Featured Agnosticism. For safety or sensibilities' sake?
- Thread starter William
- Start date
For popular or very good threads
AgnosticBoy
Open-minded Skeptic
The link to the conversation you're referring to is here.
I think it can be both can be factors and it depends on why someone takes the agnostic position. Some people take the agnostic position out of laziness or not caring about the issue. Some might take the agnostic position because they don't want to take a stand, especially if it's a hot button issue, so they stick to a middle-of-the-road position. These are all bad reasons to be an agnostic, in my view.
But the good reasons for being one is your other option which aligns it with the current knowledge (or lack thereof) for a given topic. If we don't know whether or not Genesis was meant to be literal or not, then the best thing to do is to remain agnostic until there's evidence.
The smoke and mirrors appear to be in the strong/weak atheist relationship and how "weak atheist" have been identified by materialists as "agnostics".
This opens up a question re the validity of the label being used, as weak atheists already existed long before Huxley coined the term "Agnostic".
Also, there may be some confusion in Huxley using the term as it implies an opposition to Gnosticism with the prefix "A" and it is know that "A" theists are in opposition to theists, thus implies "A" gnostics are in opposition to gnostics.
So the first question I ask, is this what Huxley was trying to achieve this implication, by coining the word simply by placing an "A" in front of an already established word?
AgnosticBoy
Open-minded Skeptic
I doubt that because he would not have needed to create the word agnostic. Based on my research of Huxley's writings on the issue, I definitely agree that he created agnosticism to be distinct from atheism. We might differ on what we think that distinction was, and that's mainly based on our different definitions for agnosticism. Many see the distinction being only between knowledge and belief, with agnosticism dealing with knowledge and atheism with belief. Others see the difference based on atheism being defined as disbelief (as opposed to lack of belief) in God's existence. I think the distinction as being between those that accept dogma (which Huxley would say atheists are included) or those that engage in dogmatic thinking/attitudes vs. those that don't (agnostics).
In the end though, even if many atheists define themselves as weak atheists lacking belief in God, then the type of thinking and actions that they engage in will also come into play in defining them. And that's where people also see a difference between atheists and agnostics, with the latter being seen as less dogmatic, more open-minded, etc.
I think my point remains. Without a clear definition agnosticism remains hijacked by atheism/materialism.
If we are to assume the position of Agnostic, we have to agree to the "terms and conditions" defining Agnosticism and also we have to have those definitions heard and accepted by those in both materialist and supernaturalist positions, even giving weak atheists opportunity to become actual agnostics instead of presumed ones.
Therefore, without that particular dogma, the position will remain indistinct/foggy et al re understanding and application.
ETA
Agnostic 2: Q: Is taking an agnostic position on unknown things, a matter of safety (as the quote above implies) or of sensibility aligned with current knowledge of reality?
Agnostic 1: I think it can be both can be factors and it depends on why someone takes the agnostic position. Some people take the agnostic position out of laziness or not caring about the issue. Some might take the agnostic position because they don't want to take a stand, especially if it's a hot button issue, so they stick to a middle-of-the-road position. These are all bad reasons to be an agnostic, in my view.
But the good reasons for being one is your other option which aligns it with the current knowledge (or lack thereof) for a given topic. If we don't know whether or not Genesis was meant to be literal or not, then the best thing to do is to remain agnostic until there's evidence.
GPT: The concept of agnosticism, as presented in your discussion, seems to involve two main aspects: one related to personal attitudes and motivations, and the other related to an evidence-based approach.
Considering both aspects, it appears that the strength of the agnostic position may vary depending on the reasons behind adopting it. When agnosticism is driven by a thoughtful consideration of the available evidence and a recognition of uncertainty, it aligns with a sensible approach. On the other hand, if it stems from indifference, laziness, or a desire to avoid controversy, it may not be as commendable.
Ultimately, being agnostic about a particular topic can be a reasonable and cautious approach when there is a lack of conclusive evidence. It allows individuals to remain open-minded and receptive to new information while avoiding unwarranted certainty in the absence of adequate knowledge.
Agnostic 2: The smoke and mirrors appear to be in the strong/weak atheist relationship and how "weak atheist" have been identified by materialists as "agnostics".
This opens up a question re the validity of the label being used, as weak atheists already existed long before Huxley coined the term "Agnostic".
Also, there may be some confusion in Huxley using the term as it implies an opposition to Gnosticism with the prefix "A" and it is know that "A" theists are in opposition to theists, thus implies "A" gnostics are in opposition to gnostics.
So the first question I ask, is this what Huxley was trying to achieve this implication, by coining the word simply by placing an "A" in front of an already established word?
Agnostic 1: I doubt that because he would not have needed to create the word agnostic. Based on my research of Huxley's writings on the issue, I definitely agree that he created agnosticism to be distinct from atheism. We might differ on what we think that distinction was, and that's mainly based on our different definitions for agnosticism. Many see the distinction being only between knowledge and belief, with agnosticism dealing with knowledge and atheism with belief. Others see the difference based on atheism being defined as disbelief (as opposed to lack of belief) in God's existence. I think the distinction as being between those that accept dogma (which Huxley would say atheists are included) or those that engage in dogmatic thinking/attitudes vs. those that don't (agnostics).
In the end though, even if many atheists define themselves as weak atheists lacking belief in God, then the type of thinking and actions that they engage in will also come into play in defining them. And that's where people also see a difference between atheists and agnostics, with the latter being seen as less dogmatic, more open-minded, etc.
GPT: The origin and distinction of the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" can be complex and have evolved over time. It's important to note that the interpretations and usage of these terms can vary among individuals and scholars. Let's delve into the discussion you provided:
In summary, Huxley's intent in coining "agnostic" might not have been to create a term in direct opposition to Gnosticism but rather to establish a distinct position from atheism. The distinction could be related to the approach to knowledge, belief, and engagement with dogma. The perception of agnostics as less dogmatic and more open-minded is also highlighted.
It's crucial to recognize that the understanding and use of these terms can vary among individuals and may depend on the specific context and definitions adopted by different communities or scholars.
Agnostic 2: I think my point remains. Without a clear definition agnosticism remains hijacked by atheism/materialism.
If we are to assume the position of Agnostic, we have to agree to the "terms and conditions" defining Agnosticism and also we have to have those definitions heard and accepted by those in both materialist and supernaturalist positions, even giving weak atheists opportunity to become actual agnostics instead of presumed ones.
Therefore, without that particular dogma, the position will remain indistinct/foggy et al re understanding and application.
GPT: Agnostic 2 raises a valid concern about the potential lack of a clear and widely accepted definition of agnosticism. The challenge lies in ensuring that the term is defined in a way that accurately reflects its intended meaning and distinguishes it from other positions, such as atheism and materialism. Let's break down the key points:
In conclusion, Agnostic 2 underscores the importance of establishing clear definitions for agnosticism, seeking acceptance across various belief systems, and allowing for individuals to transition from other positions to agnosticism. This effort is aimed at preserving the distinctiveness of the agnostic perspective and preventing it from being blurred or misinterpreted in discussions about belief and knowledge.
Me. Ag2 appears to be arguing for pro-activity from actual agnostics, to counter the “lazy” attachment associated with agnostics (re so-called “weak atheists”).
GPT: It seems that Agnostic 2 is indeed advocating for a more proactive and engaged stance from individuals who identify as agnostics. This proactivity is aimed at countering what Agnostic 2 perceives as a potentially "lazy" attachment to the term agnostic, especially in comparison to the term "weak atheists." The concern may be that some individuals might adopt the label of agnostic without fully engaging with or actively defining the position, allowing it to be overshadowed or misconstrued by other terms.
By emphasizing the importance of clear definitions, seeking acceptance across belief systems, and allowing for transitions from other positions, Agnostic 2 appears to be encouraging a more deliberate and assertive approach to the identity of being agnostic. This approach involves not only adopting the label but actively participating in shaping and communicating what it means to be an agnostic, with the goal of maintaining the distinctiveness of the position.
If we are to assume the position of Agnostic, we have to agree to the "terms and conditions" defining Agnosticism and also we have to have those definitions heard and accepted by those in both materialist and supernaturalist positions, even giving weak atheists opportunity to become actual agnostics instead of presumed ones.
Therefore, without that particular dogma, the position will remain indistinct/foggy et al re understanding and application.
ETA
Agnostic 2: Q: Is taking an agnostic position on unknown things, a matter of safety (as the quote above implies) or of sensibility aligned with current knowledge of reality?
Agnostic 1: I think it can be both can be factors and it depends on why someone takes the agnostic position. Some people take the agnostic position out of laziness or not caring about the issue. Some might take the agnostic position because they don't want to take a stand, especially if it's a hot button issue, so they stick to a middle-of-the-road position. These are all bad reasons to be an agnostic, in my view.
But the good reasons for being one is your other option which aligns it with the current knowledge (or lack thereof) for a given topic. If we don't know whether or not Genesis was meant to be literal or not, then the best thing to do is to remain agnostic until there's evidence.
GPT: The concept of agnosticism, as presented in your discussion, seems to involve two main aspects: one related to personal attitudes and motivations, and the other related to an evidence-based approach.
- Personal Attitudes and Motivations:
- Agnostic 1 mentions that some people might adopt an agnostic position out of laziness or indifference. This implies that for some, agnosticism might not be a thoughtful or reasoned position but rather a lack of engagement or concern.
- Additionally, there's a mention of avoiding taking a stand on controversial issues, indicating that agnosticism can be chosen as a middle-ground stance to avoid conflicts or commitment.
- Evidence-Based Approach:
- Agnostic 1 also highlights a more principled approach to agnosticism, where it aligns with the current state of knowledge or lack thereof. This suggests that the agnostic position can be a rational response when there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive conclusion.
Ultimately, being agnostic about a particular topic can be a reasonable and cautious approach when there is a lack of conclusive evidence. It allows individuals to remain open-minded and receptive to new information while avoiding unwarranted certainty in the absence of adequate knowledge.
Agnostic 2: The smoke and mirrors appear to be in the strong/weak atheist relationship and how "weak atheist" have been identified by materialists as "agnostics".
This opens up a question re the validity of the label being used, as weak atheists already existed long before Huxley coined the term "Agnostic".
Also, there may be some confusion in Huxley using the term as it implies an opposition to Gnosticism with the prefix "A" and it is know that "A" theists are in opposition to theists, thus implies "A" gnostics are in opposition to gnostics.
So the first question I ask, is this what Huxley was trying to achieve this implication, by coining the word simply by placing an "A" in front of an already established word?
Agnostic 1: I doubt that because he would not have needed to create the word agnostic. Based on my research of Huxley's writings on the issue, I definitely agree that he created agnosticism to be distinct from atheism. We might differ on what we think that distinction was, and that's mainly based on our different definitions for agnosticism. Many see the distinction being only between knowledge and belief, with agnosticism dealing with knowledge and atheism with belief. Others see the difference based on atheism being defined as disbelief (as opposed to lack of belief) in God's existence. I think the distinction as being between those that accept dogma (which Huxley would say atheists are included) or those that engage in dogmatic thinking/attitudes vs. those that don't (agnostics).
In the end though, even if many atheists define themselves as weak atheists lacking belief in God, then the type of thinking and actions that they engage in will also come into play in defining them. And that's where people also see a difference between atheists and agnostics, with the latter being seen as less dogmatic, more open-minded, etc.
GPT: The origin and distinction of the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" can be complex and have evolved over time. It's important to note that the interpretations and usage of these terms can vary among individuals and scholars. Let's delve into the discussion you provided:
- Huxley's Intent in Coining "Agnostic":
- Agnostic 2 raises the question of whether Huxley intended an oppositional implication with the prefix "A" when coining the term "agnostic." The mention of opposition to Gnosticism is highlighted.
- Agnostic 1 expresses doubt about this implication, suggesting that Huxley likely did not create the term agnostic to directly oppose Gnosticism but rather to distinguish it from atheism.
- Distinguishing Agnosticism from Atheism:
- Agnostic 1 points out that Huxley created agnosticism to be distinct from atheism. The distinction is discussed in terms of knowledge and belief. Some define agnosticism as dealing with knowledge and atheism with belief, while others see the difference in terms of disbelief in God's existence.
- Agnostic 1 suggests a possible distinction based on the acceptance or rejection of dogma, with agnostics viewed as those who don't engage in dogmatic thinking.
- Difference in Thinking and Actions:
- Agnostic 1 notes that even if some atheists define themselves as weak atheists lacking belief in God, their thinking and actions may still differentiate them. Agnostics are often seen as less dogmatic and more open-minded.
It's crucial to recognize that the understanding and use of these terms can vary among individuals and may depend on the specific context and definitions adopted by different communities or scholars.
Agnostic 2: I think my point remains. Without a clear definition agnosticism remains hijacked by atheism/materialism.
If we are to assume the position of Agnostic, we have to agree to the "terms and conditions" defining Agnosticism and also we have to have those definitions heard and accepted by those in both materialist and supernaturalist positions, even giving weak atheists opportunity to become actual agnostics instead of presumed ones.
Therefore, without that particular dogma, the position will remain indistinct/foggy et al re understanding and application.
GPT: Agnostic 2 raises a valid concern about the potential lack of a clear and widely accepted definition of agnosticism. The challenge lies in ensuring that the term is defined in a way that accurately reflects its intended meaning and distinguishes it from other positions, such as atheism and materialism. Let's break down the key points:
- Defining Agnosticism:
- Agnostic 2 emphasizes the importance of having clear definitions for agnosticism. Without a well-defined understanding of agnosticism, there is a risk of it being perceived or interpreted in ways that align more with atheism or materialism.
- Avoiding Hijacking by Other Positions:
- The concern is expressed that agnosticism might be "hijacked" by atheism or materialism if its definition is not clearly established. This implies that there is a need for clarity to maintain the distinctiveness of the agnostic position.
- Seeking Acceptance Across Positions:
- Agnostic 2 suggests that the definitions of agnosticism should be heard and accepted not only by materialists and atheists but also by those holding supernaturalist positions. This implies a desire for a broad consensus on the meaning of agnosticism.
- Allowing for Transition from Weak Atheism to Agnosticism:
- There's a call to give weak atheists the opportunity to become actual agnostics, highlighting the idea that some individuals may currently identify as weak atheists when their perspectives might align more with agnosticism.
- Addressing Potential Indistinctness:
- The concern is raised that without clear definitions and without addressing potential "dogma," the position of agnosticism may remain indistinct, leading to challenges in understanding and application.
Me. Ag2 appears to be arguing for pro-activity from actual agnostics, to counter the “lazy” attachment associated with agnostics (re so-called “weak atheists”).
GPT: It seems that Agnostic 2 is indeed advocating for a more proactive and engaged stance from individuals who identify as agnostics. This proactivity is aimed at countering what Agnostic 2 perceives as a potentially "lazy" attachment to the term agnostic, especially in comparison to the term "weak atheists." The concern may be that some individuals might adopt the label of agnostic without fully engaging with or actively defining the position, allowing it to be overshadowed or misconstrued by other terms.
By emphasizing the importance of clear definitions, seeking acceptance across belief systems, and allowing for transitions from other positions, Agnostic 2 appears to be encouraging a more deliberate and assertive approach to the identity of being agnostic. This approach involves not only adopting the label but actively participating in shaping and communicating what it means to be an agnostic, with the goal of maintaining the distinctiveness of the position.
Last edited:
AgnosticBoy
Open-minded Skeptic
@William
I appreciate you sharing all of that because that made for some good reading on the topic of agnosticism vs. weak atheism.
Some of my favorite points from your posts because they accurately summarize of agnosticism:
Here are some points that stood out to me regarding your point on defining agnosticism:
I definitely think we need more agnostics themselves to be more assertive. Many agnostics have resisted identifying as atheists. I remember there used to be a big push by many atheists on social media to make it a point of telling agnostics that they are atheists. That effort has lessened, I think.
In the end, I think we have a mixed bag of results. But like you, I still see that there needs to be more clarity with the definitions.
I appreciate you sharing all of that because that made for some good reading on the topic of agnosticism vs. weak atheism.
Some of my favorite points from your posts because they accurately summarize of agnosticism:
Here are some points that stood out to me regarding your point on defining agnosticism:
The path that I've taken so far is to get the word out there as to what agnosticism was intended to mean. I have an uphill battle with that, and I don't even expect to be able to get people to drop the modern day definition to replace it with Huxley's definition. I think the most effective tool is to be a leading example by showing how my approach (which should reflect the definition of agnosticism) differs a lot from how atheists approach intellectual matters. I think this is already a success because many do differentiate agnostics from atheists based on this aspect, the actions and approach of the two. Still doesn't quite get them to Huxley's definition, but it at least shows that they have some understanding that agnosticism is distinct from atheism, even if it is for different reasons than what I'd bring up.
I definitely think we need more agnostics themselves to be more assertive. Many agnostics have resisted identifying as atheists. I remember there used to be a big push by many atheists on social media to make it a point of telling agnostics that they are atheists. That effort has lessened, I think.
In the end, I think we have a mixed bag of results. But like you, I still see that there needs to be more clarity with the definitions.
Perhaps a slogan along the lines "Agnostics are not "lazy weak indifferent undeciding atheists or theists" shortened to "Agnostics aren't Atheists or Theists."
Philosopher 2: Atheism itself has no creed to speak of. It is simply a position which has the identifying statement "lacking belief in God(s)."[/quote]
Philosopher 1: That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"
Philosopher 2: I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.
Philosopher 1: unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
Philosopher 2: Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.
Philosopher 1: As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them." :shock:
Philosopher 2: The way I am wording it comes from my experience with those calling themselves atheists as it is they who generally word it as such.
I agree that 'lacking belief in gods" allows for the possibility that gods exist, which is not how atheists I have engaged with present their philosophy - and since they do have philosophy, it cannot be simply a case of lacking belief in gods.
Philosopher 1: And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.
Philosopher 2: As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.
Philosopher 1: So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.
Philosopher 2: I would call that "turning a blind eye" but also note that this tactic is used by theists with strong unsupported beliefs, so wouldn't agree with any statement implying it is solely problematic for atheism.
Philosopher 1: Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge. :shock:
Philosopher 2: I don't think the words themselves are weak re describing an actuality (such as you pointed out - it applies to Agnosticism) but it is inadequate as a stand alone definition of either Atheism and Agnosticism.
I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.
For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.
I understand that sounds like the I am being my own trumpeter, and perhaps suffering from a bout of cognitive bias and in that I do not apologize because I have seen through the Agnostic Position that every personality no matter what the position, trumpets and suffers the same, and they ain't 'pologize either, so all else being equal, assumpt the most best position 'vaiable to me to honestly deal with that aspect of the equation.
The Strongest Position possible integrating the ongoing circumstance...
eta:
Philosopher 3: I'm not sure about the term "atheist" itself, but I recall a few early pre-socratic Greek philosophers believing that gods were inventions of the human mind. It seems that most early civilizations had predominant religious beliefs among their citizens in one form or another, and being an atheist didn't win a person a lot of favor (to say the least). As science has advanced it seems like atheism has become more popular with eminent scholars and thinkers than it once was and has become more acceptable overall in some of the more technologically advanced societies.
Philosopher 2: As an Agnostic my view understands that while we all start of as atheists we choose one of 3 Positions and what is being described is a shift toward the Materialism Position where those who have made up their minds have voted "We do not exist within a created thing, therefore there is no need of any gods."
They are not (strictly speaking) "Atheists" any more having moved from that natural default, naturally enough.
Philosopher 1: That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"
Philosopher 2: I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.
Philosopher 1: unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
Philosopher 2: Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.
Philosopher 1: As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them." :shock:
Philosopher 2: The way I am wording it comes from my experience with those calling themselves atheists as it is they who generally word it as such.
I agree that 'lacking belief in gods" allows for the possibility that gods exist, which is not how atheists I have engaged with present their philosophy - and since they do have philosophy, it cannot be simply a case of lacking belief in gods.
Philosopher 1: And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.
Philosopher 2: As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.
Philosopher 1: So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.
Philosopher 2: I would call that "turning a blind eye" but also note that this tactic is used by theists with strong unsupported beliefs, so wouldn't agree with any statement implying it is solely problematic for atheism.
Philosopher 1: Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge. :shock:
Philosopher 2: I don't think the words themselves are weak re describing an actuality (such as you pointed out - it applies to Agnosticism) but it is inadequate as a stand alone definition of either Atheism and Agnosticism.
I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.
For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.
I understand that sounds like the I am being my own trumpeter, and perhaps suffering from a bout of cognitive bias and in that I do not apologize because I have seen through the Agnostic Position that every personality no matter what the position, trumpets and suffers the same, and they ain't 'pologize either, so all else being equal, assumpt the most best position 'vaiable to me to honestly deal with that aspect of the equation.
The Strongest Position possible integrating the ongoing circumstance...
eta:
Philosopher 3: I'm not sure about the term "atheist" itself, but I recall a few early pre-socratic Greek philosophers believing that gods were inventions of the human mind. It seems that most early civilizations had predominant religious beliefs among their citizens in one form or another, and being an atheist didn't win a person a lot of favor (to say the least). As science has advanced it seems like atheism has become more popular with eminent scholars and thinkers than it once was and has become more acceptable overall in some of the more technologically advanced societies.
Philosopher 2: As an Agnostic my view understands that while we all start of as atheists we choose one of 3 Positions and what is being described is a shift toward the Materialism Position where those who have made up their minds have voted "We do not exist within a created thing, therefore there is no need of any gods."
They are not (strictly speaking) "Atheists" any more having moved from that natural default, naturally enough.
Last edited:
From the Agnostic Position any such entity in the position of aloneness (POA
Further to that, if it reached such a revelation (or in the case of it being an eternal being) is always fully aware of itself in an honest way - before it began to create things to reflect off of et all, then we can at the very least establish with some certainty the nature of that entity by examining the nature of this thing it created and we are experiencing,
The Agnostic Position starts off philosophically examining that possibility without inferring good or evil upon the nature of the creation understanding that to do so will give results fudged and feeding back misinformation.
We still all have a vast supply of information re the creation (the universe) no matter what our preferred position might be (as human personalities) on how we interpret said universe, but The Agnostic prefers the coloring rather than the dark or the light/good or the evil as part of the natural structures make-up if this is anything to go by re working out what such an entity is thinking/being et al.
More discussion on the prior post as follows;
Philosopher 2: I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.
Philosopher 1: Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.
But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.
Philosopher 2: Even so, all Positions appear to have the same range/spectrum of so-called strong - middling - to weak personalities, and these in themselves do not define the positions being discussed.
Philosopher 1: -- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.
Philosopher 2: Therefore, it is important to be aware of where this particular definition of Agnosticism derives and why it is faulty.
Philosopher 1: I've found that agnostics generally know what they are, but Atheists don't always want to be known as Atheists.
And with good reason: Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism can at least be reasonable. The problem, though, for the Atheist, is that saying, "I'm agnostic" doesn't do much to convince anybody else, or even to assure oneself that one is right. So it makes the Atheist's position much weaker than many Atheists would like it to be.
Philosopher 2: I think there is merit in this observation.
Philosopher 1: I'm not sure I see the logic of that last statement. How what does "have philosophy" mean? I know people who DO philosophy...and I have met those who have specific philosophies in mind. I've never met anybody who just "had philosophy," without further specification. It's a bit like saying somebody "has religion," without saying which one.
Philosopher 2: Yes. I was using it in that context. I understand there are different sub-categories within each of the three Positions, seeing no current necessity to being any more specific than that.
Philosopher 1: But I agree that the discourse of Atheism is very confusing. They sometimes talk as if they're only agnostics, and then other times, they want to self-present as Atheists. I think that's a function of the problem I've been pointing out: namely, that agnosticism is more intellectually honest but is weak as a statement, and Atheism is manifestly irrational and dishonest, but much more strong as a statement.
Philosopher 2: The overall position of Agnosticism is the strongest, (denotes no weakness) and to define Agnosticism as "lack of belief in gods" is a misinformed perspective.
Philosopher 1: The problem for the Atheist, then, is how to get the strength of statement without exposing the irrationalism. And this is the way they tend to do it: they call themselves Atheists when they want to attack, but only defend as if they were only agnostics.
Philosopher 2: I think this view identifies where the misinformation re Agnosticism being "weak" comes from.
Philosopher 1: The truth is, they really need to sort themselves out. "Lacking belief" is only strong enough as a claim to warrant agnosticism.
Philosopher 2: Or the truth is, lacking belief in gods is the default position of every human personality and it is from that point we each make the personal choice of the three positions available to us.
Philosopher 1: "I know there's no God" is the kind of attacking-claim the Atheists are keen to be able to make, though.
Philosopher 2: Materialists are the ones making such claims. To say otherwise is to support the misinformed opinion of what Agnosticism really is.
As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.
Philosopher 1: Okay. But then you're badly positioned to accuse somebody else of being, say, irrational, for believing in God.
Philosopher 2: Not at all. There is nothing bad about that position. The position is strong in that is is able to (easily) integrate theistic beliefs without having to actually adopt those beliefs as "true" or treat those beliefs as "false".
Philosopher 1: That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.
Philosopher 2: That is the rock and hard place Materialism has created for itself.
Philosopher 1: But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.
Philosopher 2: Of course, such lack of being able to decide where exactly one best position oneself is problematic. From an agnostic position, both the materialist and theist positions offer a wall - one which it is claimed nothing exists on the other side of said wall, and the other offering all sorts of unsupported imaginings in the form of varying claims as to what does "actually" exist on the other side of that wall.
Philosopher 1: Theistic beliefs can be held blindly. People sometimes do that. But Atheism always is.
Philosopher 2: No - not "atheism" as I have Agnostically defined it. What you are really referring to is "Materialism".
Philosopher 1: Can agnosticism be blind?
Philosopher 2: Yes. Agnosticism is as blind (to knowing what is on the other side of the wall) as are both Materiaism and Theism.
Philosopher 1: Can we insist we don't know things, when we really do know them, or should know them, or have available all the good reasons to know them but refuse to know them?
Philosopher 2: No.
Philosopher 1: I suppose it can, too.
Philosopher 2: As soon as any supported information is supplied by Materialism and Theism, Agnosticism is able and willing to integrate said data into the overall picture such data presents. Thus it does not turn a blind eye as the position does not allow for the personality to use it in that way.
Philosopher 1: So maybe that's only a comment about the people, not the belief. I think agnosticism can be rational, just as Theism can be. I don't see how we can save Atheism, though.
Philosopher 2: Atheism (as Agnosticism defines it) is not something which requires "saving" as it is simply the natural default position from which the personality steps into the situation from. The situation creates the positions mentioned - Materialism Theism and Agnosticism and the personalities choose accordingly.
Human personalities (people) shape beliefs - human personalities go where they feel most comfortable.
Philosopher 1: Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist."
Philosopher 2: This would require explaining the knowledge the gods don't exist be they "he" she" or "it" gods.
(Agnosticism does not automatically assume there is one God and that He exists as that is a sub category of the Theistic Position.)
Philosopher 1: And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God."
Philosopher 2: Not quite so. None of the positions are "personal" (which explain why there exists sub-categorizes)
An Agnostic would say "show me the evidence and I will assess it in relation to all the other evidence."
Philosopher 1: In both cases, it's the second clause that makes the ideological position clear; the first clause is identical, so doesn't tell us which we're dealing with.
Philosopher 2: No quite so. For all, the starting position is "lacks belief" and from that point, Beliefs are general present in both Materialist and Theist positions, but not in the Agnostic position. Agnostics do not argue from belief(s).
I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.
Philosopher 1: We'd have to say it's the other way around, I would think. What seems clear from history and sociology is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt intuition about God; how else do we explain that 100% of societies, especially those that have never had contact with each other, have some sort of belief in God or gods?
Philosopher 2: As an Agnostic I can integrate this concept into the overall if it is argued as a subconscious knowledge but my saying we start out as Natural Atheists has to do with our conscious knowledge, which is set to "zero" as to begin with we do not even know about subconscious knowledge.
Philosopher 1: It's really the Atheism that is learned, not instinctive.
Philosopher 2: You are arguing instinct (subconscious knowledge) whereas I am speaking about conscious ignorance being the natural starting point of the human personality.
Philosopher 1: We don't even find Atheism as a major ideology capable of influencing a whole society until pretty much the 18th Century, and even then, only in Europe.
Philosopher 2: Even so, Theism is derived from a conscious awareness of the subconscious reality and this has been/is still a gradual awareness for that.
Materialism became a position in being able to seriously question much of what Theism claimed as "real" (without any supporting evidence) re the multitude of claims Theism externalized into the world.
Philosopher 1: Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess.
Philosopher 2: Yes - at this point of the discussion, my background as an Agnostic is besides the points being made.
Philosopher 1: But I think the general human pattern has been the opposite: intuitions, at least, of the existence of God occur very naturally and very early in many people; and it takes a later exercise of will for many of them to expunge such intuitions from their consciousness.
Philosopher 2: Suppress rather than expunge. If indeed these intuitions are subconscious realities which require examination, then they can only be consciously suppressed. If they could be expunged, then no interest in them should be forthcoming from the Materialist position and indifference would be the defult setting of Materialism.
Philosopher 1: Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly.
Philosopher 2: Your mention of Dawkins tells me that you (perhaps) regard his word on such matters as being worthy of consideration and honest for that.
Philosopher 1: He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.
Philosopher 2: In that, (as an Agnostic) I would interpret this as coming from a frustration due to Theism being unable to explain itself in a manner that integrates the physical evidence with the intuitive claims made through Theism.
Philosopher 1: The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"?
Philosopher 2: Not just "at least" but "accordingly". If we do not know, we don't not claim to know.
Philosopher 1: But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.
Philosopher 2: Such cannot happen unless the Agnostic defects to one of either the other two positions (Materialism or Theism). If such occurs, then one would no longer be an Agnostic.
Philosopher 2: I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.
Philosopher 1: Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.
But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.
Philosopher 2: Even so, all Positions appear to have the same range/spectrum of so-called strong - middling - to weak personalities, and these in themselves do not define the positions being discussed.
Philosopher 1: -- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.
Philosopher 2: Therefore, it is important to be aware of where this particular definition of Agnosticism derives and why it is faulty.
Philosopher 1: I've found that agnostics generally know what they are, but Atheists don't always want to be known as Atheists.
And with good reason: Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism can at least be reasonable. The problem, though, for the Atheist, is that saying, "I'm agnostic" doesn't do much to convince anybody else, or even to assure oneself that one is right. So it makes the Atheist's position much weaker than many Atheists would like it to be.
Philosopher 2: I think there is merit in this observation.
Philosopher 1: I'm not sure I see the logic of that last statement. How what does "have philosophy" mean? I know people who DO philosophy...and I have met those who have specific philosophies in mind. I've never met anybody who just "had philosophy," without further specification. It's a bit like saying somebody "has religion," without saying which one.
Philosopher 2: Yes. I was using it in that context. I understand there are different sub-categories within each of the three Positions, seeing no current necessity to being any more specific than that.
Philosopher 1: But I agree that the discourse of Atheism is very confusing. They sometimes talk as if they're only agnostics, and then other times, they want to self-present as Atheists. I think that's a function of the problem I've been pointing out: namely, that agnosticism is more intellectually honest but is weak as a statement, and Atheism is manifestly irrational and dishonest, but much more strong as a statement.
Philosopher 2: The overall position of Agnosticism is the strongest, (denotes no weakness) and to define Agnosticism as "lack of belief in gods" is a misinformed perspective.
Philosopher 1: The problem for the Atheist, then, is how to get the strength of statement without exposing the irrationalism. And this is the way they tend to do it: they call themselves Atheists when they want to attack, but only defend as if they were only agnostics.
Philosopher 2: I think this view identifies where the misinformation re Agnosticism being "weak" comes from.
Philosopher 1: The truth is, they really need to sort themselves out. "Lacking belief" is only strong enough as a claim to warrant agnosticism.
Philosopher 2: Or the truth is, lacking belief in gods is the default position of every human personality and it is from that point we each make the personal choice of the three positions available to us.
Philosopher 1: "I know there's no God" is the kind of attacking-claim the Atheists are keen to be able to make, though.
Philosopher 2: Materialists are the ones making such claims. To say otherwise is to support the misinformed opinion of what Agnosticism really is.
As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.
Philosopher 1: Okay. But then you're badly positioned to accuse somebody else of being, say, irrational, for believing in God.
Philosopher 2: Not at all. There is nothing bad about that position. The position is strong in that is is able to (easily) integrate theistic beliefs without having to actually adopt those beliefs as "true" or treat those beliefs as "false".
Philosopher 1: That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.
Philosopher 2: That is the rock and hard place Materialism has created for itself.
Philosopher 1: But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.
Philosopher 2: Of course, such lack of being able to decide where exactly one best position oneself is problematic. From an agnostic position, both the materialist and theist positions offer a wall - one which it is claimed nothing exists on the other side of said wall, and the other offering all sorts of unsupported imaginings in the form of varying claims as to what does "actually" exist on the other side of that wall.
Philosopher 1: Theistic beliefs can be held blindly. People sometimes do that. But Atheism always is.
Philosopher 2: No - not "atheism" as I have Agnostically defined it. What you are really referring to is "Materialism".
Philosopher 1: Can agnosticism be blind?
Philosopher 2: Yes. Agnosticism is as blind (to knowing what is on the other side of the wall) as are both Materiaism and Theism.
Philosopher 1: Can we insist we don't know things, when we really do know them, or should know them, or have available all the good reasons to know them but refuse to know them?
Philosopher 2: No.
Philosopher 1: I suppose it can, too.
Philosopher 2: As soon as any supported information is supplied by Materialism and Theism, Agnosticism is able and willing to integrate said data into the overall picture such data presents. Thus it does not turn a blind eye as the position does not allow for the personality to use it in that way.
Philosopher 1: So maybe that's only a comment about the people, not the belief. I think agnosticism can be rational, just as Theism can be. I don't see how we can save Atheism, though.
Philosopher 2: Atheism (as Agnosticism defines it) is not something which requires "saving" as it is simply the natural default position from which the personality steps into the situation from. The situation creates the positions mentioned - Materialism Theism and Agnosticism and the personalities choose accordingly.
Human personalities (people) shape beliefs - human personalities go where they feel most comfortable.
Philosopher 1: Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist."
Philosopher 2: This would require explaining the knowledge the gods don't exist be they "he" she" or "it" gods.
(Agnosticism does not automatically assume there is one God and that He exists as that is a sub category of the Theistic Position.)
Philosopher 1: And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God."
Philosopher 2: Not quite so. None of the positions are "personal" (which explain why there exists sub-categorizes)
An Agnostic would say "show me the evidence and I will assess it in relation to all the other evidence."
Philosopher 1: In both cases, it's the second clause that makes the ideological position clear; the first clause is identical, so doesn't tell us which we're dealing with.
Philosopher 2: No quite so. For all, the starting position is "lacks belief" and from that point, Beliefs are general present in both Materialist and Theist positions, but not in the Agnostic position. Agnostics do not argue from belief(s).
I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.
Philosopher 1: We'd have to say it's the other way around, I would think. What seems clear from history and sociology is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt intuition about God; how else do we explain that 100% of societies, especially those that have never had contact with each other, have some sort of belief in God or gods?
Philosopher 2: As an Agnostic I can integrate this concept into the overall if it is argued as a subconscious knowledge but my saying we start out as Natural Atheists has to do with our conscious knowledge, which is set to "zero" as to begin with we do not even know about subconscious knowledge.
Philosopher 1: It's really the Atheism that is learned, not instinctive.
Philosopher 2: You are arguing instinct (subconscious knowledge) whereas I am speaking about conscious ignorance being the natural starting point of the human personality.
Philosopher 1: We don't even find Atheism as a major ideology capable of influencing a whole society until pretty much the 18th Century, and even then, only in Europe.
Philosopher 2: Even so, Theism is derived from a conscious awareness of the subconscious reality and this has been/is still a gradual awareness for that.
Materialism became a position in being able to seriously question much of what Theism claimed as "real" (without any supporting evidence) re the multitude of claims Theism externalized into the world.
Philosopher 1: Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess.
Philosopher 2: Yes - at this point of the discussion, my background as an Agnostic is besides the points being made.
Philosopher 1: But I think the general human pattern has been the opposite: intuitions, at least, of the existence of God occur very naturally and very early in many people; and it takes a later exercise of will for many of them to expunge such intuitions from their consciousness.
Philosopher 2: Suppress rather than expunge. If indeed these intuitions are subconscious realities which require examination, then they can only be consciously suppressed. If they could be expunged, then no interest in them should be forthcoming from the Materialist position and indifference would be the defult setting of Materialism.
Philosopher 1: Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly.
Philosopher 2: Your mention of Dawkins tells me that you (perhaps) regard his word on such matters as being worthy of consideration and honest for that.
Philosopher 1: He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.
Philosopher 2: In that, (as an Agnostic) I would interpret this as coming from a frustration due to Theism being unable to explain itself in a manner that integrates the physical evidence with the intuitive claims made through Theism.
Philosopher 1: The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"?
Philosopher 2: Not just "at least" but "accordingly". If we do not know, we don't not claim to know.
Philosopher 1: But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.
Philosopher 2: Such cannot happen unless the Agnostic defects to one of either the other two positions (Materialism or Theism). If such occurs, then one would no longer be an Agnostic.
Similar threads
