Why Agnostic?

[Purple Rabbit]

How would you guys improve my scale? I'm very open to suggestions, because the idea was to build a scale that everyone could use, and so far you are the only two people who have said they cannot find a place on it.

After rereading your posts in this thread I'm still not satisfied with your use of terms. Probably the real problem is me but imho you mix up the common and rather straightforward use of 100% certainty, that is absolute certainty (i.e. certainty that is NOT relative but is in total accordance with and has direct access to the ultimate truth of reality whatever that may entail) with less then 100% certainty (i.e. certainty that leaves room for doubt). In your scale there is no room for absolute certainty in the sense I propose. I think it is important that it is part of the ranking because claims of direct access to ultimate reality are being made by both theists and atheists.

[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?

[Kyuuketsuki]

How would you guys improve my scale? I'm very open to suggestions, because the idea was to build a scale that everyone could use, and so far you are the only two people who have said they cannot find a place on it.

I can't find a place on it because I am NOT 100% certain there is no god and none of the others apply to me so my suggestion is to remove certainty from that one or create another option that covers my position.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

We've moved in the phrasing from "100% certainty" (which Adrian explains as a relative notion) to "to hold that things can conclusively be established". These terms imo are not really accurate enough to describe the most extreme stances that can be taken. To clarify this consider in which setting the establishing of truth statements can take place.

One context is that this is a process of agreement between more than one individual. This group typically would have to agree up front on the conditions on which to acknowledge the existence of a certain god. Another context can be an individual process.

These are very different processes from an epistemological viewpoint. The group process requires a common infrastructure to convey messages between individuals (i.e. language) and a common framework for establishing facts about reality (science, belief). Infrastrucure and framework imply relative truth for all statements considered within the framework. The individual process does not necessarily. One person can claim direct contact with ultimate truth (not relative truth). Indeed there are theists that claim absolute knowledge of god's existence. Individuals that reject all epistemological limits, that reject the gap between noumena and phenomena to phrase it with Kant's terms. Indeed Descartes reasoned that from the one thing of which he could be absolutely certain (cogito ergo sum) the existence of god in absolute terms (note that it is irrelevant is if he indeed believed his inference). They exclude possibilities beyond widely accepted epistemological boundaries like the mind in a jar and Matrix-like nature of existence. Also there are atheists who claim to know in the absolute. Consider for instance the atheistic solipsist who claims that he himself is the sole source of everything that exists.

In short, imo the scale should depict the range of all possible stances taken and not presuppose epistemological boundaries. The term "establishing conclusively" for me primarily points in the direction of a group process which in essence is a relative process leading to relative results ("I am sure that within the boundaries of logic it is true that god exists"). Adrian's explanation on 100% certainty confirms this (imo mixing up what is asserted with what can be asserted). By doing so the extreme stances are left out of the scale.

[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.

[Purple Rabbit]

I reckon in the end no scale will accurately depict the range of stances taken on the god concept, but one more thing I really miss in it is the moral dimension. I hold that it is possible to believe in a certain god as the creator of the universe but at the same time to deny his moral supremacy. Is this atheism? Many articulations of moral dogma of the christian god in particular are immoral to me (eternal damnation for one thing). I happen to think that critical thinking and scepticism are good things whereas the christian god asks followers to not question any of his moral. Of course when you want focus on the question of the existence of god(s), your scale will do fine. But to me the god concept is indissoluble from the moral question.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Your new scale would make me an agnostic atheist I suppose but, quite apart from it being a wishy-washy title, I honestly can't see the point because I'm about as hard atheist as you can get inasmuch as I absolutely believe there is and can be no god (that any such belief in one without evidence is insanity itself) whilst recognising the simple fact that I cannot and never will be able to prove or disprove claims to the existence of deity partly because science doesn't deal in absolutes but mainly because the fucker won't come and play.

Dawkin's scale still makes vastly more sense to me.

Kyu

[Eilonnwy]

I don't think you can and I think it's dishonest to say you can. It really depends on the concept of god and there are many concepts. If there concept of god is just a first cause, a creative energy that started the universe, I don't think we can conclusively disprove that concept the way we can with a personal god.

I take your point. I think you're saying that in order to claim that the concept is incoherent I would need to examine every possible concept, and in order to do that I would require all knowledge?

Exactly. Granted, under the true definition of agnosticism, everyone really is agnostic. But the term is used for claims. As in, someone can claim gnosticism about a subject, although I think it's intellectual dishonest. I don't think gnosticism, especially about the divine, is possible, especially when they can be millions of interpretations. (And sorry for the delayed response, there's a pesky 4th of July Holiday in my country, and I've been busy. )

Now, I had a long argument on facebook over agnosticism so I'm not in the mood to get in another one, so I'm not going to touch the argument about scales.

[Purple Rabbit]

Exactly. Granted, under the true definition of agnosticism, everyone really is agnostic. But the term is used for claims. As in, someone can claim gnosticism about a subject, although I think it's intellectual dishonest. I don't think gnosticism, especially about the divine, is possible, especially when they can be millions of interpretations. (And sorry for the delayed response, there's a pesky 4th of July Holiday in my country, and I've been busy. )

There's someting assymetrical about the attempt to make a precise definition of atheism that works for all god concepts while theism is like rubber. It bends, it moves, it transforms itself lurking for the holes of our understanding of nature. Why are we going through the trouble?

[Tiberius]

Dawkin's scale still makes vastly more sense to me.

Apart from the fact that he uses a faulty definition of agnosticism. You opposed the certainty factor in my scale, yet if you read Dawkins' scale carefully you will see that it is nothing but views on certainty.

I don't think "agnostic atheist" is a wishy-washy title if you actually understand what the words mean (and the notes are there to explain). Far from being wishy-washy, it explains more about your view than a simple "atheist" title does. I think being agnostic about your atheism makes you a more intellectually fulfilled atheist.