Over at Evolving Thoughts, John Wilkins has unearthed a piece by Bertrand Russell on agnosticism. Russell starts out by differentiating atheism and agnosticism:
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time. ... An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism.
In the comments, PZ Myers claims that Russell’s starting definitions are wrong, but does not elaborate. They seem perfectly acceptable to me. More likely to cause heat is Wilkins’ suggestion that "those who think they are atheists, mean or otherwise, mostly are agnostics who are merely mislabelled."
- Log in to post comments
The only thing this kind of semantic hair-splitting brings to mind is the common internet argument about whether .999... = 1.
PZ is correct. The definitions are incorrect. Atheism no more implies certainty than theism - Russell errs by comparing atheism to Christianity rather than an atheistic belief system to Christianity or atheism to theism. Atheists as well as theists can be agnostics; all agnostics also are either atheists or theists.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm
It's impossible to disprove God (you can't prove a negative), just like you can't disprove the existence of pink fluffy unicorns, or leprechauns or cyclops or whatever... I don't exactly understand Agnostics. They are on the fence, are they unsure God exists, but don't declare his nonexistence for fear they might be wrong? Are they only agnostic toward the Christian God, or also to Zeus, Athena, Buddha, unicorns, leprechauns etc..
An Atheist simply says, hey, there is no evidence for God, fairies, trolls or Santa. End of story.
Meanwhile the Agnostic says, yea, there really is no evidence for God, but just in case he does exist, I won't say he won't so maybe he'll go easy on me when I die. (Brownie points for not being one of those damn angry baby- eating atheists)
If we were to go by Wilkins' definitions, and assuming it's a logical truth that a negative cannot be disproved, then 'Atheist' would be a Non-sequitur. Wait, does that mean I don't exist?
that should be you can't disprove a negative.
I think the debate about the meaning of atheism has been going on for quite a while. Recall that Huxley coined the word agnosticism because he didn't think there was yet a word to describe those who thought the existence of God was unknowable, and Darwin drew the same distinction in one of his letters. I think that we should pay some attention to the ways in which Huxley, Darwin, and Russell, three of the most most influential agnostics ever, defined their terms, but the ways in which the definitions have changed over the last century are also interesting. Atheism is often used as a broader term now than it was in the nineteenth century; if I recall correctly the 1980s book Atheism: The Case against God uses it as synonymous with non-theism. Also, agnosticism has become a term for a sort of wishy-washiness that Huxley would not have embraced (although Darwin might have).
So I think that Russell's definitions are less dominant now than they were in his day, but I don't think it's fair to call them wrong. I also think they're more useful than the more common ones of today.
There are really only two definitions for atheist. The first being a statement of fact, "I do not believe in any gods". The second is a statement of belief, "There is no god".
I have been an atheist for over half my 53 years, and the first moment I had the realization that I was an atheist was when I said to myself, "I do not believe in any god". Later, the other side of the coin comes into play, and given all the weight of history and psychology, anthropology and all the other sciences, I have come to "believe" that there are no gods. I recognize the second definition as the weaker leg to stand on, but the first is rock solid.
If I won't give Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny a pass, I sure as heck ain't going to give the gods one. Darwin proved his case, let the theist prove theirs.
There are really only two definitions for atheist. The first being a statement of fact, "I do not believe in any gods". The second is a statement of belief, "There is no god".
I have been an atheist for over half my 53 years, and the first moment I had the realization that I was an atheist was when I said to myself, "I do not believe in any god". Later, the other side of the coin comes into play, and given all the weight of history and psychology, anthropology and all the other sciences, I have come to "believe" that there are no gods. I recognize the second definition as the weaker leg to stand on, but the first is rock solid.
If I won't give Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny a pass, I sure as heck ain't going to give the gods one. Darwin proved his case, let the theist prove theirs.
I think this actually indicates the terrible weakness in our theological terms - which in fact come out of a theist base and thus tend to be rather polarized.
For instance, I'd be considered an atheist as I see no reason to believe in a personal supreme diety. This is not something I actively disbelieve per se - as I'm instead busy believing other things. Or, to put it more bluntly, I'm not interested in counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, because I've got other stuff to DO.
I have, based on my various beliefs, been considered an atheist, an agnostic, a pagan, and more. I'm not really interested in arguing THAT because, in the end, I still have other stuff to DO.
You can prove a negative. (And you can also disprove a negative.)
To weigh in on a topic that has been debated for years and years, I have to wonder whether someone who has decided that primarily gods are irrelevent and that there is no proof for the existence of gods.
It seems most of the debate takes the form of the dichotomy that one must believe in God (Judeo-Christian brand) or else deny that this God exists. This argument shows how flawed most of our thinking is, based upon a world of absolute black and whites.
I have to agree with the gist of many comments here.
To me - the 'proof' or otherwise of god is equivalent to proving santa, or the easter bunny.... WTF?
Lots of people believe in Santa -- the fact that the believers are generally children is largely irrelevant (but somewhat telling in that a similar 'childlike' belief system and behavior is estemed in most religions)