Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong....
...Life is hard for the certain whenever reality crashes upon them. But it's abundantly exciting and filled with value and meaning for those who embrace its inherent uncertainty.
Conviction is the strong belief that a behavior is right, moral, and consistent with your deeper values. It offers a kind of certainty, not about the world, but about the morality of your own behavior. — Psychology Today
I believe that thinking there is no way to be 100% certain is a belif too. Consider me to be the particle in the QM wave. With hidden variables though. And you are the wave (nice analogy!). — Prishon
Atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnosticism
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God — Deus
Agnostic is a better position to be, because it is opening the possibility for further investigation and changing their views in the future depending on the personal experience, change of thoughts through reading and discussions, personal feelings and / or logical reflections on the topic.
This isn't anything special or unique to agnosticism, there's nothing about atheism or theism that prevents one from investigating further or changing ones view if warranted by the evidence. One can be atheist or theist, and open-minded, or agnostic and closed-minded. They're just separate things. — Seppo
But the definition of theist means that they are the ones who are fully committed to believing in God.
If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists
No, nothing about the definition of theist or atheist says anything about their level of commitment, certitude, or open-mindedness. These terms denote a certain belief (or disbelief): either in, or against, the existence of God. One can hold that belief with varying levels of commitment, certitude, or closed/open-mindedness, without being any more or less a theist or atheist.
If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists
This is a self-contradiction. A doubting theist is still a theist. "Doubting theists are not theists" is trivially/logically/definitionally false: you said it yourself, they're a doubting theist. So they're a theist... one with doubts. — Seppo
And yes, we are talking about specific cases, including the example of evangelical literalist Christianity. Because, as I mentioned, some cases of theism may warrant atheism, while others do not: wrt the literalist young earth variety of Christianity, agnosticism is not warranted- atheism is. There's no reason to think either theism, atheism, agnosticism must be most rational or warranted across the board, and every reason to think it will vary from case to case, which is the more appropriate position for a given variety of theism or god-concept. — Seppo
Its explicitly a self-contradiction. "A doubting theist is not a theist" is like saying "a doubting racecar driver is not a racecar driver". If they're a doubting theist, then it follows necessarily that they're a theist. And there is no definition of "theism" or "atheism" that says anything about varying levels of commitment or certitude. Theism is a view or belief. People can hold beliefs, to varying degrees of commitment or certitude, or with varying levels of open-mindedness to reconsidering that view, and theism/atheism is no exception. You're conflating things that are completely separate- whether one is a theist, and how committed, certain, or open-closedminded they are about their theism. — Seppo
And I never said anything about "every religion in the world". We're talking about theism. And theism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of views that differ greatly in the content of their claims, and the available evidence for/against those claims.
Given this diversity, its not clear whether (and actually fairly implausible to suppose that) the most appropriate position wrt one form of theism (say, evangelical young earth Christianity) will also be the most appropriate position wrt another completely different form of theism (deism, for instance). Chances are, what is the most appropriate will differ from case to case, such that e.g. atheism is the most appropriate response to one type of theism, while agnosticism is more appropriate to others. — Seppo
I'm not the only saying "some kinds of theists aren't theists". This is an explicit self-contradiction, you say they are a theist while also denying they are a theist.
I mean c'mon, this is literally freshman level logic here. A doubting theist is a theist. If they aren't a theist, then they're not a "doubting theist". Are you even thinking about what you're saying at this point? — Seppo
Yes, whether a doubting theist is a theist or not is definitely freshman level logic: this is a logical truism, a tautology. Replace "theist" with any other word. If you can't understand such an elementary point of logic, I'm not sure what you're doing on a philosophy board.
Do you honestly not see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"? :roll: — Seppo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.