Agnostic: a pointless term?

[wiploc]

No-one calls themselves gnostic, apart from the Gnostics, ie the religion of Gnosticism.

When it comes to the standard Christian god, I am a gnostic strong atheist.

The word isn't very old, it was first used by Thomas Huxley in 1869 colloquially to describe his position on God - that there was for him inadequate data to form an opinion. This is the real meaning of agnosticism and you shouldn't get caught up relying on etymology to translate meaning.

What people mean by a word is the word's real meaning.

Most people use what I call the "old nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Agnostics include everyone else.

That gives us what is called a "normalized database": Everybody fits into a category, and nobody fits into more than one category.

The second most common usage is what I call the "new nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists include everyone else.

The new nomenclature is number 2, but it is coming on like gangbusters, and is particularly popular among atheists (that's new-nomenclature atheists: everybody but theists). We had a long thread on something like, "Atheists, what do you mean by the word 'atheist'?" at freeratio.org a few years ago, and nobody even mentioned your definition. So I'm tempted to claim that the great majority of people who self-identify as atheists use the new nomenclature.

Those two naming systems are both popular and have great currency: many people use them. And both are supported by dictionaries.

As to the word "agnostic," the old nomenclature uses it for weak atheists and also for people-without-knowledge. The new nomenclature reserves it for people-without-knowledge, thus reducing confusion.

You may not like the new nomenclature, but if it is supported by dictionaries and in common usage, you have no argument that the word "agnostic" doesn't "really" mean what so many people use it to mean.

Agnosticism is mutually exclusive to atheism, because atheism has always been a belief, and a belief cannot come from a position of no or inadequate knowledge.

You are overstating your case. Many many people throughout history have used the word in ways you don't approve of.

The 'lack of belief' = atheism idea is nonsense,

Theists believe gods exist. Atheists are those who don't happen to have that belief. That's perfectly clear, not nonsense at all.

lack of belief has never been the definition of atheism,

It is currently one of the two most common meanings. I suspect that among self-identified atheists, at least in America, it is the most common meaning. Your claim that it has never been the meaning is fantastical, wishful thinking.

and there are no historical grounds for it.

I've spoken with a linguist who disagrees. I've looked in dictionaries that disagree. I think your claim is hokum.

But, if your claim were true, it wouldn't matter. The current meaning of words depends entirely by what people mean by them now.

Whats more, it would make atheism and agnosticism indistinguishable

Your old system makes agnosticism (those who don't have a belief as to whether god exists) and agnosticism (those who lack knowledge) hard to distinguish.

The new system is much clearer, because it avoids that problem.

The only time the new system causes confusion is when people mix it with the old system. Most of the time when that happens, I get the feeling it is done deliberately. The confusion is the goal; it is intended by people who don't like the new system, so they pretend to be confused, and try to make it confusing for others.

- a lack of belief can only exist in the absence of knowledge, which is agnosticism.

See, now you are using "agnosticism" to mean "without knowledge," which is a usage you have been arguing against.

They're not mutually exclusive, one can fairly day "I don't know if X exists, but I don't believe it does".

No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does", which is an extraneous statement but atleast coherent.

It's not extraneous. Everybody believes some things without proof. "I don't know if X exists, but I nonetheless believe it exists," is common and logical. So, "I don't know if X exists, and I also don't believe it exists," isn't extraneous.

When you say you "don't believe", what you are actually saying is you believe it doesn't (exist).

Not only is this not true, but you yourself, in your previous sentence, gave an example of different usage.

"I don't believe X," is often meant as a figure of speech, litotes, in which one understates for effect. The meaning is "I believe not-X." Example of litotes? "He's not the sharpest pencil in the box," means he's really dull.

But you can't require us to use litotes every time we make a negative statement. Often enough, when we say, "I don't believe X," we are being literal, not figurative.

I don't believe that you have an odd number of coins in your pocket. But that doesn't mean I believe that the coins are an even number.

When you wrote, "No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does ..." you were careful to be clear that you weren't using litotes, which proves the point that one can say one doesn't believe X without meaning one believes not-X.

Like if someone says they "don't believe" you are telling the truth what they are actually saying is that they believe you are lying.

Not always true. Meaning depends on intent. Interpretation would depend on context.

This is just mis-use of a colloquialism. You are also missing the meaning of the word agnosticism, which is a lack of knowledge precluding the ability to form an opinion.

That screws up both systems of nomenclature.
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Atheists (or strong atheists) believe gods do not exist.
- Agnostics (or weak atheists) are unable to form an opinion due to their lack of knowledge.
- Members of group X have enough knowledge, but they are so flaky that they don't form opinions anyway.
- Members of group Y don't have enough knowledge to legitimately form opinions, but the do so anyway.

What other groups would there be? I don't know, but it's clearly easier to stick with one of the two major systems.
- Weak atheists (what the old system calls "agnostics") include everyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist. The motivations and justifications of the weak atheists don't affect the fact that they are weak atheists. If you've met Jehovah, have seen proof of his existence, and are currently sitting on his lap, but you still don't have a belief as to whether he exists (perhaps because you are brain damaged) then you are a weak atheist despite the fact that you have proof.

The three categories ((theist, strong atheist, weak atheist) or (theist, atheist, agnostic))
cover everybody, regardless of their state of knowledge.

Agnosticism has never pertaining to knowing with certainty, this is why i warded you off defining by etymology.

Preferring fictional history, "Nobody has ever used 'agnostic' that way."

No-one can ever really say they *know* anything ...

That's not a defensible position.

Not having belief in something merely because you don't feel compelled by the claim, cannot make you an atheist. It makes you an agnostic.

Depends which system of nomenclature is being used. In the new system, anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it false.

If you are not convinced by 1, your position is not -1, but 0.

But you're the one trying to get us to use more litotes, so that "I don't believe god exists" is interpreted as "I believe god does not exist." That's inconsistent with your claim that if you are not convinced by 1 your position is not -1 but 0.

So what are you? An agnostic or an atheist? You cannot be both, its incoherent.

Even in the old system of nomenclature, "agnostic" sometimes refers to those who don't know. You've used it that way yourself, in this thread. And it is perfectly possible to be that kind of agnostic while being an atheist of either type (old system or new).

You cannot simultaneously assume any belief while denying there is enough evidence to form an opinion.

That's (a) wrong, and (b) a strawman argument.

It's wrong because people do sometimes believe things in the teeth of the evidence. Sometimes they may be crazy. But they probably aren't all crazy, because this is so often used as an admirable characteristic on TV. "I know he's still alive! I don't have any evidence, and he's been down there for forty days without food or water, but I know he's alive!" When we say "keep the faith," we don't mean it as an insult. Plantinga says he couldn't fail to believe in god regardless of the evidence. He would proudly believe even if gods were scientifically proven not to exist.

It's a strawman argument because nobody is suggesting that there isn't enough evidence to form an opinion. One can believe something on less evidence than would be required for knowledge.