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)."
Philosopher 1: That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism" -- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
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.
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."
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.
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 under the ongoing circumstance...
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 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.
GPT: The continued discussion between Philosopher 1 and Philosopher 2 delves into the complexities of defining atheism, agnosticism, and the positions people take on the existence of God(s).
Philosopher 1 emphasizes the range within agnosticism, from "firm agnostics" to those who may lean closer to theism. The conversation also touches on the perceived weakness of atheism as a position, with Philosopher 2 suggesting that atheists sometimes avoid being known as such due to the perceived irrationality of atheism.
Philosopher 2 maintains the idea that agnosticism is the strongest position, denying any weakness in its definition as "lack of belief in gods." Philosopher 1 challenges the logic of some statements and expresses the confusion caused by atheists who present themselves as agnostics when defending their position.
The conversation then shifts to the rationality of agnosticism compared to atheism. Philosopher 1 argues that atheism is irrational, and Philosopher 2 agrees, stating that there is merit in this observation. Philosopher 2 also notes that agnosticism can integrate theistic beliefs without adopting them as true or false.
The discussion further explores how atheists present themselves, with Philosopher 1 suggesting that atheists switch between calling themselves atheists for attack purposes and presenting themselves as agnostics for defense. Philosopher 2 agrees and states that materialists, not atheists, make strong claims about the non-existence of gods.
The conversation continues with Philosopher 2 defending agnosticism, stating that it doesn't turn a blind eye but is open to integrating supported information from materialism and theism. The exchange touches on the difficulty atheists face in defending their position without making irrational claims.
The discussion concludes with a disagreement on the nature of atheism, with Philosopher 1 suggesting that atheism needs saving, while Philosopher 2 maintains that atheism, as agnostically defined, is the natural default position from which individuals choose their beliefs based on personal experiences.
This dialogue highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the definitions and merits of atheism, agnosticism, and the various philosophical positions individuals adopt in relation to the existence of gods.
Summary: The Complexity of Defining Atheism and Agnosticism
This extended philosophical dialogue involves three participants discussing the definitions and nuances of atheism, agnosticism, and related philosophical positions. Philosopher 1 raises concerns about the adequacy of defining atheism as "lacking belief in gods" and explores the range within agnosticism. Philosopher 2, identifying as an agnostic, argues that agnosticism is the strongest position and challenges perceived weaknesses in its definition. The conversation delves into the rationality of atheism, with Philosopher 1 asserting its irrationality and Philosopher 2 agreeing, emphasizing the strength of agnosticism. The discussion touches on the self-presentation of atheists and their difficulty in defending their position without making irrational claims. The participants also explore the historical and societal patterns of belief, addressing the intuitive nature of belief in God(s). The conversation concludes with a disagreement on whether atheism needs saving, with Philosopher 2 maintaining that atheism, as agnostically defined, is the natural default position. The dialogue reflects the ongoing complexity and intricacies involved in grappling with these fundamental philosophical concepts.
