Atheism, theism, agnosticism, gnosticism, ignosticism

[Simon Moon]

I am probably opening a can of worms, but here goes.

This was prompted by seeing a few newish members describing their religious position as "agnostic".

First a couple of definitions:

Belief - the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true.
Knowledge - a subset of belief. Sometimes defined as "justified true belief". Something is known, if it demonstrably comports with reality, i.e.; humans can't fly unaided, gravity (the phenomena) exists, the earth orbits the sun, etc.

Please note, that the examples above, even though we define them as knowledge, are still beliefs, in that, we accept them as being true. I have seen some people say things like, "I don't need to believe in gravity, because it is demonstrable fact". But just because something is knowledge or fact, does not we still don't believe it.

Theism - broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.
Atheism - is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.

gnosticism - one who claims to know that a god exist. Different than the Gnostic religious sects who place personal spiritual experience with a god, over orthodox teachings or authority.
Agnosticism - view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown, and possibly unknowable.
Ignosticism - the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true, or they don't accept it as being true. There is no fuzzy middle ground between belief and disbelief. One important thing to note, is the opposite of 'accepting something as being true', is not, saying it is false.

So, if one has the position that they do not accept the premise that a god or gods exist (atheist), that does not mean they are saying that no gods exist. They are just saying that they are currently unconvinced that at least one god exists. Of course, there are some atheists, that will make the claim that no gods exist, but that is not an obligation of the atheist position.

If one is asked if they believe a god exists or not, and they answer, "I don't know, I am an agnostic", they are not actually answering the question. Or at best, only partially answering the question. The question concerns whether they currently accept the premise, that a god exists as being true, or not. They are not being asked if they claim to know if a god exists, or claim to know if one doesn't.

I think this misuse of the word agnostic to define one's position on the belief of the existence of gods, is based on the colloquial definition, not the formal one.

Atheism, theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.

One can be an agnostic-atheist, in that, the are not making the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, a god does not exist (agnosticism), but they are unconvinced that one does exist (atheism).
Or one can be an agnostic-theist, in that they are not making a the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, that a god does exist (agnosticism), but they are convinced that one does (theism).

[Jehanne]

As an agnostic atheist, the only point that I would add is that the term dates to the 19th century.

[Angrboda]

What is the point of this thread?

[Orbit]

Maybe they list their religion as agnostic because they *are* agnostic.

[polymath257]

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true, or they don't accept it as being true. There is no fuzzy middle ground between belief and disbelief. One important thing to note, is the opposite of 'accepting something as being true', is not, saying it is false.

I disagree here. Belief has different levels of confidence associate with it. So, my confidence in the law of conservation of energy is far higher than my confidence that all genetics is based on DNA.
My confidence that dark matter exists is high, but not as high as my confidence in the conservation of energy.
My confidence in the existence of axions is pretty low, but I see them as plausible, just not yet supported by the evidence.
In a similar way, disbelief can also have confidence levels. My disbelief in the Loch Ness monster has a high degree of confidence.
So, part of my disagreement is that I don't see belief as an all-or-nothing thing. It has degrees the confidence level makes a difference if there are conflicts between beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you hold a belief with low confidence…you hold that belief. If you hold a belief with high confidence, you hold that belief. Agnosticism is a confidence qualifier.

[Jehanne]

If you hold a belief with low confidence…you hold that belief. If you hold a belief with high confidence, you hold that belief. Agnosticism is a confidence qualifier.

Prob(A) + Prob(~A) = 1

[Belacqua]

I am probably opening a can of worms, but here goes.

This was prompted by seeing a few newish members describing their religious position as "agnostic".

First a couple of definitions:

Belief - the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true.
Knowledge - a subset of belief. Sometimes defined as "justified true belief". Something is known, if it demonstrably comports with reality, i.e.; humans can't fly unaided, gravity (the phenomena) exists, the earth orbits the sun, etc.

Please note, that the examples above, even though we define them as knowledge, are still beliefs, in that, we accept them as being true. I have seen some people say things like, "I don't need to believe in gravity, because it is demonstrable fact". But just because something is knowledge or fact, does not we still don't believe it.

Theism - broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.
Atheism -  is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.

gnosticism - one who claims to know that a god exist. Different than the Gnostic religious sects who place personal spiritual experience with a god, over orthodox teachings or authority.
Agnosticism - view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown, and possibly unknowable.
Ignosticism - the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or likely true, or they don't accept it as being true. There is no fuzzy middle ground between belief and disbelief. One important thing to note, is the opposite of 'accepting something as being true', is not, saying it is false.

So, if one has the position that they do not accept the premise that a god or gods exist (atheist), that does not mean they are saying that no gods exist. They are just saying that they are currently unconvinced that at least one god exists. Of course, there are some atheists, that will make the claim that no gods exist, but that is not an obligation of the atheist position.

If one is asked if they believe a god exists or not, and they answer, "I don't know, I am an agnostic", they are not actually answering the question. Or at best, only partially answering the question. The question concerns whether they currently accept the premise, that a god exists as being true, or not. They are not being asked if they claim to know if a god exists, or claim to know if one doesn't.

I think this misuse of the word agnostic to define one's position on the belief of the existence of gods, is based on the colloquial definition, not the formal one.

Atheism, theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.

One can be an agnostic-atheist, in that, the are not making the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, a god does not exist (agnosticism), but they are unconvinced that one does exist (atheism).
Or one can be an agnostic-theist, in that they are not making a the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, that a god does exist (agnosticism), but they are convinced that one does (theism).

I think this would be an excellent style sheet for editors of a journal about the philosophy of religion. Like: "for consistency, all contributors to this journal should adhere to the following definitions." 

Whether we like it or not, though, in the big wide world definitions vary. You can't say somebody's wrong for using the colloquial definition when that's the one that nearly everyone knows and uses. 

(It's kind of like the phrase "begs the question." It doesn't REALLY mean "prompts me to ask," but probably more people use that definition than the real one, so we just have to understand. And then we have to decide how much of a grammar Nazi we want to be in the situation.)

It's a fact of life that when we start a serious discussion, we need to clarify the definitions we're using. It would be helpful if everybody on this forum used the ones you list, but language is malleable and varied, and we can't expect the rest of the world (or people new to this forum) to go along.

[Belacqua]

Belief is a binary mental state. 

I'm going to agree with "polymath" that this is not necessarily so, but my reasons are a bit different.

Humans are animals who evolved for survival. We are basically big bundles of desire. Logical thought is nice when we can manage it, but not the default state. 

Most of our decisions are made in our subconscious minds anyway, and our subconscious parts feel no duty to be logical. You can believe something and not believe it, love something and hate it, want something and despise it. 

The answer we give on a multiple-choice questionnaire may be our official public position, but how we act and how we feel deep down doesn't necessarily follow consistently from that announcement.

[Angrboda]

I'm going to disagree, but for a totally different reason. But also, because I can.

If brains behaved according to the rules of logic, mutually inconsistent states would not exist. But because it doesn't, dialetheia are possible, and compartmentalization facilitates holding inconsistent attitudes.