RE: Atheist or Agnostic?
April 3, 2015 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2015 at 5:23 pm by datc.)
It seems obvious to me that the gnostic / agnostic distinction you are proposing regards speculative life, wherein proofs or God's existence or non-existence are entertained for the edification of all concerned.
The theist / atheist distinction concerns the active life.
Here's the key difference: when speculating, one can assume anything and see where the assumptions lead him. One need not actually believe anything, and the assumption may be false, as long as it is useful or reasonable to assume it.
When acting, one must base his plans on true beliefs, regardless of evidence for or against them. If one is building a bridge, then one is ipso facto extending assent or beliefs to a vast number of (hopefully) true propositions in math, physics, etc. It may be that the builder is using a controversial theory in his project. Despite the fact that many scientists hold this theory in contempt, all is forgiven as long as the bridge works.
Thus, if you live your life without relying on God in any way, then you are a (practical) atheist. If, in building a life for yourself (and not just a bridge), you do not depend on anything God-related, regardless of any speculative disputes regarding any proofs of God's existence, you're an atheist. If things of God "have no use to me and so I make all my plans without regard to them," then one is a confirmed atheist.
Also, I find the distinction between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists to be uninteresting.
The discussion proceeds between 1) those who think there is a proof of God's existence; 2) those who think there is a proof of God's non-existence; and 3) those who are unsure but are capable of contributing to the debate by taking, in a purely speculative way, at one point one side, and at another the other side, as matters appear to them.
Whether the agnostic is in addition a theist or atheist is his own personal life, and that's his own business and no one else's.
The theist / atheist distinction concerns the active life.
Here's the key difference: when speculating, one can assume anything and see where the assumptions lead him. One need not actually believe anything, and the assumption may be false, as long as it is useful or reasonable to assume it.
When acting, one must base his plans on true beliefs, regardless of evidence for or against them. If one is building a bridge, then one is ipso facto extending assent or beliefs to a vast number of (hopefully) true propositions in math, physics, etc. It may be that the builder is using a controversial theory in his project. Despite the fact that many scientists hold this theory in contempt, all is forgiven as long as the bridge works.
Thus, if you live your life without relying on God in any way, then you are a (practical) atheist. If, in building a life for yourself (and not just a bridge), you do not depend on anything God-related, regardless of any speculative disputes regarding any proofs of God's existence, you're an atheist. If things of God "have no use to me and so I make all my plans without regard to them," then one is a confirmed atheist.
Also, I find the distinction between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists to be uninteresting.
The discussion proceeds between 1) those who think there is a proof of God's existence; 2) those who think there is a proof of God's non-existence; and 3) those who are unsure but are capable of contributing to the debate by taking, in a purely speculative way, at one point one side, and at another the other side, as matters appear to them.
Whether the agnostic is in addition a theist or atheist is his own personal life, and that's his own business and no one else's.
