Why Agnostic?

[Ryft]

I don't see a problem with this definition on the Deist side. Isn't that what faith is: certainty that is not based on proof?

You truncated from my quote the element that created the problem for me. The part of my quote which you cited—

"... someone who believes that God exists despite the fact that God's existence is unproven or even unprovable ..."

—by itself is not problematic in any way. When you remove the "100% certainty" part, like your citation did, the problem indeed vanishes.

I think there is a middle ground in inconsistency. Couldn't someone who's unsure whether or not god exists be inconsistent in their outlook and behaviour? Couldn't they sometimes act like god exists and sometimes act like god doesn't exist?

Shit. This completely undercuts my argument. I've got nothing. Kudos to you.

I think your use of the pronoun "he" excludes some deisms with an impersonal god. I can't rate myself under a definition of atheism that refers to the concept of god with a personal pronoun.

As I said to Tiberius, the brevity of the propositions allows us to avert the pronoun problem by simply not using any.

To the lay person I think that would mean someone who has established conclusively that God exists. I think that sounds a bit final and over-stepping the mark. Is that a correct reading?

Um, yes. Conclusively estabished does mean established conclusively. Sort of tautological.

If it sounds "a bit final" then it accomplishes its aim. Is it over-stepping the mark? I don't think so, because a "conclusive" argument is not necessarily one that is somehow universally convincing. Rather, to establish something conclusively is to adequately settle the question. If someone holds that theistic arguments don't adequately settle the question (i.e., not conclusive), then they belong to the agnostic theist category.

"View the world" is an active stance, and apatheists would not say something like that.

This seems to completely ignore my argument to the contrary, that I had chosen this phrase because it includes "even those who do not actively think about the issue." See, I wanted to encapsulate how people view the world in which they live: their perspective as they go to work each day, as they watch the news, as they contemplate or interact with their family, as they confront moral circumstances, as they make value judgments, etc. Surely you would agree that even apatheists confront moral issues (e.g., she watched as her drunken stepfather punched her mother) or make value judgments (e.g., he decides between buying a used PS3 game or Mother's Day card), even apatheists form thoughts about stories reported in the news (e.g., she hears about two planes hitting the WTC buildings), and so forth. Even apatheists lie back on the grass and stare at the starry night sky with a mind that is not blank. In short, apatheists "view the world" in which they live just like any other person does.

Theists view the world in the context of an existent God—from Muslims, for whom God has extensive relevance, to Deists, for whom God has limited relevance. Atheists view the world in the context of no existent God—from Sam the Buddhist who doesn't believe God exists, to Mary the Secular Humanist who believes God doesn't exist. And apatheists, as you and Tsuyoiko have convincingly argued, view the world inconsistently; sometimes they think he exists, other times they think he doesn't, settling on neither one side or the other long enough to truly identify with either.

"I don't view the world as if there is no god," you said. I doubt that's true. When you confront everyday circumstances, does God factor in the picture? Probably not. When you confront philosophical issues, does God become a reference point for you? I doubt it. Even when the subject of God comes up directly, do you have any sense that he exists? No, you view the world as though there is no God, from everyday circumstances to philosophical discussions.

"I don't view the world in any particular way at all," you said. I doubt this is true, too. If you have a moral compass, you sense that some things are right or good (e.g., you observe someone feeding a homeless woman) and other things are wrong or bad (e.g., you hear about someone convicted of raping and murdering a child), that some things are important and others are not. If you have any affinity for life and science, you view the world as an intricate and extraordinary web of evolutionary diversity. The very fact that you enjoy philosophical and scientific discussions means you view the world as sensible and intelligible. And so on.

Your scale currently would not go down well with a large number of atheists who say that atheism is not a worldview

Actually, my scale said nothing at all about atheism being a worldview, particularly because I'm one of those people who argues that it's not. The key point here is this: a worldview and how one views the world are not the same thing; you can do the latter without possessing the former.

My scale incorporated people who view the world in theistic terms on the one hand, and atheistic terms on the other. (And it will now have to include apatheists, those who vacillate inconsistently between the two.) For instance, a Secular Humanist who says that atheism is not a worldview could look at my scale and identify with either proposition '4' or '5' because, from everyday circumstances to philosophical discussions, God never factors in for her, never becomes a reference point for her, she never has any sense that God exists. She views the world in atheistic terms—i.e., as though no God exists.

Belief and non-belief is something people can easily relate to. You either believe that god(s) exist or you don't. It's not ambiguous either.

In the final analysis, despite having explained my position, I do have to concede to the clarity and sensibilty of this point.

If you are to argue this, then why doesn't atheism also carry the implication of having given the issue some thought?

It does. I am in agreement with Michael Shermer and others on this point, that atheism should be properly understood as the conscious rejection of theism. "Thus a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God is not an atheist," Ernest Nagel argued, "for he his not denying any theistic claims." This leads to the pragmatic use of distinguishing between "nontheist" and "atheist," with the latter being the conscious rejection of theism in juxtaposition with the conscious acceptance of theism. But I'm not sure that distinctions on this level are relevant or even necessary for a convenient scale such as we're exploring here. Philosophers could split hairs endlessly over most of the terms we are using but the average person, I think, can identify and understand well enough "atheist" and "theist," etc.

[Re: 'gnostic' meaning 'strong'] Or could it not be added to the overall explanation of the scale?

I was thinking about "explicit/implicit" as an alternative rendering (taking a cue from George Smith's 1979 Atheism: The Case Against God), but I think I agree with your idea here.

None of that matters. The point is we are trying to create a scale that everyone can use. Having pronouns where there technically should not be pronouns is not following along with that aim. Likewise, god(s) should remain or we should make it known that when we use the word "gods" we are talking about one or more.

The pronoun problem can be averted by reiterating the term "gods," which the brevity of the propositions allows for. Speaking of which, I concur with your argument in favour of using the term "gods" with an explanatory note. Ditching the parenthetical plural in favour of apologetically pluralizing it all definitely helps.

I agree that "believes in" is different from "believes that," so maybe we should use the latter.

Agreed.


SUGGESTED RE-WORDING:

i. The word "gods" in the following scale refers to both singular (god) and plural (gods), as well as any personal variant (God).
i. The word "gods" in the following scale stands in for the singular (god), plural (gods), personal (God), and feminine (goddess).

I thought the scale should probably include those who affirm the feminine in deity, as some pagan traditions do.

ii. The word "gnostic" does not refer to the Christian movement, but to the position that the existence of gods can be conclusively established.
ii. The word "gnostic" does not refer to the syncretistic religious movements of Gnosticism, but to the objective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."

(1) Although some Gnostic sects co-opted Christian theology, it is not exactly a Christian movement [link]. (2) Since the point "can be conclusively established" is stated within the scale itself, there is no need to repeat it here. I exchanged it for a description of the sense in which the arguments are "gnostic."

iii. The word "agnostic" does not refer to the modern interpretation of "unsure" but as the original position (T. Huxley) that the existence of gods cannot be conclusively established.
iii. The word "agnostic" does not refer to the knowability of "gods," but to the subjective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."

(1) Removed the "unsure" part in favour of the "knowability" angle. I think it more closely aligns with how agnosticism per se is usually understood, which the note is designed to distance itself from. (2) Here too the "conclusively established" clause was exchanged for a description of the sense in which the arguments are "agnostic."


MY SUGGESTED DRAFT:

NOTES:

i. The word "gods" in the following scale stands in for the singular (god), plural (gods), personal (God), and feminine (goddess).
ii. The word "gnostic" does not refer to the syncretistic religious movements of Gnosticism, but to the objective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."
iii. The word "agnostic" does not refer to the knowability of "gods," but to the subjective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."

1. Gnostic Theist
Those who believe that gods exist, and hold that the existence of gods can be conclusively established.

2. Agnostic Theist
Those who believe that gods exist, and hold that the existence of gods cannot be conclusively established.

3. Apatheist
Those who are uncertain regarding the existence of gods; i.e., they sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe' that gods exist, and question whether the issue has ultimate consequence.

4. Agnostic Atheist
Those who do not believe that gods exist, and hold that the non-existence of gods cannot be conclusively established.

6. Gnostic Atheist
Those who do not believe that gods exist, and hold that the non-existence of gods can be conclusively established.

Deists would fit in under "Agnostic Theist"; their views on the nature, relevance, or importance of God is outside the scope of this scale, as far as I understand it, which is not intended to describe the various species of theisms and their tenets. And apathetic atheists would fit under "Agnostic Atheists"; their views on the meaningfulness or importance of the issues ("not a worthwhile pursuit") is likewise, I think, outside the scope of this scale. Thoughts?