Some more on agnosticism

It's a keeper!

I thought your disposal of the tooth-fairy rhetoric was very well done.

I was surprised that few philosophers of your acquaintence are agnostics, though. Do you have any explanation? I would have thought that working with anything as slippery as the concept of "knowledge" would have pretty quickly disposed practioners to throw up their hands at ever attaining any. ;-)

I am sorry but reading your comments I am still confused.

If you do not believe in any gods, why do you deny that you are an atheist?

An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in deities isn't it?

Its not a knowledge statement. Its not a claim of knowledge about te ontological state of deities, but simply a descriptive term about a persons beliefs or lack of beliefs

According to Dawkins and his spectrum of belief, an atheist is someone who believes the existence of gods (other than the ones he is not interested in, such as deist or Spinozan gods) is "very low probability, but short of zero" or who is convinced there is no god. Dawkins disagrees with Huxley (blessed be our founder's name!) and claims the existence of gods is a scientific hypothesis. Agnostics think Dawkins' probabilities are (insert many qualifications here) pulled out of certain nether regions and that his attempt to differentiate between agnostics and atheists by "how much" they believe in gods is simplistic, at best.

I can't speak for John but the agnostic/atheist difference for me connotes, at the very least, a significant difference in emphasis justifying a different descriptor. Sometimes the route you take to get someplace matters even if you wind up in the same locale. There is also a different conceptual coverage of the two terms and, even when two terms can apply, there is a general right of the individual to choose which he or she wants to be known by.

It's also my experience that the word "atheism" changes, Humpty Dumpty like, depending on who is using it and the context. It's better to use a fully descriptive term you feel comfortable with.

Not to put too fine a point on it, not everyone agrees with your definition.

John is right - you really do have to consider each claim separately. I consider myself an atheist with respect to any specific God I've heard about, but I must remain agnostic with respect to the question of "God" in general, primarily for the following reasons:

1. The question is much too vaguely defined and subject to any number of interpretations.

2. Although I see no reason to believe in any "God" at this point, I don't know what I don't know. I am a finite being who does not understand what larger contexts my existence could possibly be understood in.

So if you want to play the labeling game, I guess that makes me technically an agnostic, but practically an atheist. The "new atheism" is a justifiable reaction to the resurgence of dangerous fundamentalism, so in the interest of furthering that cause, I'll be happy to be an atheist - as long as we don't waste too much time and energy splitting philosophical hairs.

I'm not leaning on Dawkins

A lot of people define an ateist as someone who believes in the non existence of any gods.

If this is the definition, then I know no atheists, and I am a boardmember for an atheist organisation.

Such a definition is silly, simply because almost no one absolutely denies the existence of gods.

A more usable definition is to look at what a theist is. That is a person who believes in at least on deity.

Well, if you not a theist, then your a atheist. Its not a question of what you would like to be called. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

So we should use a proper negation of the theist stance. Hence since theist beliefs in the existance of at least one god, the atheist does not believe in any god.

A friend of mine once bought me a t-shirt that said "I don't hate everyone... just everyone I've ever met". You seem to define your agnosticism similarly. Your t-shirt would read: "I don't disbelieve in every god... just every god I've ever met". That strikes me as a novel interpretation of the word.

I read the Sandwalk post and comments. Your position reminds me of Drange's analysis in this article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html

I was just wondering if you agree with Drange, with the possible exception that you wouls eliminate "non-cognitivism" and repjace it with "agnosticism" [primary meaning].

Soren:

I'm not leaning on Dawkins

I wasn't saying you were or had to. I was pointing out that atheists themselves (and quite famous ones) don't adhere to your simple dualism. The meaning of words are decided by usage, not logic.

Well, if you not a theist, then your a atheist. Its not a question of what you would like to be called. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

As long as Dawkins and others are going around using different definitions, of course it is my right to deny the same label he uses (quite separate and apart from the fact that I'm an agnostic pantheist). That was my point. Maybe in a perfect world such a clear and simple definition as yours would be accepted by everyone but it isn't in this one.

A friend of mine once bought me a t-shirt that said "I don't hate everyone... just everyone I've ever met". You seem to define your agnosticism similarly. Your t-shirt would read: "I don't disbelieve in every god... just every god I've ever met". That strikes me as a novel interpretation of the word.

Your analogy doesn't fit. The difference is that you can easily define the word "people", whereas the word "God" is much more nebulous and subject to interpretation.

The difference is that you can easily define the word "people", whereas the word "God" is much more nebulous and subject to interpretation.

I had the Wikipedia entry "List of deities" in mind as a good starting point when I wrote that comment.

I think most people would classify an individual who did not believe in any of the gods on that list as an atheist. I hadn't ever heard or thought of calling that person instead an agnostic.

Once again I note that "I believe that not-X" is rather different from "I do not believe that X". I do not believe in those gods, but it is not the case that I actively disbelieve in those gods. I actively disbelieve in any god whose existence entails contrary to fact beliefs (such as "evolution doesn't happen" or "the earth is flat"). I do not actively disbelieve in any god who has no such implications.

John and John,

I think John Pieret got to the core of the issue when he mentioned Larry's leaving out "or its negation" on his comment on Sandwalk. All of us can come up with an infinite number of positive claims concerning "things that exist" like empirically empty versions of the Tooth Fairy and God. But is there really *no* difference between statements like "(God) (The Tooth Fairy) in fact exists but cannot in principle be demonstrated" and "your claims concerning the existence of (God) (Tooth Fairy) are utterly unjustified and should be rejected until evidence for them is offered"? Maybe so, but if there is no difference, aren't we committed to the most radical version of skepticism? John Wilkins tells us on the Sandwalk thread that "I believe that the only thing that qualifies as knowledge is the outcome of empirically grounded investigation. That is, in other words, science. All else is conjecture, belief, personal preference, social aesthetics, and the like, but it isn't knowledge". It seems to me John, that if those are your views, you must be commited to the view that you are agnostic with respect to Common Descent (and virtully everything else). We can engage in all the "empirically grounded invesitigation" we want, but you simply cannot eliminate the possibility that God created the universe in a way that appears consistent with Common Descent.

I think most people would classify an individual who did not believe in any of the gods on that list as an atheist. I hadn't ever heard or thought of calling that person instead an agnostic.

Well then that should show you how subjective the question is. If "God" (whatever that means) does "exist", IMO he would not be on that list. Unless human mythology can somehow anticipate all unknowns in cosmology and physics.

Mike:

... is there really *no* difference between statements like "(God) (The Tooth Fairy) in fact exists but cannot in principle be demonstrated" and "your claims concerning the existence of (God) (Tooth Fairy) are utterly unjustified and should be rejected until evidence for them is offered"?

Well, of course, the tooth fairy example offers one answer to your question: we have pretty good empiric evidence that the tooth fairy is an outright (though innocuous) fraud. My parents confessed, you see.

That was the point of John's insistence that we treat each claim separately. Gods who reportedly don't exist unless the Earth is only 6,000 years old can be said with high confidence not to exist ... at least not in the form that its proponents claim.

... aren't we committed to the most radical version of skepticism?

"And what's wrong with that?" he asked skeptically.

This is my take on this, I can't speak for John. Don't forget that this skepticism does not require you to go around pondering "will naturalism prove true if that bus hits me?" You're allowed to run like hell. I can't see how I can demonstrate to myself that I am not a brain floating in a tank somewhere hallucinating all this (Bad brain! Bad!) but it doesn't stop me from going on as if this is real. At worst, you may have to stop and think whether you are being terribly fair to your fellow humans and their beliefs ... and anyone who knows me will understand that it poses very little impediment in that regard.

... if those are your views, you must be commited to the view that you are agnostic with respect to Common Descent (and virtully everything else). We can engage in all the "empirically grounded invesitigation" we want, but you simply cannot eliminate the possibility that God created the universe in a way that appears consistent with Common Descent.

And your problem with that is? Nobody ever could disprove Omphalos or Last Thursdayism. Ain't no biggie.