The incoherency of agnostic (a)theism

_db

"Agnostic atheism" and "agnostic theism" are common, popular terms used to describe a person's beliefs regarding the existence of god. It's a fairly recent phenomenon that has picked up in the public sphere thanks to the idiocy of the new atheism movement and their equally and perhaps even more idiotic spokespersons.

Both terms are entirely incoherent. What continues to confound me is why these terms are still being used by people interested or participating in philosophy - perhaps it's the influence of the public sphere or just an inadequate understanding of the philosophy of religion.

The problem with the term "agnostic ___", especially "agnostic atheism", is that is it incoherent in virtue of its contradiction and omission of other valid views.

The terms "theism" and "atheism" are to be used when describing an ontological belief. Theism is the ontological belief that there is a god. Atheism is the ontological disbelief in god, or the belief that there is no god.

The term "agnosticism" is to be used when a person has no view, one way or another. One is an agnostic when they are neither an atheist or a theist. Typically someone is an agnostic when they feel there is insufficient evidence or justification for either view. Hence, agnosticism is a far more relaxed term that can be used outside of the philosophy of religion.

Bu...but darthbarracuda!, atheism is the null position!

FALSE. The null position is not having a belief. Atheism, just as well as theism, has to justify it's belief. The new atheists characterize their atheism as a reaction to theistic claims ... but the questions theism is attempting to answer are questions about the origins of the world, the meaning of the world, the constitution of the world, etc. Atheism just as much as theism has to answer these questions, and atheists believe that the answers to these questions can be explained without the use of god. The debate between univeralists and nominalists regarding universals is similar in this respect: both have to answer why things are similar regardless.

Bu...but darthbarracuda, I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't know that god does not exist!

INCORRECT. If you believe that god does not exist, then you are an atheist. Plain and simple. You may have very little justification for your atheism. You may doubt your own position. You may believe it is impossible to know whether you are right ... but the important part is that you nevertheless believe that god does not exist. Nobody cares about how strongly you believe/disbelieve in god - they care about what you believe, the content of your beliefs.

We don't call ourselves "agnostic evolutionists" or "agnostic Big-Bang theorists" because of the problem of induction and the possibility of us being wrong. We call ourselves evolutionists and Big-Bang theorists. Nobody really cares about how strongly we believe in these theories. At least nobody cares enough to make a specific term.

But...but darthbarracuda, look at this fancy diagram showing all the theological beliefs you can have! :

BULLSHIT. The main issue with the diagram above (ignoring all the other issues already said) is that it ignores the possibility of not having a belief whatsoever. Proponents of this kind of diagram claim that you have to be an atheist or a theist, and often claim that atheism is the null position (which is question-begging).

When faced with a scientific discovery in which we don't know how to interpret, we don't force ourselves into positions of affirmation. We stay on the sidelines and remain agnostic, remain uncommitted to any position whatsoever.

The reality of the situation is that atheism is a disbelief in god, which is logically accompanied by a lack of belief in god. And theism is the belief in god, which is logically accompanied by a lack of disbelief in god. And agnosticism is the lack of belief in god and the lack of disbelief in god. Atheism and theism are ontological claims. Agnosticism is an epistemological claim that rejects any ontological claims.

I hope you have enjoyed this rant and found it to be educational.

Thorongil

I find that ignosticism is the way to go.

BC

FALSE. The null position is not having a belief. — darthbarracuda

Theoretically, I agree: the null position is not having a belief.

Practically, under what circumstances could one not have a belief (one way or the other) about god(s) or no god(s) in this god(s)-soaked world? Is anyone born into and matured in a society where the null position of "not having a belief" exists? Now, if a child grew up in a society where no one mentioned god(s) in any context, one could have a null belief.

It seems like people who believe that god(s) do not exist, would believe this as a reaction to the assertion that god(s) do exist. It amounts to almost the same thing but not quite. Is it a difference that makes no difference?

Sinderion

I think it's usually muddled by different understandings of what "knowledge" and "belief" entail.

Personally I've had to "unlearn" atheistic arguments. My current position is that I don't know what I can know about (1) what God is like, or (2)what the appropriate attitude towards God is. It's the perfect position to piss off both atheists who insist I must therefore be an atheist since I must be rejecting the usual theistic conceptions of God, and the people of the faith I was born into, since it doesn't take much to be declared an apostate under it.

BC

I needed to vent and no one here seems to get it. Sorry if I violated any forum etiquette. — Sinderion

Violate forum etiquette? What might that be? Beats me.

I agree 100% with what you had to say.

A. Nobody can know what God/god is like, especially believers whose big book says God is ineffable. The Big Book God himself pretty much says "I know you, but you don't, can't, and won't know me". At least this side of the grave.

B. Right. What IS the appropriate attitude toward God? Callous indifference, or being on sufficiently good terms with God that you know exactly what God wants at any given moment, and being entitled to wield God as a big stick to beat non-or-insufficiently-enthusiastic-believers over the head with?

I used to think that fundamentalists, whether Hindu, Moslem, or Christian, Jewish or whatever were a threat to any well regulated secular society, or even well-regulated religious societies that aren't quite religious enough, in the minds of the fundamentalists. I still do, but now I'm beginning to wonder whether believers of any kind are not a threat to proper secular societies.

I've been religious (Protestant) and am earnestly working at being a non-believer. Some religious ideas are wholesome, but really, a lot of them are not wholesome.

Michael

Given that theism is defined as "the belief in the existence of deities" and given that agnosticism is defined as "the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable" it follows that one is an agnostic theist if:

1) one believes that "a god exists" is true and
2) one believes that the truth of "a god exists" is unknown or unknowable

They don't seem mutually exclusive, especially if knowledge requires (strong) justification (or certainty). One might believe in something despite recognising that this belief isn't (strongly) justified (or certain) – and those that say that their theism reduces to faith rather than reason or evidence would be prime examples of agnostic theists.

Hanover

↪Michael

One might believe in something despite recognising that this belief isn't (strongly) justified (or certain) – and those that say that their theism reduces to faith rather than reason or evidence would be prime examples of agnostic theists. — Michael

If one concedes that one's faith is of little justification value, then it seems like that person is of little faith and not a true believer. If I tell you that I believe in god, and I tell you the belief is entirely based upon my faith so I don't really fully believe it, then I'd say I'm half ass theist who sorta kinda believes in god.

Suppose I believe in dogs based upon empirical evidence, but I then tell you that I really don't fully trust my senses (as opposed to my faith, which I hold to be paramount), am I an agnostic realist? Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

Michael

If one concedes that one's faith is of little justification value, then it seems like that person is of little faith and not a true believer. If I tell you that I believe in god, and I tell you the belief is entirely based upon my faith so I don't really fully believe it, then I'd say I'm half ass theist who sorta kinda believes in god. — Hanover

I'm not saying that they "don't fully believe it". I'm saying that they fully believe it out of faith rather than evidence.

Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

You'd be an agnostic realist.

Michael

For those who might be interested, the man who coined the term "agnosticism" – Thomas Huxley – had this to say:

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

...

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism — Christianity and Agnosticism, 1889

Hanover

Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

You'd be an agnostic realist. — Michael

I think there are many theists who believe in god based upon faith alone and not upon empirical demonstration who would disagree with the agnostic designation you impose on them. I'd think that that someone who had an unwavering belief in god despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary (e.g. Job) would be someone considered hyper-theistic as opposed to agnostic in any regard.

The best I can decipher from your distinction is that there are those theists who doubt their views at some level because they hold faith as a lower form of proof than sensation, and sensation offers no proof for god's existence. So, they're sort of weak believers, but I don't think all (or even most) theists think their faith offers a weaker form of proof, really just the opposite. They would say such things as nothing is more certain than God's existence and it's irrelevant what empirical evidence you show them in an effort to prove the contrary.

Michael

↪Hanover

I meant for the label to apply to one who claims not to know that God exists but nonetheless to believe that he does. They might say that they believe out of faith but that this doesn't count as knowledge. Obviously one who claims to know that God exists wouldn't count as agnostic.

TheMadFool

Atheism and theism are ontological claims. Agnosticism is an epistemological claim that rejects any ontological claims. — darthbarracuda

I don't see a problem in saying there's no proof but I don't believe in God (agnostic atheist). In fact this can be necessary when you want to decide how to live because the life of a theist differs from that of the atheist. Should I go to Church? Should I spend an hour everyday praying? Should I strap myself with explosives and blow up some people? Should I eat pork or beef? Should abortion be legal? Should we allow stem cell research?

It's necessary that we have some belief system to give shape and form to our lives. Being just agnostic doesn't help us make decisions. In fact being just agnostic will find us, to the chagrin of our butts, sitting on the fence on almost all matters of importance.

On the other hand theism and atheism provide us with reasons, good or bad is for you to decide, that allow us to make decisions.

I see no contradiction in agnostic atheism. I feel that having such variety, combinations of different points of view, so long as not self-contradictory, are a sign of creative genius and reflects the complexity of human thought and feelings.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

T Clark

BULLSHIT. The main issue with the diagram above (ignoring all the other issues already said) is that it ignores the possibility of not having a belief whatsoever. Proponents of this kind of diagram claim that you have to be an atheist or a theist, and often claim that atheism is the null position (which is question-begging). — darthbarracuda

I appreciate you starting this discussion. It's well written and the argument is well presented. The issue you have raised is one that has bothered me. I don't fit into any of the classifications normally provided.

Practically, under what circumstances could one not have a belief (one way or the other) about god(s) or no god(s) in this god(s)-soaked world? Is anyone born into and matured in a society where the null position of "not having a belief" exists? — Bitter Crank

I think I'm pretty close to being a person who does not have a belief. When I think about it, what I tell myself is that I don't have an opinion. I try to be careful to say I'm not a believer of any religion, but I try to leave God out of it.

I think it's usually muddled by different understandings of what "knowledge" and "belief" entail.

Personally I've had to "unlearn" atheistic arguments. My current position is that I don't know what I can know about (1) what God is like, or (2)what the appropriate attitude towards God is. It's the perfect position to piss off both atheists who insist I must therefore be an atheist since I must be rejecting the usual theistic conceptions of God, and the people of the faith I was born into, since it doesn't take much to be declared an apostate under it. — Sinderion

Well said. In the neighborhood of what I believe. See me? I'm waving from my kitchen window.

Terrapin Station

I don't see a problem in saying there's no proof but I don't believe in God (agnostic atheist). — TheMadFool

A couple big problems with it:

* Agnosticism isn't a stance about proof.
* It seems to conflate knowledge and proof.
* It seems ignorant of the fact that empirical claims aren't provable.

There's nothing incoherent about agnostic atheism. Micheal was right three years ago when he explained it in his reply.

TheMadFool

A couple big problems with it:

* Agnosticism isn't a stance about proof.
* It seems to conflate knowledge and proof.
* It seems ignorant of the fact that empirical claims aren't — Terrapin Station

I don't think agnostic atheists are unaware of the difference between knowledge and proof. It's simply choosing one side to live life by despite a lack of proof. Also, given there are so many proofs and disproofs one can and may weigh the situation and make a decision on which belief to adopt. It's not just a case of making a blind choice. It's a well-considered decision - no definitive proof but I like these arguments and so I'll be a theist/atheist.

What about the passive nature of the label? Agnostic atheism is a term given to agnostic atheists by people outside the group who noticed that the group claim to be agnostics but live their lives as atheists.

What about agnostic theists? You don't find a problem with that?

Terrapin Station

I don't think agnostic atheists are unaware of the difference between knowledge and proof. It's simply choosing one side to live life by despite a lack of proof. Also, given there are so many proofs and disproofs one can and may weigh the situation and make a decision on which belief to adopt. — TheMadFool

Wait, you're missing "Empirical claims are not provable." ("Given there are so many proofs ..."--no, there aren't. Empirical claims are not provable. (And logically, proofs simply depend on the system we've set up. It's just a way of saying that it's the only thing that works under that system.))

TheMadFool

Wait, you're missing "Empirical claims are not provable." ("Given there are so many proofs ..."--no, there aren't. Empirical claims are not provable. (And logically, proofs simply depend on the system we've set up. It's just a way of saying that it's the only thing that works under that system.)) — Terrapin Station

:ok:

simeonz

Out of curiosity, the classification above doesn't say, what one would be called if they disagree with the epistemic approach of believers, and not with the possibility (empirically unproven as it may be) of the existence of divine creator, capable of miracles or otherwise? Note that this is a strong methodological disagreement nonetheless. Would such people be "moderate" atheists, or "active" agnostics, since they are intolerant to (most) religious arguments. May be ignostics as another poster suggested.

Also, while theism might be defined as the belief in the existence of divine creator, this is not what religions are about. Most theists subscribe to some kind of ontology of the divine and the miracles it performs, various divine impersonations. An agnostic or an atheist might disagree to those no matter what their position on the issue of divine origin is otherwise.

ZhouBoTong

A couple big problems with it:

* Agnosticism isn't a stance about proof.
* It seems to conflate knowledge and proof.
* It seems ignorant of the fact that empirical claims aren't provable. — Terrapin Station

I am very confused here. So what if there is no proof? I don't know if there is a god and view the answer to a nonsense question as unanswerable. However, I don't think there is one, based on all the descriptions I have heard so far. That doesn't make me an agnostic atheist? Then what am I? And why is that a better description of my beliefs on god(s)?

Or were you really just correcting his use of the word 'proof'?

Agnostic atheism is a term given to agnostic atheists by people outside the group who noticed that the group claim to be agnostics but live their lives as atheists. — TheMadFool

Interesting. I do tend to call those agnostics 'agnostic atheists' but I gave myself the label as well. I am a stickler for definitions and I see no way around it.

TheMadFool

Interesting. I do tend to call those agnostics 'agnostic atheists' but I gave myself the label as well. I am a stickler for definitions and I see no way around it. — ZhouBoTong

:smile: I realize that but I spoke in terms of what is common sense - one is poor judge of oneself. See Cognitive Biases

fresco

Unless you are a 'naive realist', existence of anything, from electrons, through rocks, to gods, stands or falls on the utility of that concept for human needs.
And concepts are all we've got !
Human needs differ . I am not a naive realist and I don't need a 'god' concept, so I call myself an 'atheist'.
It has nothing to do with 'belief' and everything to do with the absence of belief and the recognition of the futility of 'existential claims' based on non-consensual 'evidence'.
For those who do have an emotional, psychological or social need for a 'god' concept, then that 'god' does indeed 'exist' for them.
Agnostics are merely those who haven't decided what their needs are !

The incoherency of agnostic (a)theism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions