What Is An Agnostic Atheist?

[xSilverPhinx]

I think a common misconception of atheists is what it means to be an agnostic atheist, not just here on Phatmass but within the theistic community at large. It's one of those things that we have to explain repeatedly, and so I'd like to find a way to be as clear as possible and for that I'd like your feedback. I'm not that articulate, but I'll try.

[i]Agnosticism[/i] literally translates to '[i]without knowledge[/i]' (gnosis=Greek for knowledge) and [i]atheism[/i] is '[i]without belief in gods[/i]'. You would all be atheists in regards to any other gods but the one you believe in.

Epistemologically, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or even agnostic theist. Or, on the flip side, be a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Knowledge_venn_diagram.png[/img]

If I were to guess, I would say that we look at the same proposition (god exists) very differently, and atheists who haven't taken the time to talk to theists really do see their conception of god as analogous to unicorns and the giant tea pot revolving around Saturn, because that's how we classify a belief in god, as pure mythology.

I also think that's why theists confuse the statement "I don't believe in gods" (agnostic) with "I believe that no gods exist" (gnostic), even though the two are subtly different.

[CatherineM]

I guess I haven't thought a lot about it. Where would they stand on the idea of Intelligent Design?

[Basilisa Marie]

So what you're claiming is, "I don't believe in a god, and I also believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not a god exists"?

If that's true, then it seems to me what you're saying is that you have "faith" (not in the Christian sense, but the secular sense) in the idea that no god exists, because you can't know either way. I mean no offense, but that seems a bit illogical. What's the purpose of having faith in no god existing? Wouldn't it just default to "I believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not god exists, but I'm leaning towards no god if you make me choose." Unless that's what you're saying.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I don't think that true agnosticism exists, at least practically speaking... We either live as though God exists or we live as though God does not exist. Concerning an idealogical proposition, I suppose one can hold an agnostic view point... but it is not 'belief' per se. Belief is that which gives life meaning. Practically speaking, one must take a stand on belief of one sort or another (whether in God or not in God). One might not have certainty in whichever stand they take- in fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to have certainty either way.

Still... both the believer (in God) and the unbeliever share one word: perhaps. Both experience belief and doubt, each in their respective spheres.

[Little Flower]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309727261' post='2262757']
I think a common misconception of atheists is what it means to be an agnostic atheist, not just here on Phatmass but within the theistic community at large. It's one of those things that we have to explain repeatedly, and so I'd like to find a way to be as clear as possible and for that I'd like your feedback. I'm not that articulate, but I'll try.

[i]Agnosticism[/i] literally translates to '[i]without knowledge[/i]' (gnosis=Greek for knowledge) and [i]atheism[/i] is '[i]without belief in gods[/i]'. You would all be atheists in regards to any other gods but the one you believe in.

Epistemologically, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or even agnostic theist. Or, on the flip side, be a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Knowledge_venn_diagram.png[/img]

If I were to guess, I would say that we look at the same proposition (god exists) very differently, and atheists who haven't taken the time to talk to theists really do see their conception of god as analogous to unicorns and the giant tea pot revolving around Saturn, because that's how we classify a belief in god, as pure mythology.

I also think that's why theists confuse the statement "I don't believe in gods" (agnostic) with "I believe that no gods exist" (gnostic), even though the two are subtly different.
[/quote]

Hey good post! I of course disagree with idea that God is not knowable, but that was well said.

Here's what I've been wondering:

What's the difference between an Ignostic and an Agnostic atheist? Does Ignostic mean the same thing as Gnostic or Agnostic, or is there a subtle difference? Thanks!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309729727' post='2262768']
I guess I haven't thought a lot about it. Where would they stand on the idea of Intelligent Design?
[/quote]

Do you mean creation with a purpose or Intelligent Design as in the Discovery Institute's ID movement which is trying to have an unscientific biological idea taught as science by proposing that some things are too complex to have evolved?

I can only speak for myself but in regards to the former, I think that's there's the illusion of intelligent design. People are pattern-seeking by nature and things that are highly ordered can look designed.

As for the second, I think it's pure argument from ignorance and incredulity. A more sophisticated version of creationism in a poor disguise.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1309730614' post='2262771']
So what you're claiming is, "I don't believe in a god, and I also believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not a god exists"?[/quote]

Yes. I don't believe in gods (atheism), I don't know if gods exist (agnosticism) and I also think that that knowledge is unknowable (agnosticism) is how I would best describe my point of view.

The way I see it, you could take the same sentence and add another two words such a 'pink unicorn' and to me it would still be epistemologically equivalent:

"I don't believe in pink unicorns, but I don't know if no pink unicorns exist." My best guess is how you see that sentence is how I see the one about god. I hope that clarifies things a bit.

I think that any knowledge of god or gods are essentially unknowable because such a thing would be far removed from both human experience or capacity to know (as in justified knowledge, not belief or faith).

[quote]If that's true, then it seems to me what you're saying is that you have "faith" (not in the Christian sense, but the secular sense) in the idea that no god exists, because you can't know either way. I mean no offense, but that seems a bit illogical. What's the purpose of having faith in no god existing? Wouldn't it just default to "I believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not god exists, but I'm leaning towards no god if you make me choose." Unless that's what you're saying.[/quote]

I wouldn't use the word faith, because that means believing in something even though there's no demonstrable evidence, and that's just not the case for a negative such as atheism. "Atheism" really is just a word to counter theism, deism and all other -isms wich contain a belief in gods. Using the diagram, I would say that a belief "god exists" is simply not there, not that a belief "god does not exist' is contained in the [i]belief [/i]section.

Edited July 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309732303' post='2262777']
I don't think that true agnosticism exists, at least practically speaking... We either live as though God exists or we live as though God does not exist. Concerning an idealogical proposition, I suppose one can hold an agnostic view point... but it is not 'belief' per se. Belief is that which gives life meaning. Practically speaking, one must take a stand on belief of one sort or another (whether in God or not in God). One might not have certainty in whichever stand they take- in fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to have certainty either way.

Still... both the believer (in God) and the unbeliever share one word: perhaps. Both experience belief and doubt, each in their respective spheres.
[/quote]

I think you made an important distinction there, that [i]knowing[/i] or not (gnostic or agnostic, respectively) people choose to live their lives one way or the other which has to do with beliefs.

[CatherineM]

No, I mean Intelligent Design as meaning that evolution and science are completely accepted, but that there was an intelligent designer behind our evolution, and the creation of our universe.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Little Flower' timestamp='1309735311' post='2262786']
Hey good post! I of course disagree with idea that God is not knowable, but that was well said.

Here's what I've been wondering:

What's the difference between an Ignostic and an Agnostic atheist? Does Ignostic mean the same thing as Gnostic or Agnostic, or is there a subtle difference? Thanks!
[/quote]

I think the diagram helps loads...it shows a good distinction between belief and knowledge. I got it off the wikipedia site on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology"]epistemology [/url]and there are further philosophical points there.

As for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism"]ignosticism[/url]:

[b][quote]Ignosticism[/b], or [b]igtheism[/b], is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological"]theological[/url] position that every other theological position (including [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"]agnosticism[/url]) assumes too much about the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God"]concept of God[/url] and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwin_Wine"]Sherwin Wine[/url], a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi"]rabbi[/url] and a founding figure of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism"]Humanistic Judaism[/url].

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God"]existence of God[/url]:

[list=1][*]The view that a coherent definition of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God"]God[/url] must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability"]unfalsifiable[/url], the ignostic takes the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism"]theological noncognitivist[/url] position that the [i]question[/i] of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the [i]concept[/i] of God is not considered meaningless; the [i]term[/i] "God" is considered meaningless.[*]The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.[/list] Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"]agnosticism[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism"]atheism[/url],[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism#cite_note-0"][1][/url][/sup] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[/quote]

That's me in a nutshell. It's a description I like to use rather than agnosticism because it's a statement of what I think, and not one about the knowledge I lack.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309741985' post='2262835']
No, I mean Intelligent Design as meaning that evolution and science are completely accepted, but that there was an intelligent designer behind our evolution, and the creation of our universe.
[/quote]

Well, then I would say that's the illusion of intelligent design. However to say that ordered and complex things aren't designed is wrong, but I don't agree with the intelligence part of it. I use the word design to describe something highly workable which became more complex and ordered for specific tasks over time (biological design). For instance, natural selection can be a powerful selector of solutions that work and so improve on overall workable designs over time, which are maintained because of hereditary genetics. I've heard theistic evolutionists say that god is designing organisms by manipulating the environment and other causal factors, but I find such explanations unnecessary.


As for cosmological design, I'll have to get back on you with that one, because I don't have a good argument against it. I see us as being the result of a universe rather than the purpose and so the universe is only observed because there are observers. One that wasn't fine tuned for observers would never exist in that sense.

Edited July 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309741663' post='2262829']
I think you made an important distinction there, that [i]knowing[/i] or not (gnostic or agnostic, respectively) people choose to live their lives one way or the other which has to do with beliefs.
[/quote]

Right- although note that I used the word 'certainty' rather than knowledge. I think that is also an important distinction. The criterion for knowledge is debatable, although the dominating criterion is absolute certainty as found in the scientific method. This has changed over the years, in the development of new and different philosophies.

The medievals or Scholastic philosophy, for example, thought that [i]being is truth[/i]. Therefore to know something was to know the four causes- material, efficient, formal, and final.

Vico made the jump, and I think that Descartes really solidified this in his thought, followed and perpetuated by Kant, to say that we can only know the formal cause (or the essence) if we [i]make or made it ourselves[/i]. So, by this standard, we can only know what we can conceive of and make (or scientifically reproduce or explain).

This thought is taken even further to say that because of the difficulties with historical interpretation and speculation, we can actually only know we [i]can[/i] make.

In both of these latter thoughts, the question of God is no longer even considered. The question itself is just absurd since we [i]can't[/i] know, given our standards for knowledge.

For Catholics, however, knowledge is not constricted to this [i]practical knowledge[/i] described above. Practical knowledge is concerned with only [i]one[/i] plane of human existence. Belief, on the other hand, is defined (by Ratzinger in 'Introduction to Christianity') as “a human way of taking up a stand on the totality of reality, a way that cannot be reduced to practical knowledge and is incommensurable with practical knowledge; it is the bestowal of meaning.” That is to say, it is concerned with a second plane of human existence, namely, meaning.

And, as your diagram shows, knowledge is defined as "true belief". So knowledge is available in the second plane... but the criterion for that knowledge [b]will not be[/b] the same criterion for practical knowledge in the first plane.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309745260' post='2262849']
Right- although note that I used the word 'certainty' rather than knowledge. I think that is also an important distinction. The criterion for knowledge is debatable, although the dominating criterion is absolute certainty as found in the scientific method. This has changed over the years, in the development of new and different philosophies.

The medievals or Scholastic philosophy, for example, thought that [i]being is truth[/i]. Therefore to know something was to know the four causes- material, efficient, formal, and final.

Vico made the jump, and I think that Descartes really solidified this in his thought, followed and perpetuated by Kant, to say that we can only know the formal cause (or the essence) if we [i]make or made it ourselves[/i]. So, by this standard, we can only know what we can conceive of and make (or scientifically reproduce or explain).

This thought is taken even further to say that because of the difficulties with historical interpretation and speculation, we can actually only know we [i]can[/i] make.

In both of these latter thoughts, the question of God is no longer even considered. The question itself is just absurd since we [i]can't[/i] know, given our standards for knowledge.

For Catholics, however, knowledge is not constricted to this [i]practical knowledge[/i] described above. Practical knowledge is concerned with only [i]one[/i] plane of human existence. Belief, on the other hand, is defined (by Ratzinger in 'Introduction to Christianity') as "a human way of taking up a stand on the totality of reality, a way that cannot be reduced to practical knowledge and is incommensurable with practical knowledge; it is the bestowal of meaning." That is to say, it is concerned with a second plane of human existence, namely, meaning.

And, as your diagram shows, knowledge is defined as "true belief". So knowledge is available in the second plane... but the criterion for that knowledge [b]will not be[/b] the same criterion for practical knowledge in the first plane.
[/quote]

I see, thanks for clarifying.

Would the 'true belief' that theists have be restriced to the individual? I ask this mainly because every religion has true believers yet not every religion cannot be true, at least in their particulars. Does this 'true belief' have to do more with purpose for existence more than anything as its underlying reason?

As you might've guessed, I'm more into the practical knowledge realm...

[stevil]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309732303' post='2262777']
I don't think that true agnosticism exists, at least practically speaking... We either live as though God exists or we live as though God does not exist. Concerning an idealogical proposition, I suppose one can hold an agnostic view point... but it is not 'belief' per se. Belief is that which gives life meaning. Practically speaking, one must take a stand on belief of one sort or another (whether in God or not in God). One might not have certainty in whichever stand they take- in fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to have certainty either way.

Still... both the believer (in God) and the unbeliever share one word: perhaps. Both experience belief and doubt, each in their respective spheres.
[/quote]
Going along these lines is another argument with regards to what is the default position.

It seems reasonable to me that a person continues with their default position and requires evidence, proof or believe to move away from that default position.

I would argue that being a non believer in god is the default position given that I think we are all born as Atheists and that Theists are taught about gods and religion, and become Theists because they agree with the teachings.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309763481' post='2262908']
Going along these lines is another argument with regards to what is the default position.

It seems reasonable to me that a person continues with their default position and requires evidence, proof or believe to move away from that default position.

I would argue that being a non believer in god is the default position given that I think we are all born as Atheists and that Theists are taught about gods and religion, and become Theists because they agree with the teachings.
[/quote]

You might find [url="http://scienceforums.com/topic/18423-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/"]this[/url] interesting, it includes some psychological explanations for the belief in gods and it seems that actually children will spontaneously develop a belief in some god.