknowable, regardless if it exists or not. Even if a god did exist, There would be no evidence to prove it, because their belief is that it is unknowable.
So you can't use a lack of evidence to disbelieve in something that is fundamentally unknowable without resorting to faith. Because even if it did exist, What kind of evidence would you require if it is ultimately unknowable?
Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God
Atheist - One who doesn;t believe in a god
Pick which one best suites you. But don't try to bastardise the meaning of words because you feel more comfortable calling yourself one thing over another.
Di - What matt is saying is if someone believes it is impossible to know whether god exists or not, there is no possible evidence that will prove it's existence. And as such a lack of evidence isn't a logical reason for a disbelief, If one believes the existence of god is unknowable.. It's pretty simple.
ReplyDeleteMatt the meaning of the term agnostic is not the point I mean it literally translates from the greek to mean without knowledge. I believe you are confusing some agnostics definition of agnosticism with what the word actually means. So I think as per usual you are twisting things to your own end. I think it requires as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be an agnostic as the fact is we don't know whether there is a god or not. I know you BELIEVE religions are stories made up by the ignorant pre-darwinians, but many people BELIEVE there is something more to god than people like the Dawk would allow us to believe. This includes many well respected scientists such as Paul Davies and Robert Winston to name but two. Even an atheist like SJ Gould tolerated other peoples beliefs because he was not a zealot who believed he knew the truth. You can twist meanings all you like Matt but the fact remains if agnosticism requires faith then atheism does aswell
ReplyDeleteRobK some Agnostics may believe it is impossible too know whether god exists but again, and here is where Matt has some difficulty, it is their BELIEF. I mean if someone believed this and then god showed up how would he maintain his belief? Not all agnostics believe this and not all agnostics are really atheists either. Some prefer to remain open-minded as they don't believe there is proof either way. I mean if I said Atheism was the the lack of belief in God because atheists believe everything Richard Dawkins says because they don't have minds of their own I would well get attacked on this blog. But I would never misconstrue what other people believe like Matt has done here. some agnostics may believe what Matt claims but this is not all agnostics so the title of this post is not true in my opinion.
So No agnostics don't need as much faith as theists they need as much as atheists
"I believe you are confusing some agnostics definition of agnosticism with what the word actually means. So I think as per usual you are twisting things to your own end."
ReplyDeleteThis is dishonest Di. If matt is the one using what is, By your own admission, the "actual" definition (and it is the actual primary definition of the word) and you are using some bastardised definition that only agnostics use how can matt be the one who is "confused" and "twisting things"?
Words have meanings for a reason. You can't decide the definition of words based on what you would prefer to call yourself.
robk I am not sure I understand what you mean. I don't agree that Matts is the primary definition this is what I am saying I think you misunderstand me if you think that was my own admission. I am not the one who has redefined the words meaning to suit my own needs Matt has. Matt has taken a Victorian definition of an agnostic and used it to bolster his anti agnostic argument. I have pointed out that his rather narrow view of an agnostic is limited. By literal translation agnostic means without knowledge. I am an agnostic I don't necessarily believe that the existence of god is unknowable. I have no knowledge of god so I am without knowledge. The fact is the existence of god seems to be only a problem for those who believe in god and those who don't I have no belief either way. Some of those who don't believe in god like to label agnostics as fence sitting cowards or people who are so fearful of making a stand they prefer not take a side. When in reality this often not the case agnostics don't need to believe or disbelieve their philosophy is not so neurotic as it needs to be defined by having god or the absence of god at its centre. Some people say there are such things as UFOs some people say there isn't I have no belief I just think yeah its possible. type agnostic into wikipedia and you can see Matts distortion of the meaning, by only focussing on one aspect of agnosticism he condemns all of it.
ReplyDeleteHere are a list of dictionaries that have the definition i use as the primary definition.
ReplyDeleteRefrence.com
tiscali reference
merriam Webster
encarta
Ask oxford
I can list more if you'd like. There is nothing "Victorian" about the definition i used, Words have meanings and the meaning of agnostic is the meaning i used.
di agnostic
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "I have no knowledge of god so I am without knowledge,"does this mean that you have no direct knowledge of any god from that god itself? Or does that mean that you are ignorant of all the available information on all the gods from all time? Or both? Or neither? What exactly do you mean by this?
If indeed it is the first, the direct knowledge from a god, then the implication is that you acknowledge there is such a being, but it hasn't contacted you.
If it is the second, which I scarcely believe, you should crack a book or two.
If it it something else, please explain.
There is no faith involved in not acknowledging something which isn't present. There is only faith in believing something to be there when there is no evidence to show it is.
Karen
ReplyDelete'I have no knowledge of god' means I have never met or had any dealings with a god. I don't believe in a god per se but I don't necessarily believe there isn't one. As I explained above people believe in ufos I have never seen one but I would never say there is no such thing. I principally label myself as agnostic to distinguish myself from the Dawkinsian form of atheism which I believe is very neurotic and parochial and also very damaging to science. I disagree with your final statement you are assuming that something isn't present so your faith lies in the belief of the evidence that it isn't there. People didn't believe you could get any smaller than an atom until it was split. I daresay before the splitting of the atom there where people who rather foolishly didn't believe it could be split but KNEW it couldn't be split until they were proven wrong. Also I think you mean there is no material evidence for god being there, which to be fair I am not sure any one claimed god to be a material thing but a spiritual thing (although don't quote me as I am not sure of the fine details). Karen there is nothing wrong with being an atheist or believing in anything but the danger lies when you do not retain an element of doubt this is how fundamentalism is borne.
Matt
I will let you off on your definition of agnostic as seemingly your references do not know anything about agnosticism but only the controversy surrounding its Victorian birth. However, if you go back to the Victorian (notice I am using the term victorian a lot)TH Huxley who is credited with coining the word regretted the term unknowable and saw it as a twisting of the meaning of what he meant. He coined the term to mean the opposite of gnostic which traditionally were a sect who claim to know of the existence of god, but he also used it to describe theists deists pantheists and yes even atheists all people who claimed to KNOW the meaning of life. That is what makes an agnostic different from fundamentalists but not necessarily from atheists or theists for that matter.
Here is a link (from an atheist site) about Huxley. I find his points are still relevant to today.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/huxley.htm
Yeah that must be it Di. The dictionaries are wrong and the true definition is the one which only exists in your head.
ReplyDeleteA dictionary is a book that contains words and their definitions. if you are going to sit there and use the defence that the dictionary got the definition wrong you only serve to make a mockery of yourself and your supposed belief.
You may call yourself agnostic, but you possess the intellectual honesty and integrity of a creationist.
Oh yeah thats right Matt don't even consider what I say and stick dogmatically to your rigid position is that what they teach you in the Dawkins youth. Matt have you ever read anything other than Dawkins I can recommend many good and far more controversial books than what Dawkins writes - all written by scientists (proper scientists not ones who started of as scientists and then became philosophers). I am not sure you had ever heard of agnosticism before you heard Reverend Dawkins preach about it as sinful or you may have had a more broader understanding of it. I am sorry to be so condescending Matt but I wonder where else your ignorance comes from. Even the Dawk recognises this definition does not apply today this is why he spends so much time trying to ridicule agnostics and label them fence sitters. saying something is unknowable is not fence sitting that is a definite opinion. This is why he invents terms such as TAP and PAP (see Erics post). Even Dawkins has conceded that we may never know the true workings of the universe (ie unknowable)bloody fence sitting coward. I on the other hand don't care if the workings of the universe are unknowable or if there is a god or not we have not proved either of these propositions for or against so any speculation is purely opinion. I, as I have said many times before am agnostic on whether there is a god or not and now I am agnostic on whether the knowledge of god is unknowable and also whether the true nature of the universe is unknowable. I use the word agnostic as its literal meaning not as a group of victorians used it to describe their views.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to an agnostic forum and how they define themselves.
http://www.agnosticforums.com/what-agnostic/33-definition-agnostic-just-so-were-clear.html
I'm not concerned with how "agnostics" define "them selves". I'm concerned with the real world an the real definitions of words.
ReplyDeleteif you don't think the dictionary defines 'agnostic' as you would like i suggest you pick another word to describe yourself.
Yeah I agree Matt you do need to concern yourself with the real world.
ReplyDeleteDI
ReplyDeleteAlso I think you mean there is no material evidence for god being there, which to be fair I am not sure any one claimed god to be a material thing but a spiritual thing (although don't quote me as I am not sure of the fine details).
I meant there is no evidence, period.
No observable empirical evidence. "Spiritual" evidence could only be anecdotal. It would be like asking to be believed about a story of alien abduction with nothing else to show but the tale.
As for what science used to think and now thinks, in terms of atoms or whatever- you have described how science is fluid. It changes as the information is updated. There is no problem with throwing previously held ideas in the trash if they are found to be untrue. And so it will be with gods. If any ever present themselves as real,and stand up to scientific scrutiny, then I will believe in them. Until then, and without evidence, I don't. I don't need to hedge my bet by leaving room for doubt. I'm willing to look at evidence for gods. I just haven't seen any.
Samuel Skinner
ReplyDeleteI think agnosticism refers to knowledge. Atheism and theism by contrast refer to belief (aka faith). So you can't be an agnostic, only an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
Don't know= atheist
Unknowable= theist
Anonymous
ReplyDeletebut I think this guy is saying he has no belief either way so he is agnostic faithless by your definition
Well first anonymous yes you are almost right As I have said only atheists and theists don't understand being agnostic because they define themselves around there being or not being a god so yes their belief, I am agnostic I have no belief either way. Thanks second anonymous.
ReplyDeleteKaren spiritual evidence is anecdotal to whom? the sceptic? the non spiritual? This would mean that if everyone had an individual experience of god the evidence would be anecdotal not empirical. I mean is there empirical evidence we have a mind? I think we accept the fact we have a mind because everyone believes we have one but in actual fact what is a mind? is there a material thing we can call a mind? When science talks about evidence it means material evidence.
Science is fluid because it does not believe in anything other than ascertaining the truth it doesn't take sides. It was not science that was wrong over the atom but the opinions of the scientists at the time except those of course who kept their minds open - the true scientists. It is the ones that keep their minds open that cause all the trouble and make the discoveries - galileo, darwin, einstein etc.
As far as alien abductions go yes you can say from your story there is no proof that there was an alien abduction but to say there was no alien abduction is a matter of opinion or belief. If somebody says I have had an experience of god (which many people say they have) We assume they are mad or delusional but in actual fact, what if they have? Modern science won't give credence to this person not because what they are saying is untrue or unscientific particulary but because modern scientists have they're own beliefs on these experiences. There are many obscure fields of psychology that study spiritual experiences but spirituality is not mainstream science at the moment.
Well leaving room for doubt does not mean you are hedging your bets it means you have a get out clause most rational people believe in evolution but retain an element of doubt as maybe there is something more happening. Maybe evolution isn't gradual maybe it is many things, maybe the gene isn't the unit of selection but the individual. Also If you were willing to look at evidence of gods wouldn't you be following some sort of spiritual path.
So no, to stay on topic, agnostics don't need faith (see second anonymous). only atheists and theists (see first anonymous)
The trouble is, Di, agnostic doesn't mean someone who has no belief either way. Like has been explained to you time and time again, In as infantile language as adults can manage, Agnostic means to believe the existence of god is unknowable.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us on to the point of the post. Any agnostic who doesn't believe in god must have as much faith as someone who does. because agnostic means someone who believes, Even if god does exist, it's existence is unknowable. So a lack of evidence isn't a logical reason to disbelieve for them.
let me know if you need this basic point explained to you using fucking crayons and stick figures.
DI
ReplyDeleteKaren spiritual evidence is anecdotal to whom? the sceptic? the non spiritual?
To everybody.
This would mean that if everyone had an individual experience of god the evidence would be anecdotal not empirical.
Yep.
I mean is there empirical evidence we have a mind?
Ever hear of EEGs? CAT scans? MRIs?
If somebody says I have had an experience of god (which many people say they have) We assume they are mad or delusional but in actual fact, what if they have?
What if they just prove it?
Well leaving room for doubt does not mean you are hedging your bets it means you have a get out clause
That's exactly what hedging a bet means. :P
Maybe evolution isn't gradual maybe it is many things, maybe the gene isn't the unit of selection but the individual.
yikes!
Also If you were willing to look at evidence of gods wouldn't you be following some sort of spiritual path.
No, just open-minded.