My blog

[Pizza]

" But I would err on the side of 100% certainty when it comes to this issue. If you're not 100% certain, then you are agnostic."

Hmmm, this doesn't make much sense to me. I can't be 100% certain the floor is not made of lava, but I wouldn't say I'm agnostic about it.

IMO, gnostic atheist is an odd term that always makes me think of Gnosticism the Christian sect. 

Maybe framing the issue from the point of view of Dawkins' spectrum would be helpful.

Let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him 'Philo') describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully.[1]

[GrandizerII]

Gnostic atheists are fools. Anyone who says they know God does not exist are full of it.

In my opinion, strong "agnostic" atheism makes the most sense, but normal atheism is fine as well.

[Pizza]

Gnostic atheists are fools. Anyone who says they know God does not exist are full of it.

In my opinion, strong "agnostic" atheism makes the most sense, but normal atheism is fine as well.

It really depends on the epistemology you're working with. (1) Knowledge as justified true belief, (2) Knowledge as justified (don't even get me started on different views of justification) belief, (3) Knowledge as true (don't get me started on this either) belief.

[robvalue]

Well yes, you have to define what it means to "know" first. So you may as well just explain your position really, as gnostic atheism can mean (at least) two entirely different things. From what I have gathered, I think most people would be uncomfortable with gnostic meaning less than certainty in this matter. But it's down to the individual. I agree, in an everyday sense, I know there is no God. But if I was to present my case and my position in any formal fashion, I would reel that in to a nice 6.9 or something.

If the question I'm being asked necessarily involves an unknowable element, then I don't feel justified saying I know it is false unless it contains logical inconsistencies. Even if I discard solipsism, I'm still left with unknowable elements.

It's a tricky one. I'll have a look at my wording when my brain is up to it and see if I can improve it. Good idea about the Dawkins scale, maybe I'll put that in. Hail Dawkins.

[Cephus]

The problem is that "gnostic" really has no meaning. Absolutely no one knows if a god exists or not. There's no intellectual basis for making such a claim. At best, one can say they really, really, really believe that a god exists or does not exist but that's not knowledge, it's belief. Therefore, "gnostic" is a null set if you take it to mean having knowledge and everyone is, by definition, "agnostic". The only other real usage of the term might come with the availability of knowledge, can someone actually find evidence that a god exists or not. If that's the definition then I would be a gnostic because not only do I think that anything real can have evidence for it's existence, I'd absolutely have to have that evidence before I'd believe it existed. Because I don't have any evidence for the existence of any god, I'm an atheist.

[robvalue]

Well, I would say you can be gnostic against a particular claim if that claim isn't consistent. For example, you could say you're gnostic atheist against the claim of an omnipotent God because it's not logically possible.

[Pizza]

"If the question I'm being asked necessarily involves an unknowable element, then I don't feel justified saying I know it is false unless it contains logical inconsistencies. Even if I discard solipsism, I'm still left with unknowable elements."

That's the problem you starting with an unreasonable view of knowledge that most philosophers don't take seriously anymore; however, that's not an argument I'm just saying for once philosophers agree about something and for commonsense reasons. IMO, it's best to just avoid the "knowledge" question and just frame things in informal terms of 0(lowest) to 0.5(middle) to 1(highest) scale of likelihood.

[Cephus]

If the question I'm being asked necessarily involves an unknowable element, then I don't feel justified saying I know it is false unless it contains logical inconsistencies. Even if I discard solipsism, I'm still left with unknowable elements.

It's not an unknowable element, it's an unknown element.  There's no reason to think that there is anything that is inherently beyond human comprehension.  There is nothing we can't know.  There is lots we don't know at present.

[robvalue]

I just wrote this rant over at TTA and I was quite pleased with it so I thought I'd share it here. Maybe I can adjust it for my website.

---------

I agree that many, perhaps most, atheists are probably going to be "hardcore sceptics" and reject supernatural/spiritual notions. This is no coincidence since scepticism leads to atheism. But it doesn't mean every atheist is a sceptic, far from it. I've heard all kind of things from lots of different atheists.

If people assume something more about an atheist than just his response to a single claim, they are mistaken. That is the message I am trying to send to everyone.

I think I'll put another example forward, because this is a huge sticking point for people in my experience. It's a very subtle point, it took me a while to get when I first got into atheism in a big way.

The default position is to have no opinion about something. If I know nothing about what you're asking me, I have no beliefs about it. I don't believe it exists, and I don't believe it doesn't exist.

You bring me a small generic box, and ask me what I think is in it. I have no opinion on what is in it. Someone says "probably some onions."

I can assess this claim, to see if I agree with the sentiment. Do I have any reason to think this claim is valid, and probably true? Maybe the box says "onions" on it, or smells of onions. If so, it would be reasonable to accept the claim, especially as it's not an extraordinary one.

But let's say there are no such clues. I feel that person is guessing. I reject their claim. This means I am sticking with my default position. I don't have a belief that onions are in there, nor do I have a belief onions are not in there.

So when someone makes a claim, the choices are to accept the claim and move to this new, positive position, or remain where you are. You are not required to shift your position to the opposite of the claim. In the above example, I reject the claim there are onions in the box. But I am not changing my position so that I believe onions are not in the box. That would be absurd. I have no reason to think there are actually not onions in the box.

So basically, I think people misunderstand the nature of the God question. They seem to think the question is, "Do you believe a God exists, or do you believe a god does not exist?" This is incorrect. It's a false dichotomy. It misses out the third position, where you believe neither of those statements. Just like above, I lack belief in the box containing onions, or not containing onions. The question is, "do you accept the claim that there is one or more gods?" Yes, or no. Theist or atheist. There are no other answers. If you say "don't know" you are saying you don't know what you believe. This suggests some sort of mental disconnect. What I think you're saying is you don't believe the claim but don't want to commit to it being wrong. Well, you don't have to. If you're not sure, then clearly you're not convinced. You're an atheist.

Now, of course, any particular person rejecting the claim "God exists" may choose to accept the claim "God does not exist". But they are not obliged to. They can stay in the default position of not having a belief in the existence or non existence of God, just like above with whether or not onions are in the box.

If I had to choose between your claim and the opposite claim every time you made one, I would potentially be required to shift my position either way just because you made a claim. I hope everyone can that this is a ridiculous expectation.

To sum up: rejecting a claim is not the same as making your own statement that the claim is actually false.

"This coin will come up heads when I flip it."
"Why do you say that?"
"I have a feeling."
"I reject your claim, I don't share your belief that the coin will come up heads."
"Ah, so you're saying it won't come up heads! You're saying it will come up tails!"
"No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't believe it will be heads, nor do I believe it won't be heads. I have no opinion either way because there's not enough evidence to make a decision."

Rejecting the God claim makes you an atheist, by commonly used definitions. You are also an agnostic, unless you also make your own claim that you know God does not exist.

Of course, if you want to label this position as "just agnostic", that is totally fine with me. But please don't think that this is actually different, in real terms, to an agnostic atheist. It's the same thing by a different name.

If you actually think it is a different position, then what you have done is to simply not answer the question of belief in the God claim. Everyone either has an active belief that God(s) exist, or they don't have an active belief God exists. The former is a theist, the second is an atheist. There are no more categories. It's nothing to do with knowledge at all. And lacking an active belief in God does not mean having an active belief in "no God". If this doesn't make sense, please read about the onions again. Of course, you may not feel comfortable actually telling me whether you are an atheist or a theist, but instead you're just an agnostic. That is totally fine, you're not obliged to answer any question if you don't want to. But to then criticize me for having answered the question, saying it's more rational to not answer the question, is bogus.

With the god claim, suppose instead of onions, my friend says, "probably metaphysical onions in the box, you can't see them or touch them, but they are there." I also reject this claim. Again, I don't need to make my own claim that there are in fact not metaphysical onions in the box. I'm an a-onionsist just by rejecting the claim. But I may find it reasonable to claim that in fact there are no such onions in there, due to that being an outrageous claim backed by no evidence, and consisting of something I've never even seen can be possible.

I'll just go eat onions now until I lose conciousness from it so you won't have to listen to any more of my drivel.

[Pizza]

" But I would err on the side of 100% certainty when it comes to this issue. If you're not 100% certain, then you are agnostic."

Hmmm, this doesn't make much sense to me. I can't be 100% certain the floor is not made of lava, but I wouldn't say I'm agnostic about it.

IMO, gnostic atheist is an odd term that always makes me think of Gnosticism the Christian sect. 

Maybe framing the issue from the point of view of Dawkins' spectrum would be helpful.

Let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him 'Philo') describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully.[1]

Correction, I'm quoting J.J.C. Smart and not Dawkins. I got confused.