Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

I guess it's all down to interpretation. When I hear the phrase "view the world as if there were no god", I think of someone who goes around looking at things and thinking "god didn't do that", rather than someone who simply does not believe in god, and sees the world for what it is, finding some things beautiful and other things not. Likewise, when I hear "view the world as if god does exist", I think of someone who goes around praising everything as God's creation, not people who simply believe that God exists but see the world differently.

I think there is a fundamental difference between believing in god, and viewing the world as if god exists. Viewing the world as if god exists, to me, implies that someone attributes everything to god that they see in the world, and whilst this is probably an accurate description of some fundamentalists, it doesn't apply to everyone else. To make a comparision, I think it is the difference between believing that you are going to die, and viewing the world as if you are going to die. A person who believes they are going to die (and I'm talking about prematurely, not generally) might still see the world as beuatiful and worth livnig for. A person who views the world as if they are going to die would have a completely different view, possible very negative.

Anyway, it's a mute point since we've agreed to remove it from the scale. I just thought I'd give me "two cents" about it. I'm probably over-interpretting.

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.

The dictionary seems to disagree with you. It defines a worldview as "The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world". I think the words "sees" and "interprets" are rather synonymous with the word "views". I think possibly the argument boils down to mere semantics though.

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.

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.

Fair point, I then suggest that we add an additional note explaining that when we use the word "theist" we are not talking about the belief that god is a ruler of the universe, but about belief in god generally. This I think would convince the deists of their position on the scale. The definition of theism varies, and some people would argue that theism and deism are not interconnected. Hence why we need to make sure that people understand the term "theist" only makes reference to a belief in a god, it does nothing to affirm which type of god we are talking about.

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.

Explicit/implicit might be a good way of getting around it, but I do think that given the notes we have attached, it would probably just cause more confusion to add new terms into it. If someone reads the notes, they should have enough information to understand the terms used.

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

Fully agreed.

(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."

Very well.

(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."

Here is where I am kinda split. I think mention should be made about the modern (wrong) interpretation of agnosticism as some kind of cop-out, or an "I don't know what I believe" kind of answer. Agnosticism is all about knowability though; its general idea is that given our limited status in the universe, we cannot really know anything in an absolute sense. So yes you are right in saying that it is about the subjective nature of arguments for god, but this is in itself a knowability issue (therefore a contradiction with what you said about it not referring to the knowability of gods).

So I would suggest: The word "agnostic" does not refer to the modern interpretation of being "unsure" about what one believes, but refers instead to the subjective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."

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 modern interpretation of being "unsure" about what one believes, but refers instead to the subjective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."
iv. The word "theist" does not refer to a belief in a god who rules the universe, but to belief in god generally. It is the opposite of atheism rather than distinct from deism.

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. They may sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe' that gods exist, and question whether the issue has ultimate consequences.

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

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