Separation of Atheism and agnosticism
Earlier in the profile questions, there was a mentioned Atheism on your site. I consider agnosticism and Atheism to be in totally separate categories and mindsets, not unlike atheism and organized religion. Am I on the correct site believing that anyone reaching an absolute conclusion that there is definitely a God or definitely not a God? As an agnostic,-I cannot understand how anyone from Bill Maher to the Pope (both of whom I respect and consider very intelligent) feels that they must definitely choose A or B without considering the possibility of any gray areal I would like to think that each has at least a few questions. My question once again is, am I on a gray site where everyone is thinking "I don't know?"
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The distinction for me, based on Thomas Huxley's original comments as he coined the word, agnostic, is that the agnostic philosophy is about all knowledge and the requirement for evidence to consider something to be true.
"Atheist" simply means that one does not believe in god(s). There is no ethical or moral stance implied by that although most atheists are very ethical people.
DougTElmira
Level 6
Mar 5, 2018
0
Thank you Doug for summarizing my position in a nutshell. I could and should have presented my thoughts in short form rather than my long-winded rant. Do you agree that agnosticism and Atheism are definitely not interchangeable? If I strike out on this one, I may, perhaps go out and try to find Rocky Raccoon's Gideons Bible in that hotel room, wherever it is, open at page one and start all over again. ....or not. I didn't think that defining distinctions would be this difficult, especially when in dialogue
with supposedly like-minded people. I guess 'evidence' was the key word.
I don't think agnostic and atheist are interchangeable, but if one ascribes to the definition of atheist as one who says they do not believe in god(s) rather than one who says that there is no god, then agnostics are logically atheists since they do not believe in god(s).
All I can say is that at any moment in my whole life I have not had a god figuring anywhere in my life. Cut it where you like - no god - It doesnt matter to me how ,You, interpret the words atheist or agnostic, both of them mean to me that I have never had a god and never will have one, unless on reaching 70 in April I go a bit doo-lally. I am not interested in picking over words I could just keep repeating NGY (No god yet)
jacpod
Level 8
Mar 4, 2018
0
No, there are a variety of views on both agnosticism and atheism. I find this link an excelent description of the relationship between agnosticism and atheism (and no, they are not in "completely separate compartments"; I consider myself an agnostic atheist):
[city-data.com] (scroll down to heading "What is Atheism" and pay particular attention to the graphic after it, and the accompanying explanation).
Agnosticism is not "I'm not sure", not as originally proposed by Huxley anyway. It is "it is inherently impossible to take up a positive knowledge claim for OR against any deity". The "not sure" thing is a later watering down of agnosticism by people who don't understand the concept that you can't stake a justifiable knowledge claim about an invisible, ineffable, supernatural god, because it's inherently un-falsifiable.
[A]gnosticism is one's knowledge claim, [a]theism is one's belief claim, concerning god(s). They influence each other but vary independently.
mordant
Level 8
Mar 4, 2018
0
I respect your opinion as I do everyone's My days of attempting to change anyone's opinion or attempting to alter their thought process are over. It is the reason why I joined this website. However,I cannot see how one can water down the declarative"I don't know." Without referencing statements made by any other person in the past,which I consider irrelevant, my attempts to define agnostic are based on simple logic.
What is the point of having a category (which I consider to have absolute boundaries) of agnostic if it, in any imaginable way, can be interchangeable with Atheism? The thought becomes meaningless. Worshipers, believers,etc think that they KNOW that there is God. Atheists think that they KNOW there is no God. Agnosticism, to me, if it is going to be accepted as a mindset, must not be interchangeable in any way with A or B. And finally, 'I'm not sure' is not synonymous with 'I don't know.'.
@TommyRyan We can have a respectful conversation and understand each others point of view even while still disagreeing.
Agnosticism and Atheism are not interchangeable for me because they are not the same thing. They are related and influence each other. But one is a knowledge claim and one is a belief claim. Either you think you can or can't know there's a god; either you think or don't think there's good reason to believe in one. It is possible to inhabit ANY of the four quadrants in the graphic I referenced.
It's a good point that "I'm not sure" is different from "I don't know". I call "I'm not sure" one expression of the "odds of gods". Personally I'm not sure either in the sense of not being 100% sure, but I think the odds that there is an Abrahamic god for example are a vanishingly tiny fraction of one percent. That's not functionally different from "knowing there is no god" but it IS philosophically different.
People who think agnosticism is about uncertainty tend to put the odds a lot higher, closer to 50/50 in my experience, which is why they are "unsure" more in the sense of waffling. I can't see an intellectually defensible position either that the odds are anywhere near that high, or indeed, that absolute certitude is either a worthy goal or a practical possibility. Further -- most gods are invisible, ineffable, and not even part of the natural world, and therefore, are inherently un-falsifiable -- so how can ANY knowledge claim be made concerning them? Even in theory?
Another reason for the sort of agnosticism you are proposing (if I understand you correctly) is a fear of jumping to conclusions or "not having an open mind". But I daresay you don't have an open mind about alot of things. I doubt you think the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale at a price you can afford, or that leprechauns can lead you to a pot of gold. It's not intellectually dishonest to have a high degree of confidence about the reliability or truth of a thing based on (lack of) evidence. Why should gods be any different?
Do you think you might eventually stumble upon a higher degree of certainty that gods generically do or don't exist? What would that evidence consist of?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.