Should the head of the Agnostic organization be fired?

[harvey1]

It seems almost everyone on this board who says they are an atheist are really agnostic. If this mis-identification of one's beliefs is representative of society, then surely the agnostic organizations are doing a terrible, terrible job of educating the public on agnosticism. People at the atheist organizations, on the other hand, should be given promotions for their marketing success at convincing agnostics that they are in fact atheists.

Where are people like Carl Sagan, Bernand Russell, and Joe Dimaggio? Oh, where have you gone Joe Dimaggio?



(Actually, I have no idea if Joe was an agnostic, the sentence just sounded like it needed a little Simon & Garfunkel...)

Is there no one who actually believes one of these tenets?:

• (*) Weak Atheism (WA): "The observed universe has the strong appearance that God does not exist - making it very unlikely that God does in fact exist, but it is not impossible that God could exist."
  
  (*) Strong Atheism (SA): "The universe is such that reason dictates that God does not exist, and, in fact, it appears to be impossible that God could exist"

[harvey1]

I, as a neoplatonist, am not going to get all upset because someone does call themselves a neoplatonist even if they are not. But if a widespread misunderstanding starts to occur where pantheists say opening that all neoplatonists are pantheists, then this is frustrating because no they are not.

Why do you see this as frustrating? To me, this would just be an opportunity to enlighten the other party. Barring the redlining of certain neoplatonist districts by insurance companies, how does this really damage the way you argue or discuss these matters? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be concerned about getting a panentheist reputation despite best efforts. This kind of thinking is alien to me, pardon if it sounds incredulous. I would think that a neoplatonist would want to get everything just right, and you are probably pro-active in your corrections, but why, specifically, does it matter for someone you've never met before?

Philosophical confusion bothers me especially if it is created by a special few who do it to cloud their beliefs to make the palatable to others. It's completely self-serving without respect to philosophical traditions and that's why it bothers me.

Maybe I'm arguing that the very nature of agnosticism is such that it allows its adherents to be laid back about such things.

The issue is larger than agnosticism. It applies to philosophical designations in general. Anyone can cloud the meaning of a philosophical label to support their viewpoint, but that's just wrong.

Even if I am not a member of that group I enjoy having the use of certain labels so that we can argue if that philosophical position is justified. If someone merely changes the meaning of that label, then it makes much more difficult to argue if that philosophical position is justified. And for what reason? So that atheism doesn't have to be justified. It is a fallacious means by which to justify a belief, not the old fashion way of duking it out.

I don't think this is true. I think it just shifts the argument in terms of semantics. It doesn't make the argument more difficult, it just extends it a little as both sides attempt to update their definitions. I think this is mainly due to the malleable nature of the English language. Many years from now, we may all be saying, "Remember when agnostic used to mean something else?" But this happens with a lot of words. Language, as a concept, is not an end in itself, it's just a convenient way to exchange ideas.

That's true, over time words do change, but I say shame on those who do it to confuse those about what is true. This is what some atheists are in effect doing. I think if creationists tried to re-define evolution as another word for creationism, and they were somehow successful, you would see the harm that would do to science. Scientists would have to insist that the term no longer be used because of this confusion. I know it's unimaginable that such could happen, but if it did happen, imagine the confusion...

I think atheism is perfectly well suited to justify itself without resorting to language tricks. If someone calls themself an atheist, what are you to make of that? It's the same as if someone calls themself a Christian -- What exactly do you mean by that? Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon? The further classifications mean more than the word, so the drill-down, if you like, is to get to the personal beliefs that are beyond the words. My Catholic mother-in-law believes that, after death, the soul stays in the body for two weeks before ascending to heaven (and for this reason she refuses to be cremated). Is this Catholic doctrine? I don't think so. but the label classifies the majority of her beliefs, and it's easier than saying, "I'm a Catholic, but here's how my beliefs differ from the Church..."

Yes, when talking to individuals I agree with you. But, I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about a category of belief and how the community of those with that designation have chosen to define themselves in relation to other beliefs. Agnosticism has already a relation with atheism, and that relation is that it is distinct from atheism. If some individuals within those philosophical traditions confuse the line, this is understandable, but if a debate were to ensue, it would just be a matter of correcting the situation.

If the word "atheist" means something different to you than it does to the professed atheist, isn't it nevertheless more important to discuss the actual beliefs than the use of the word?

Philosophical labels are used for a reason. For one thing, it helps to know the status of that belief in terms of its applicability. For example, a label such as a creationist helps those who want to know whether creationism is true or not to research their contributions to science. If evolution comes to mean 'creationism' through a success grass root effort by creationists, then the label 'evolutionist' is entirely misleading.

But unless your purpose is to make a searchable database of scholarly papers, I would think it would be more important to engage people rather than groups who define themselves as specific terms.

Maybe I'll go over to the creation/evolution sub-forum and explain to the 'evolutionists' why God didn't create the universe in 7 days...

[The Happy Humanist]

So we are all, in a sense, agnostics. Me, I consider myself an agnostic atheist, like others here. I think it was here I read someone (ST88?) who said that they don't believe in God's existence (atheist) but they acknowledge that they don't know for certain that he doesn't exist (agnostic). That's me.

Recently I provided a quote by Huxley which shows that he clearly meant the term to distinguish himself from atheists, pantheists, etc. Russell also accepted the label identifying his beliefs, and he too distinguished himself from atheists. He even wrote an essay <A HREF="http://www.merklee.com/notebook/agnostic2.htm">What is an Agnostic?</A>

Don't hold me to this, but I believe Huxley wrote before the concept of weak atheism was extant. And Russell, I think, just plain gets it wrong.

However, rather than focus solely on the historical, there is a common sense reason to distinguish atheism and agnosticism. Both can quite legitimately express strong and weak versions that do not overlap, and therefore it makes absolutely no sense to extend atheism's border into agnosticism. Also, agnosticism is not a belief of ultimate knowledge, i.e., ontology (as you construe it), it is a belief of justified knowledge, i.e., epistemology. Weak agnostics are saying that we cannot justify based on the current evidence that we know God exists, and the strong version of agnosticism says that we can never have enough evidence to make this justification.

Indeed, I would say that agnosticism is not a belief at all, it is a statement of fact. "We currently cannot know for certain whether or not God exists." It is more of an epistemological axiom than anything. If you disagree, try arguing against it. Atheism, on the other hand, at least weak atheism, is a statement of belief (or more correctly, disbelief). So it is possible to acknowledge a fact, and hold a belief that is at least partly based on that fact.

The weak atheists won't go so far as to say the current evidence rules out God for all time, they simply say that the current evidence is such that we can safely say that God does not exist. They don't deny that evidence might turn up in the future. This is quite different from the agnostic position as you can see.

Different, because it's on a different continuum. You use the word overlap as if atheism and agnosticism are part of the same spectrum of belief. I maintain that, strictly adhering to Huxley's definition, "God is unknowable," atheism is one possible belief system that uses that fact as a basis. There can also be theistic agnostics. "I don't know for certain, but I will have faith."

There's nothing at all contradictory in what I said if we accept causation as being 'probable'. In terms of the big bang, the question is 'probable' to what? For example, what is the probability that I got out of bed sometime yesterday? The answer is that it is less than 1 prior to yesterday (since I could have been sick...), but if I consider it from the perspective of today, the answer is that it is entirely 1 (since, in fact, I did get out of bed yesterday). So, it is entirely misleading to assign probabilities of less than 1 (as Q.Smith wants to do) when talking about a beginning in a quantum cosmological context. For all we know, there is no other possibility besides the universe that emerged, hence even an infinitesimal probability is 1 since the other 0.999999... probabilities are eliminated since they cannot happen. As an easy illustration, take a dishpan and poke a small hole in the bottom of it (pick an indiscriminate or unlikely location where water would flow from the bottom). Then fill the dishpan with water. Now, what is the likelyhood water would flow from that spot? The answer is 1 of course, even though potentially there are many spots water could have flowed from the bottom had the hole existed there.

Upon reflection, you are correct. "Cause indeterminable" does not equal "without cause." I retract the argument. I never liked that one, anyway.

Second, you seem to get a little ahead of yourself when you state that everything had to have a cause, including the universe, and so God had to will the universe into being. But why does it have to be God, or any sentient being? It is possible that there exists a great cosmic something out there whose sole function is universe-creation. It exists in some plane of reality outside the universe, which may be infinite, may in fact be best described in metaphysical terms, but which is not necessarily the realm of gods. This cosmic whatsit could be perfectly brainless, yet perfectly infinite and perfectly capable of creating a Universe that looks like this one - or other universes, attached to other parts of the whatsit, may be in operation as we speak.

Yes, I suppose it could, however in order to avoid the causative paradox that I mentioned to Bernie, then you have to identify a cause with something that is causation itself, that is, it must be some kind of metalogic (i.e., language-based).

Huh? You wanna hit me with that one again? Go easy, I ain't Joe College. What does language have to do with it?

The main point is this: you raise the Argument from Causation to attempt to show the necessity of a causative agent, which we can grant for argument's sake, but then make the unsupported leap to assuming that this agent had to be sentient, had to have the will to create the Universe. Since you are the one claiming that God is both necessary and sufficient to Universe-creation, the burden of proof lies on you to support both components, necessary and sufficient. The burden on the atheist side is less, since all we need to show is something else that even conjecturally might be sufficient to Universe-creation - and having done so, the necessity of God is thus obviated.

Let's pretend this were science. As a 'scientist' I have the prerogative to believe my hypothesis if it explains the unknown cause of a phenomena. But, you as another 'scientist' can believe another hypothesis to explain the same unknown cause, but if you want to deny my hypothesis in front of others, then you have to not only submit your hypothesis as a competing hypothesis, but in addition you have to show why my hypothesis is not reasonable.

Perhaps, but this is not science, since neither hypothesis is currently testable. It's philosophy, and as such my previous statement stands.

Sooo..., what evidence to you have that makes you an atheist to my explanation? Can you account for my argument against atheism (i.e., causal paradox I discussed), and can you provide a better explanation that explains the universe in a philosophical sense (I'm not asking for a scientific theory, I'm asking for an ontology which makes sense)?

I am agnostic to your explanation because you have failed to show that it is the only one possible. I am atheistic towards it because it violates Occam's Razor, in that you have tacked on a requirement ("sentience") which I consider unnecessary to the act of "universe-creation." Make a case that a causative force would have to be sentient, and we'll talk.

[harvey1]

So we are all, in a sense, agnostics. Me, I consider myself an agnostic atheist, like others here. I think it was here I read someone (ST88?) who said that they don't believe in God's existence (atheist) but they acknowledge that they don't know for certain that he doesn't exist (agnostic). That's me.

Recently I provided a quote by Huxley which shows that he clearly meant the term to distinguish himself from atheists, pantheists, etc. Russell also accepted the label identifying his beliefs, and he too distinguished himself from atheists. He even wrote an essay <A HREF="http://www.merklee.com/notebook/agnostic2.htm">What is an Agnostic?</A>

Don't hold me to this, but I believe Huxley wrote before the concept of weak atheism was extant. And Russell, I think, just plain gets it wrong.

Here's a Graham Oppy paper which shows how the philosophical community defines agnosticism. Notice, that there is a conflict with strong and weak agnostism if 'weak atheism' is equated with agnostism. Strong agnosticism is the view "that it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence". Weak agnosticism is the view "that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence". I think it is perfectly consistent to extend Oppy's definitions to atheism and theism and include it as a continuum from one extreme to another:

• Strong atheism: It is obligatory for reasonable persons to believe that God does not exist.
• Weak atheism: It is permissible for reasonable persons to believe that God does not exist.
• Strong agnosticism: It is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
• Weak agnosticism: It is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
• Weak theism: It is permissible for reasonable persons to believe that God exists.
• Strong theism: It is obligatory for reasonable persons to believe that God exists.

If people would just use this classification, then it would determine in an instant what they actually believe with regards to God's existence.

Indeed, I would say that agnosticism is not a belief at all, it is a statement of fact. "We currently cannot know for certain whether or not God exists." It is more of an epistemological axiom than anything. If you disagree, try arguing against it. Atheism, on the other hand, at least weak atheism, is a statement of belief (or more correctly, disbelief). So it is possible to acknowledge a fact, and hold a belief that is at least partly based on that fact.

I think you are confusing agnosticism with another philosophical view. We already have a philosophy about the uncertain status of our ontological knowledge, and it is called fallibilism. This is what atheists don't mention when they try to redefine the term 'agnosticism' so that they can divert attention from their negative belief on a particular ontology to being seen as only holding a neutral belief to a particular ontology. Of course, that was why Huxley and Russell took the agnostic label - so they could be seen as neutral to a particular ontological stance on God's existence.

Different, because it's on a different continuum. You use the word overlap as if atheism and agnosticism are part of the same spectrum of belief. I maintain that, strictly adhering to Huxley's definition, "God is unknowable," atheism is one possible belief system that uses that fact as a basis. There can also be theistic agnostics. "I don't know for certain, but I will have faith."

That would be a fallibilist theist...

[ST88]

Philosophical confusion bothers me especially if it is created by a special few who do it to cloud their beliefs to make the palatable to others. It's completely self-serving without respect to philosophical traditions and that's why it bothers me.

So the purpose of this thread is, then, to chastise agnostics for not denouncing atheists for usurping the agnostic label. All to make life easier for those who wish to engage them in debate. But shoundn't debating them be that much easier if they hold views they don't espouse?

Maybe I'm arguing that the very nature of agnosticism is such that it allows its adherents to be laid back about such things.

The issue is larger than agnosticism. It applies to philosophical designations in general. Anyone can cloud the meaning of a philosophical label to support their viewpoint, but that's just wrong.

I agree that it's wrong. But why does it bother you to point out the error?

That's true, over time words do change, but I say shame on those who do it to confuse those about what is true. This is what some atheists are in effect doing. I think if creationists tried to re-define evolution as another word for creationism, and they were somehow successful, you would see the harm that would do to science. Scientists would have to insist that the term no longer be used because of this confusion. I know it's unimaginable that such could happen, but if it did happen, imagine the confusion...

Hmmm. I believe creationists are already doing this by including abiogenesis and cosmology in the concept of evolution. Hence the confusion. And, among other very good reasons, they are not taken all that seriously. But by this same token, I would think that the free marketplace of ideas should take care of such things. Philosophies rise and fall depending on many factors.

Yes, when talking to individuals I agree with you. But, I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about a category of belief and how the community of those with that designation have chosen to define themselves in relation to other beliefs. Agnosticism has already a relation with atheism, and that relation is that it is distinct from atheism. If some individuals within those philosophical traditions confuse the line, this is understandable, but if a debate were to ensue, it would just be a matter of correcting the situation.

Agnostics like myself don't really care enough to defend the honor of the word because the word is not the world-view. The word is convenient shorthand. Here is a concept which does not require a word, but we assign one to it anyway because it is convenient to use in relation to this other concept -- the God Model -- that many other people seem to define themselves by. If there is one annoying thing about being an agnostic, it is this: that I find I am often forced to define myself in terms of the theists.

Philosophical labels are used for a reason. For one thing, it helps to know the status of that belief in terms of its applicability. For example, a label such as a creationist helps those who want to know whether creationism is true or not to research their contributions to science. If evolution comes to mean 'creationism' through a success grass root effort by creationists, then the label 'evolutionist' is entirely misleading.

I would argue that there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" because it implies a parallel argument and belief system as creationists. Evolution is a scientific theory. I do not pray to the altar of Francis Crick; I do not ask Darwin to forgive me my sins. I.e., the label "evolutionist" is already entirely misleading. However, in argument, I tolerate the use of it because it's a convenient shorthand for *ahem* non-evolutionists to use. I think I'm being very gracious having only pointed this out a couple of times before.

[harvey1]

So the purpose of this thread is, then, to chastise agnostics for not denouncing atheists for usurping the agnostic label. All to make life easier for those who wish to engage them in debate. But shoundn't debating them be that much easier if they hold views they don't espouse?

Is debating creationists easier if they say that Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis? I think confusion never makes a debate easier, it makes it longer and tiresome. If every creationist never again mentioned such a confusion, we'd all be the better for it.

The issue is larger than agnosticism. It applies to philosophical designations in general. Anyone can cloud the meaning of a philosophical label to support their viewpoint, but that's just wrong.

I agree that it's wrong. But why does it bother you to point out the error?

I get bothered when creationists confuse Pasteur's work with that of abiogenesis. I just dislike mindless chatter, especially unnecessary mindless chatter.

Hmmm. I believe creationists are already doing this by including abiogenesis and cosmology in the concept of evolution. Hence the confusion. And, among other very good reasons, they are not taken all that seriously. But by this same token, I would think that the free marketplace of ideas should take care of such things. Philosophies rise and fall depending on many factors.

There are setbacks, and a setback happens when enough people do not stand up and say "that is not right what you are saying...".

Agnostics like myself don't really care enough to defend the honor of the word because the word is not the world-view. The word is convenient shorthand. Here is a concept which does not require a word, but we assign one to it anyway because it is convenient to use in relation to this other concept -- the God Model -- that many other people seem to define themselves by. If there is one annoying thing about being an agnostic, it is this: that I find I am often forced to define myself in terms of the theists.

The situation will only get worse if agnostics are confused as atheists. But, more generally, why not defend a word that pinpoints your belief? It's a shame to let a word go by the wayside that says so much in so little syllables.

I would argue that there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" because it implies a parallel argument and belief system as creationists. Evolution is a scientific theory. I do not pray to the altar of Francis Crick; I do not ask Darwin to forgive me my sins. I.e., the label "evolutionist" is already entirely misleading. However, in argument, I tolerate the use of it because it's a convenient shorthand for *ahem* non-evolutionists to use.

I see great merit in evolutionists beyond biological evolution. The word can be used in psychology (e.g., evolutionary psychology), in cosmology (e.g., cosmological evolution), in astrophysics (e.g., stellar evolution), in philosophy (e.g., evolutionary epistemology). So, it is an important word and it would be disasterous for stating one's position if it suddenly meant something other than gradual change over time.

I think I'm being very gracious having only pointed this out a couple of times before.

Thanks. We just disagree, that's all.

[bernee51]

I see great merit in evolutionists beyond biological evolution. The word can be used in psychology (e.g., evolutionary psychology), in cosmology (e.g., cosmological evolution), in astrophysics (e.g., stellar evolution), in philosophy (e.g., evolutionary epistemology). So, it is an important word and it would be disasterous for stating one's position if it suddenly meant something other than gradual change over time.

And spiritual evolution of course. We (homo sapiens) have moved from animism, through the power gods...most are currently stuck in the mythic...fortunately evolution is inexorable.

[TQWcS]

And spiritual evolution of course. We (homo sapiens) have moved from animism, through the power gods...most are currently stuck in the mythic...fortunately evolution is inexorable.

Guess you have already evolved from the "mythic" into something bigger and better.

[bernee51]

And spiritual evolution of course. We (homo sapiens) have moved from animism, through the power gods...most are currently stuck in the mythic...fortunately evolution is inexorable.

Guess you have already evolved from the "mythic" into something bigger and better.

Evolution is a process - not an endpoint.

And one does not replace another - it incorporates and transcends.