Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism

[Norman Humann]

Rob explain something to me - How is believing something is true different from knowing? If I know something is true I also believe it is true. It is belief with knowledge. I know something happens and therefore I believe it is true. Aren't the two related? Maybe I'm getting too philosophical here. The way I see it, when you know something you also believe (with evidence) that it is true. For example, I know gravity is true because I've experienced it, and I also believe the law of gravity is true because there's no evidence that it's false

But believing something is true may be irrelevant to whether it is true or not.

The difference between knowledge and beliefs is as follows: A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists in one's mind. Most people accept that for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, true and justified.

True as in factual, demonstrable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

[Dystopia]

I agree, theists believe god exists but it is irrelevant when we look at the evidence (and lack of thereof). But what is demonstrable? What constitutes evidence?

[Norman Humann]

I agree, theists believe god exists but it is irrelevant when we look at the evidence (and lack of thereof). But what is demonstrable? What constitutes evidence?

Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

[Spooky]

In my experience, the main personality difference between a theist, an atheist, and an agnostic is that agnostics don’t ram their beliefs—or disbeliefs—down your throat. Atheists didn’t used to be that way, but they’ve become increasingly pushy and arrogant to the point where they’ve eclipsed even religious fundamentalists in their intolerance for anyone who doesn’t join their team.

This is where I stopped.

[Cyberman]

But what is demonstrable? What constitutes evidence?

Evidence of a claim, or a raft of claims, has to be proportionate to those claims. Saying that the name of the third spearman from the left in Pilate's bodyguard was Biggus Dickus and not Sillius Soddus might require little more than a couple of references in an obscure letter. Claiming that someone respawned after a long weekend and then flew off into the sky, we're going to need a bit more than anonymous references to eyewitnesses written years later and "why else would the tomb be empty?"

[wiploc]

Wiploc:

In my experience, in the common usage amongst atheists:

Strong atheist, and gnostic atheist are interchangeable terms for "atheist who also claims to know there are no gods".

The belief there is no God is not strong/gnostic atheism though, as this is not a claim of knowledge. Without the knowledge claim as well (making this claim redundant) this is still agnostic atheism.

Old System (most popular usage) :
A. Theists believe gods exist.
B. Atheists believe gods do not exist.
C. Agnostics (everybody else) do not believe either way.
X. Gnostics know whether gods exist.
Y. Agnostics don't know whether gods exist.

Note that "agnostics" is used as the label for two different categories.
The advantage of this system is that most people use it.


New System (most popular among self-identified atheists, 2nd most popular overall):
A. Theists believe gods exist.
B. Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
C. Weak atheists (everybody else) do not believe either way.
X. Gnostics know whether gods exist.
Y. Agnostics don't know whether gods exist.

The advantages of this system are:
- it eliminates the ambiguous usage of "agnostic"
- is in wide use (It's number 2, and gaining so rapidly it may soon be #1).


These are the two most popular systems. Whatever's in third place is so far behind that it must be effectively a private system, needing explanation and negotiation each time it's used with a new person. Probably Dawkins' nonsense comes in third.

Both of the frontrunner systems are "normalized databases": everybody fits in a category; nobody fits in more than one category. (You are an A, B, or C. You can't be a D, because A, B, and C covered everything. And the categories are mutually exclusive, so you can't be both an A and B.)

So now you introduce a new candidate, one I have never heard of in my life. Call it Rob's nomenclature:
A. Theists believe gods exist.
B. What goes here?
C. What goes here?
X. Strong or gnostic atheists, and gnostic theists.
Y. What goes here?

What is the advantage of this system?

Maybe you can fill in the blanks for me, and explain why anyone would welcome or root for this system?

[One Above All]

When someone tells you they're an agnostic after you ask them if they're an atheist or a theist, they're not answering the question. The question is "Do you or do you not believe in a deity?", and therefore the only possible answers are "Yes" or "No". The answer they gave was "I'm not sure a deity exists", which is the equivalent of saying you have a blue car when asked about its brand.
That's why I openly mock and challenge all self-proclaimed "agnostics" when they go on and on about their "agnosticism".

[Whateverist]

Rob explain something to me - How is believing something is true different from knowing? If I know something is true I also believe it is true. It is belief with knowledge. I know something happens and therefore I believe it is true. Aren't the two related? Maybe I'm getting too philosophical here. The way I see it, when you know something you also believe (with evidence) that it is true. For example, I know gravity is true because I've experienced it, and I also believe the law of gravity is true because there's no evidence that it's false

What would you say to this, Rob? The classic definition of knowledge is "justified true belief". So knowledge is a branch of belief, it just requires that you hold it for the right reasons. To claim knowledge that no gods exist requires more than certainty. I am completely satisfied that no further effort to find a god is needed or likely to pay off, so I am plenty certain. But to say I know that means at a minimum that I can provide a slam dunk argument. That is where the murky nature of the definition of gods gets in the way. Sure I could argue that no planet wide flood ever happened or that there was never a first human, just a line of earlier forms gradually becoming recognizably modern. But then that only addresses a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the bible - very low growing fruit indeed.

[Delysid]

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to people... Atheism makes no claims of the origins of the universe, of life, or anything like that. An A-THEIST is simply someone who is not a theist, someone who does not believe there is any god(s).

Atheist/theist is a matter of belief, agnostic/gnostic is a matter of knowledge. Technically an agnostic is either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Most of us atheists simply don't feel the need to specify that we're agnostic atheists because we feel that is already obvious. So if someone is saying they're just agnostic than they're not really saying anything at all. You agnostic to what?

Technically no one KNOWS if there is a god or not. But to call an atheist stupid or to claim they have BLIND FAITH for not believing in god is silly. That's like saying it's silly to not believe in unicorns because no one CAN REALLY KNOW. You're right, I don't know FOR SURE if there are unicorns but I'll bet my bottom dollar that there are not any. Just as I'd bet my bottom dollar that there is not god. It doesn't require faith of any sort to lack belief in a god because there is no reason for believing in such a thing in the first place. It is so obvious that the idea of god served a purpose at one point in human history, but simply no longer does any more. We have more advanced ways of understanding the world now, we simply do not need a fictional story for why things are the way they are.

We live in an age where it's okay to say, "Hey, we don't know that yet, but we're working on finding an answer." We live in an age where it's okay to be unsure, because being unsure makes more sense than claiming to have knowledge that you cannot have.

Many people find the comparison of god to unicorns as silly for one reason only. The idea of god has been so ingrained in human culture that it is socially acceptable to believe the myth. It is okay because people have thought that way for so long and unfortunately still do. It is literally part of human history and will remain to be for probably a long time. Soon enough it will be seen as a silly idea that humans believed a long time ago, like the flat earth thing, unless of course evidence for god surfaces at some point, which I highly doubt.

[robvalue]

Rob explain something to me - How is believing something is true different from knowing? If I know something is true I also believe it is true. It is belief with knowledge. I know something happens and therefore I believe it is true. Aren't the two related? Maybe I'm getting too philosophical here. The way I see it, when you know something you also believe (with evidence) that it is true. For example, I know gravity is true because I've experienced it, and I also believe the law of gravity is true because there's no evidence that it's false

What would you say to this, Rob? The classic definition of knowledge is "justified true belief". So knowledge is a branch of belief, it just requires that you hold it for the right reasons. To claim knowledge that no gods exist requires more than certainty. I am completely satisfied that no further effort to find a god is needed or likely to pay off, so I am plenty certain. But to say I know that means at a minimum that I can provide a slam dunk argument. That is where the murky nature of the definition of gods gets in the way. Sure I could argue that no planet wide flood ever happened or that there was never a first human, just a line of earlier forms gradually becoming recognizably modern. But then that only addresses a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the bible - very low growing fruit indeed.

Whatever way you look at it, knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you think you know you must also believe, but not everything you believe you need to, or are able to, know.

Defining what "know" means is very difficult. In the strictest form, you can only "know" things that can be proved with logic, and then truth still depends on the truth of the premises. Once you go past that and deal with reality rather than the abstract, there is always uncertainty. But at this point the difference between belief and knoweldge could be demonstrated. I could have a complex problem which I can't quite solve, so I don't know what the answer is. But I may hold a belief about the answer. I may believe, for example, the answer is 1 but I cannot yet prove it. I may or may not have good reasons for that belief.

So to use "know" in everyday life, I would go with justified belief. I wouldn't put in "true" because then you can only "know" facts, and also the justification part is then irrelevant. The only question is the level of justification, and who is judging it. I can say I know the way from my house to the high street. I feel I'm justified to hold that belief beyond reasonable doubt. But say I'd suffered a blow to the head without realising it, and it messed with my memory. Now I still "know" the way to the high street, as far as I am concerned, for the same justification. It's just now I'm wrong. If you cannot "know" something unless it's factual, then we can never know what we know... we're back to inevitable uncertainty of reality, and the word "know" becomes useless.

So I'd say "knowing" something, in everyday terms, is relative. I may consider I know something, because I feel justified, but you may feel I don't know it because you think my justification is not sufficient.

As a final example... I start a night out with £100 in my pocket. After buying several drinks, I have lost track of how much money I have. I need £10 for the taxi home. Without looking in my pocket, I do not know if I have enough left. But I feel confident that I haven't spent more than £90, I feel like that is pretty unlikely. So I believe I have at least £10, but I don't claim to know it. I feel strongly enough that I believe I have enough money, but I do not know if I actually do.

Comments welcome! It's a tricky subject and this is just my take on things

When it comes to gods, or any unfalsifiable proposition, I believe they are false on the whole, but I consider the truth unknowable. I don't claim, even to myself, that I have justification to "know" an unfalsifiable proposition is false. Someone else may well feel they do, so they can "know" there is no God.