The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2024
- An explication of several different distinctions between atheists, agnostics and theists. Including distinctions between Bayesian agnostics, skeptical and dogmatic atheists, and several objections to various other constructions of this distinction.
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
I always called myself an agnostic apatheist. Don't know, don't care.
"Agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief about the existence or non-existence of deities." - William L. Rowe
What about an agnostic that believes there is a higher likelihood of one particular type of god existing, but not actually fully committing to that idea with certainty?
Great question.
It's not incompatible atheism and agnosticism. All atheism means is "without theism" and agnosticism means "without knowledge". So generally, I refer to myself as a "agnostic atheist", because while I don't believe in any god(s), I would not claim to be sure that none whatsoever exists. This is why it's an absence (or lack) of belief or as it's known as 'weak atheism'. A "gnostic atheist" is someone who claims to know that no god(s) exist (strong atheism). So to also let you know conversely, an "agnostic theist" believes in god(s), yet would not claim to be sure of his/her/their existence. A "gnostic theist" believes in god(s) and does claim to know that he/she/they exist. There is and can be an overlap between these and I am an "agnostic atheist" when it comes to some deities but I take the position of a "gnostic atheist" on other definitions of god(s) that are defined in such a way that it's existence is logically impossible, logically impossible god(s) can't exist.
+Ellis Farrow As I note in the video, there is no one right or wrong definition for the terms. It sounds like you are advocating the two dimensional plane view that I explain in the video. The worries that I have with this is that there seems to be more gradation between the views. Someone might think that a omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent God is impossible, and therefore be a "gnostic atheist" but also think that a less strictly defined God is possible, and therefore be an agnostic atheist. As I note in the video there seems to be a difference between someone that gives equal weight to God existing, and God not existing, and someone that does not place any level of likelihood on either proposition, or puts and equally small degree of belief into all possible Gods. The Two Dimensional plane does not seem to deal with these subtle differences between what people believe or don't believe.
This is also how I use the terms and classify myself, on a God-claim--by--God-claim basis. However, I also see the problem Carneades is outlining: the/a two-dimensional plane view does not provide terminology to account for all kinds of positions (e.g., the position of suspending all beliefs and non-beliefs). Still, I don't see a better alternative in the concluding terminology of the video for my position(s). I think the two dimensional plane view described by Ellis here is simply the best way to outline where I personally stand on all God-claims I have encountered thus far (either being an 'agnostic atheist' or a 'gnostic atheist'), but I'm certainly not against adding additional positions with additional terminology if needed, like via the term "skeptical atheist". We can keep the dimensions described in the two-dimensional plane view while adding additional planes into it (and maybe renaming the result to a 3x3-matrix plane view, or a gliding scale two-dimensional plane view, or a two-dimensional plane view with additions outside the plane, or whatever we would like to call the end result).
The focus on .5 seems a bit strange. If you are taking a probabilistic approach, what you would be trying to communicate is that all hypotheses under consideration have the same subjective probability due to lack of evidence, not necessarily .5, This state is of course a state of maximum uncertainty no matter how many hypotheses you are comparing at any given moment. Which is exactly the same thing as what you are communicating when saying a coin has a probabillity of ending up heads or tails.(You are comparing two hypotheses and have no information favoring either one)
Gnomefro I agree that if the probabilistic approach is correctly understood, then we should distribute the same small probability to all of the options, (at least if you are an objective Bayesian ua-cam.com/video/JsCyAPFNbYk/v-deo.html). The problem is that often it is unclear what constitutes a hypothesis. Are we comparing only two hypotheses? One in which some God exists and one in which no God exists? Are we comparing a very high number of hypotheses, including the possibilities of many different Gods, and only one in which there is no God? Or, are we comparing a very high number of hypotheses in which God does not exist and only a few in which he does? It seems that simply based on how you list the possibilities, it might seem more or less likely that God exists.
This whole video is simply incorrect from its initial premise. Theism, per its effing definition, is the belief in a god or gods. Theism addresses a single proposition to that of the existence of a god(s). If you accept it as true, you're a theist. If you do not, you're an atheist. The a- prefix works like it does in every other usage to indicate no, not, or a negation of the root word. What a god is or what constitutes belief may be of some philosophical debate, but the definition of theism is pretty clear, as defined in any dictionary. Also, belief is necessarily binary as belief and disbelief are mutually exclusive. One cannot rationally believe something true and not believe it at the same time. Nor can one rationally hold some arbitrary middle ground where none existed in the first place. Theism does not address - nor contingent upon - probabilities, certainty, motivation, or justification. Gnosticism (not to be confused with the early Christian/ Jewish religious movement) works exactly the same and addresses but entirely different concept: Knowledge. Again, what constitutes knowledge may be of some philosophical debate (whether a level of certainty, confidence and familiarity of a given topic or the Platonian "justified true belief" but the a- prefix functions the same way. There's also a matter of an interpretation of Huxley's definition of agnosticism and the general assertion that existence of the supernatural/divine/god(s) is unknowable. However, those are largely irrelevant and beyond the scope of me giving a crap about going into them. Knowledge claims, which is the only thing important, necessarily hold a burden of proof. What someone claims to not know about something is pointless posturing and irrelevant. No one should care about what someone claims to NOT know about something. One must be able to demonstrate a knowledge claim or the claim is indistinguishable from ignorance on any practical level.
Does the law of Non-contradiction apply to Quanta?
I wish that you would also look at deism (people who believe in God/a creator of the universe, but not in religion). I feel like most people only think that you can either be an atheist or a theist, and nothing else exists.
Deism I'd a subset of theism. Theism is simply belief in a god or gods. Religions can be theistic(most) or atheistic(some forms of bhuddism). A deist is an irreligious type of theist, but as a deist believes in some form of god, he is also a theist.
I find it useful to take a deontic approach to gnosticism/agnosticism; I think it provides a more useful and clear distinction. People usually define gnosticism as meaning you know whether a diety exists or not. This raises the issues - 1) what do you mean by 'know'? 2) A common criticism is "Well, nobody *knows* if a diety exists or not, therefore everybody is an agnostic, and therefore the term is pointless."
Obfuscation.
If it's the case we know something is true, then we should believe that particular something is true. This inferrence leads us to define gnosticism this way: a belief that one *should* hold a belief that states whether a diety exists or not (call this Bx). And of course agnostics would be people that don't believe you should have that belief (to be clear, not necessarily believing you shouldn't).
Some of the benefits to be gained:
1) Makes it a bit clearer that gnostic theists/anti-theists aren't necessarily dogmatic.
2) Highlights the internal struggle of the agnostic theist.
3) Easily derive the Apathetic Atheist position by adding the condition that they also don't believe they shouldn't hold Bx.
4) Easily derive the Skeptical Atheist position by adding the condition that they also *do* believe they shouldn't hold Bx.
Thoughts?
Pure Agnosticism is a guild for those who can grasp it and apply it , has no ATTACHMENT to God or anything else .
It's about only addressing things that you can prove .
*Court of Law makes its cases & basis decisions on evidence provided.
*A Topic can become a Sciencentific field based on the evidence proving said claim or hypothesis
*Education ,Math all things we live by became trusted fact because we provide proof an evidence of its existence.
Agnosticism mean : unknowable, not provable, undetermined existence cannot be analyzed nor is it eve been the job of science to prove or debunk such a things .
A true Agnostic will not debate things in which there is no data upon.
They truly have no interest in the indecision of a Theist minded Athiest because they most of us the Religious Zealot to debate things in which no facts exist ....
Agnostic People tend to dismiss claims that can't be verified by science and frown upon the silly distraction of ridiculous subcategories some try to apply to Huxleys Agnosticism Method
theism is the adoption of a pre-structured belief system which contains in it, a story of creation. atheism is the adoption of the belief that NO belief system can contain in it a true account of creation. agnostic is someone who says neither side can KNOW that what they believe in is true with certainty. but the problem is with the agnostic, is that he is the only one who doesnt attempt to solve the essential problem in life, of ‘how should i act, to live in harmony with all the things i deem valuable’ theists and atheists atleast make this problem the priority. the agnostic always just sounds like the idiot.
If we call the hard-nosed atheist _dogmatic_ (if only to remind ourselves that he can never prove his negative), shouldn't the hard-nosed theist (who claims that a _specific God_ exists) be called _dogmatic_ as well?Just a tiny detail that jumped out at me... ;)
+mothman84 As a skeptic who takes vocabulary from Sextus Empiricus, I would call anyone that is not a Pyrrhonian skeptic a dogmatist. ua-cam.com/video/YNFyQD8zxkM/v-deo.html. It seemed clear to me that all theists were dogmatists, so sure you could put that label in there as well.
What if I make claims about certain god not existing and no claims about certain god existing but neither claims about certain god not existing?
Greetings Carneades.org,
It’s my opinion, and I’m guessing I’ll be the ‘tenth man’ in this thread, you’ve confused the issue.
Regarding Atheism:
1. This is a belief-period.
2. People who redefine a term so they can argue their position are dishonest. E.g., someone who says, “Well, that’s not what it means to me,” is essentially redefining a term so they can justify their position. A dialogue with such people is a recipe for disaster. Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Well, President Clinton, sexual relations is: ‘sexual behavior between individuals, especially [including but not limited to] sexual intercourse.’ Clinton: “Ah, but that’s not what it means to me.” Seriously!
3. From the position of philosophy, which is what you are discussing, a true dichotomy would be: Theism vs. Atheism (θεος vs. ἄθεος); Christianity vs. aChristianity (Χριστός vs. ἄΧριστός); it’s not Christianity vs. Atheism (Χριστός vs. ἄθεος). The example of guilty vs. not-guilty compared to guilty vs. innocent is a good example of the first being a true dichotomy and the second a false dichotomy.
4. A person who holds a theistic belief (‘belief in the existence of a god or gods’) is not an Atheist-period. I.e., the definition is not: ‘belief in the existence of a Yahweh or a Greek Pantheon.’ So to say you are a Theist regarding Yahweh and an Atheist regarding Zeuss is wrong. Ref. 5.
5. Your explanations are akin to asking a woman, “Are you pregnant?” She may say, “Well, a little.” But from the definition, ’having a child or young developing in the uterus,' she is 100% pregnant-regardless of the time or amount.
Regarding Gnostic vs. Agnostic:
1. This is a knowledge claim-period.
2. If an agnostic is defined as, ‘someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a God or Gods,’ it’s become a confusing puzzle. Why? Because it includes ’neither believes.’ Someone who ‘neither believes’ is an Atheist.
3. Imagine a doctor told you, “Well, I don’t know if you are ill; and, in fact, I don’t think it can be known if you are ill; but, I believe you are ill.” Does this make sense?
4. What would you think if a juror said, “I’m unsure (as opposed to sure) if Carneades.org committed the crime; in fact, it seems it cannot be known either way; therefore, I 'believe' Carneades.org is guilty.” Did that make sense?
yYM
+yinYangMountain My point in the video is that just because you claim that these are the lines on which the distinction falls, that does not mean that you are correct, or that anyone is. I quote the SEP " each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied." simply because you have chosen one way to define these words, does not make it right. I quote the SEP again "As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes." you are entitled to your own way of parsing the distinction, but that does not mean that you are objectively right about it. Simply because you are convinced that the words mean one thing, does not mean that they always do. You are redefining the term as much as anyone else!
And your definition itself seems insufficient (not irreparable, but currently lacking clarity). You fail to give necessary and sufficient ua-cam.com/video/ibjL90iY1d0/v-deo.html conditions for atheism or theism. Is someone that has no beliefs an atheist or a theist? Is someone that believes that no God exists different from someone that believes that a particular God does not exist (but does not know if there is some God that exists)? Or different in turn from someone that holds an equal degree of belief for all possible Gods, or even someone that holds equal degrees of belief for the affirmation of a particular God and the denial of that God? All of these are questions of belief, so they need fall under the heading of atheism vs theism (at least according to your distinction).
Next, I am concerned as to how you define knowledge. Are you an externalist or an internalist? ua-cam.com/video/jRxoHtGa4NM/v-deo.html Coherentist or Foundationalist? ua-cam.com/video/YNFyQD8zxkM/v-deo.html When you say that agnosticism comes down to knowledge, you need to be clear on what you mean by knowledge. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for moving from belief to knowledge?
The point is that there is not a clear way to parse this distinction. By oversimplifying it, you gloss over many importantly different positions that are available. There's not a right answer since, in common parlance the terms are used differently.
Carneades.org
Carneades.org,
“My point in the video is that just because you claim that these are the lines on which the distinction falls, that does not mean that you are correct, or that anyone is. I quote the SEP " each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words…”
I love your channel, and I appreciate your reply; it contains very interesting philosophical musings. But regardless of what Wittgenstein may have said, what Descartes thought was best for breakfast and if he knew he really ate it, or whether I’m a externalist or an internalist (in my opinion a false dichotomy, by the way)...
Atheism is defined as: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.’ Theism is defined as: ‘belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.’ That’s all-period.
Agnostic, it’s defined as: ‘a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.’ Agnostic is not a position of belief. That’s all-period.
So now, Carneades.org, please explain to the class how you personally and positively believe in a God (or Gods) while subsequently being ‘without’ (ἄ) knowledge?
It’s my position that:
1. If Carneades.org believes in any god or gods, Carneades.org is 100% Theist.
2. If Carneades.org does not believe in any god, Carneades.org is 100% Atheist.
3. If Carneades.org does not know or thinks he cannot know, Carneades.org is an Atheist. Why, because without this knowledge you don’t really believe-do you?
yYM
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Or a person who doesn't believe in any religion but believes the possibility of a god. Basically, all religions on full of BS and are created by man
Here is a clickable link to that thread.
ua-cam.com/video/aofOwAHuQbw/v-deo.html&lc=z222xb4pspnmt5vmcacdp435op5o1mmacrzsf2vukyxw03c010c
Here is a cut-and-paste link, in case the other does not show for everyone.
/watch?v=aofOwAHuQbw&lc=z222xb4pspnmt5vmcacdp435op5o1mmacrzsf2vukyxw03c010c
Theism and Atheism have to do with belief, whether you have it or not.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism have to do with knowledge, whether you (think) you have it or not.
Atheism isn't some dogmatic assertion that no gods could possibly exist, it is merely the state of lacking any god(s) belief. No atheist in their right mind would claim that no god could exist, because someone could always come along and posit a new god. The smart atheist says "I've weighed the unavoidable evidence and still find no good reason to believe in a god, so I don't. But I am not saying that I know god does not exist, but I'm sure of it." That's an important distinction, a gnostic atheist isn't just "sure" they "KNOW". A gnostic theist believes and KNOWS. But nearly all atheists, when pressed, will reveal themselves to be agnostic atheist because this is the strongest position intellectually.
As for agnostics, for those who wish to avoid "taking a stand/stating a belief", they don't have such an easy out. Unless you've just never heard of the concept, or you're purposefully avoided any and all thought about it, it's strange to not form some opinion based on the evidence. Belief, at heart, is binary. You either believe something or you don't. It is either the case that you believe in god or it is not the case. There's no in-between. And you really can't say the evidence is dead equal. You've lived in the world and used your brain and senses and rationality. To say you can't even say which possibility is more likely in your mind, bearing in mind you and the agnostic atheist and the agnostic theist all agree we don't or even can't KNOW the answer fully, is a miserable cop out.
+D Jones (DeuS eX DaRe) As I note in the video, that is one position. But it is not the only position, or the "right" position. There are many ways to describe the distinction and no one is correct over another. You are welcome to use that distinction, but as I point out in the video it oversimplifies a great deal of other positions (such as someone that knows that the God of the bible does not exist, but is not sure that no god exists or someone that does not believe either that God exists or does not exist, or someone that assigns Bayesian degrees of belief to different Gods (ua-cam.com/video/YRz8deiJ57E/v-deo.html)).
"Belief, at heart, is binary. You either believe something or you don't."
I'm going to disagree here since the scope of the negation in your sentence is unclear. It is the case (assuming the LNC) that of a statement, you either believe it or you do not believe it (Bgv~Bg). However it is not the case that either you believe something is the case or you believe it is not the case (BgvB~G), there seem to be three possible cases, (as any course in doxastic logic will tell you, stay tuned this December for a month full of Doxastic Logic!) you believe God exists, (Bg), you believe that God does not exist (B~g), or you neither believe that God exists nor do you believe that God does not exist ~(BgvB~g) (and that's assuming I can't believe contradictions, if I can then there are four possibilities). And this does beg the question (ua-cam.com/video/IJ2dWrI-PTA/v-deo.html) against the Bayesian (ua-cam.com/video/M_aIq-gZkGk/v-deo.html). For more on the notation, check out the 100 Days of Logic: (ua-cam.com/play/PLz0n_SjOttTcjHsuebLrl0fjab5fdToui.html).
Finally, if that is your distinction the Agnostic atheist seems to be a hypocrite, they can offer no proof of their belief that God does not exist, and they admit as much, yet they go on believing that God does not exist based on evidence insufficient for proof? It is frankly irrational. The rational thing to do, is to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is presented, not make up your mind based on sub-par evidence. You admit that deductive rationality fails, and inductive rationality is inherently flawed (ua-cam.com/video/rWb7up_MoZc/v-deo.html). So once again, feel free to use this definition of the distinction, but realize that it will fail to categorize many positions on the spectrum.
+Carneades.org Thank you for your reply. I'll certainly check out the back catalog of videos you've got and future videos as well (looking forward to Doxastic logic). Bear with me and give me time, I'm going to reply without at this moment going back and re-watching, so if what I say misses the mark I'll go back and revise.
Without getting wrapped up in what's "right", I think I can say it's the most defensible position, and it stays true to the meaning behind the words. What of the person who disbelieves in the god of the bible but is not sure about other gods, this person is an atheist if they are unsure but disbelieve in other gods, and they're a theist if they're unsure but do believe in other gods. The person who does not believe in god and also doesn't not believe in god asserts a contradiction. The degree of belief theory is interesting.
The scope of the negative assertion (you don't believe) includes all god beliefs. It cashes out to just mean "I do not have a god belief". This can only explicitly apply to all gods they've considered. Of all the gods they've not considered, if it is from lack of exposure or knowledge of those gods they're implicitly atheist in the same way a baby is atheist or a person isolated from all info is an atheist. Much has been made about the distinction between "I lack a belief in god(s)" and "I belief there are no gods", but I don't think it matters too much. A person who says "I believe there are no gods" certainly means the gods they know of, but it's impossible to hold a belief about all possible gods present and future, since there are an infinite amount of possible gods ("oh you disbelieve in god A? what about god B? god c? etc.") This trap is that ppl say an atheist making the assertion that they believe no gods exist is that they claim the atheist is reaching a conclusion about a set (the set of all possible gods) about which they cannot every have sufficient evidence to make any decision. But I'm not so sure the atheist is obliged to disprove every version of god ever before they can claim to have or not have a belief. I suppose a person could make a contradictory claim, I don't think willfully asserting a contradiction is a good thing.
Knowledge, in the strict sense, is impossible. There's always room to doubt even the most indubitable of propositions (such as the truth of our sense data, the truth of math, etc. as Descartes dhows us). in reality, all of our knowledge, even the strongest (like say, the sun will rise tomorrow), is an inductive argument. it's just highly likely, based on evidence. But a person could always say "you're not justified in believing the sun will rise tomorrow. perhaps it won't, you can't prove that it will.....". Or to use another example, the OJ trial. Lots of ppl have their beliefs about that, whether OJ did it or not. Are they justified to say they have knowledge of the event? No. They weren't there, they can't say certainly one way or another. yet ppl do believe, based on the evidence presented before them. So the agnostic atheist doesn't say "i have no proof that god doesn't exist, but I unjustifiably assert it anyway" they say "I have no knowledge that god doesn't exist. My proofs, such as they are, are merely inductive. They suggest a possibility. And btw, it's impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that all possible gods do not exist (if their existence doesn't entail a contradiction). But the LACK of evidence in FAVOR of the proposition that god exists does indeed count as evidence against the proposition that god does exist. Therefore I assert that a lack of belief in god is the most rational position given the evidence (or lack there of) before me."
If I told you I could fly, then I said "prove I can't fly, go on, prove I can't fly. see? you can't do it. therefore the only rational position is to withhold belief on whether I can fly.", I think you'd object. You might say I've offered no proof that I CAN fly (which counts against my claim that I can fly), and the very notion flies in the face of all available evidence gathered so far (there are no known cases of a person flying unassisted). Agnostic atheism is an inductive argument, but if we don't have recourse to either inductive or deductive rationality, what's left of rationality at all?
Anyway, thanks for listening. I'll be on the look out for new material!
Maybe the problem is that categories are taken to seriously. I am a theist, but I would never be arrogant enough to claim that I could never be wrong about the nature of God, if i disagree with what other theists say about the nature of God, it wouldn't make me an atheist, it just means one of us is in error.
***** I agree that there are probably more shades of grey than any of these distinctions allow for. The best solution in my mind is to make sure you are very clear about someone else's viewpoint before attacking it.
Carneades.org I don't think something as complex as consciousness could ever be of any fixed category, maybe because it's potential has no limits. Consciousness is not something that could be identified with any methodology. It's a lot like spirit.
I’m a strong agnostic in the sense of claiming that I know you can’t know the existence or non-existence of God & therefore can’t assign a probability. This necessarily precludes a revealed god, as that would require special access to know of its existence...basically that’s not a logical possibility.
What is metaphysical Truth and falshood outside of possibility and impossibility? Just prove God is logically incoherent. Thats all you have to do to prove God is impossible. If God is impossible then God cannot exist. Anything metaphysically impossible is always false. But anything thats True is also possible. Regardless of probability. If God is logically incoherent then God cannot be possible, because the only things we can prove to be true or possible are things that are logically coherent. So its entirely possible to falsify the question "Can you prove God is logically incoherent and impossible?" This would mean That you can prove God is impossible and that God doesn't exist. As long as you can answer the question logically without a failed premise. But also remember the alternative. If you cannot show that God is logically incoherent then God has to be possible. If God is possible then modal logic can follow as such:
Possible worlds are hypothetical situations.
P1) It is possible a Maximally great being exists
P2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds.
P3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds, then a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds.
P4) if a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
P5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C) God exists.
I'll agree with you that the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" are frequently used in different ways, and that the important thing is to make sure the other party understands your meaning. I'll even concede that your definitions here are as acceptable as any other, given the above statement.
However, I think it's strange that in this video you neglected the definition of these words as most typically used by the New Atheist movement, as they're just as valid and very widely used.
We use Atheist as a contrary term to Theist, and state that these are two binary positions on the status of a belief in deities. As a result, Atheism is not "the belief there are no gods" or inclusive of the statement "there are no gods". It is the absence of a belief in gods.
Agnosticism addresses a separate question of knowledge, and whether or not knowledge of deities is possible.
So, you get Agnostic Atheists, which is most of the New Atheist movement; Gnostic Atheists (or Strong Atheists) that declare a position that gods do not exist, and then Gnostic and Agnostic Theists.
Again, equally valid so long as the terms are defined. But I thought it questionable that such a widely adopted understanding of the terms was not included in your video.
+Adam Whittemore That position sound pretty similar to my two dimensional plane. I don't use the word knowledge, since that is a very charged word in philosophy and it means many different things depending on what your position on epistemology is (ua-cam.com/video/jRxoHtGa4NM/v-deo.html) and I wanted to be charitable (ua-cam.com/video/oPB0JOpvg_E/v-deo.html) to the position. In fact this seems to classify anyone that believes that God does exist, but does not claim to know that fact, or that that fact can be known, an agnostic theist, when it seems that such a position should be classified as a gnostic theist, while someone that has an unsure belief in God would be a better candidate for an agnostic theist. But perhaps that is just my intuition.
Also, it does not seem to distinguish between people that believe that no Gods exist, but claim that they don't know this, and people that withhold judgement on the existence of Gods, but don't claim that it can be known either way. They are both agnostic atheists, but they seem to hold importantly different positions. Similarly it seems that someone that claims that we cannot know if God does or does not exist, holds a very different belief from someone that does not claim that we can or cannot know if God does or does not exist, but one again this distinction would lump these positions together.
As you say, there is no right or wrong answer here so long as our terms are defined. I tried to make the two dimensional plane intuitive and philosophically strong to me, since incorporating knowledge makes the framework much more cloudy since there is absolutely no agreement as to what constitutes knowledge.
I don't think that agnosticism is incompatible with atheism as long it isn't strong agnosticism. Only then do I view it as 3rd position.
TheAtheistPaladin It seems to me that it all depends on exactly what you mean by atheism and what you mean by agnosticism. Some versions seem incompatible, some do not.
TheAtheistPaladin Your reply is spot on, very simple, and to the point.
Perhaps you and I will just let all the others tie themselves in knots over the definition?
Carneades.org
To me belief is an active thing. So an atheist is one that doesn't actively believe in a god. It doesn't have to be a denial of a god. Agnosticism is just about if can be known to exist or not. So a weak agnostic would just say that god is currently unknowable and a strong agnostic would say that god could NEVER be knowable.
Here's the difference in 9 words:
_They are two different answers to two different questions._
Why it took so many more words and nearly 13 minutes to explain this, I will never know.
Conflating terms in this area is dangerous, as all of these explanations or definitions are simply wrong.
Acting like there is a single official definition of these terms is disingenuous and utterly unsupported by the literature. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "The word “atheism” is polysemous-it has multiple related meanings." Borchert's Encyclopedia of Philosophy states "No definition of atheism could hope to be in accord with all of the uses of the term." Similarly multiple definitions of both atheist and Agnostic are noted in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. If you think my definitions are incorrect, feel free to offer your own, and cite some authoritative sources that show yours is the only true definition. If you are here simply to insult without offering any real argument or evidence, feel free to do it somewhere else.
This was very helpful! Now I know how to use algebra a little bit better! Thanks Carneades!
+CosmoShidan I'm glad it was helpful. I don't know what it had to do with algebra though.
Carneades.org I'm referring to how the X-Y-Z formation was utilized in the video jokingly speaking.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene 😂😂😂
Hi, loved the video, totally agree (with exception to your own terminology but that's to be expected right?) very refreshing to see a video about this that isn't dogmatic! under your definition i am a skeptical atheist but i consider myself agnostic, in part because i don't want to be lumped in with those you call dogmatic atheists.
+Dave Sulphate At the end of the day, one of the central points I am trying to make here is that people use a wide variety of different distinctions and there's not one right definition. Frequently I find people with very similar patterns of belief identifying as agnostic or athiest not based on the content of their beliefs, but on which group they feel more closely connected to. Thanks for watching! I'm glad you liked the video.
Thank you for this video!
Edit: I follow the Two Dimensional Plane ('TDP'), but only after context is established. I think it is the easiest way to avoid any confusion by first defining the specific Gods in question before weighing in on its/their preconceived or argued existence. As suggested, this plane only addresses those currently in question in a sort of 'category G' vs an all-encompassing 'category Non-G" though; however, G vs Non-G is appropriate since we are only concerned with said existence in this particular discussion anyway. Thus, I see no problem in using the TDP to address existence of specific God(s) example.
The question "Does God exist?" is too vague. It must first be met with "Which God(s) are we talking about?" Once established, then we can see whether or not the claims are substantiated, plot out the TDP for that particular being/entity, and finally see where we lie. Note that we have to use a new TDP every time a new God or trait is added or adjusted to see if we still fall on the same position as each chart is unique; but again though, and as mentioned in the video, the utmost important issue is context.
***** I agree that context is important. The interesting consequence of specifying a particular God first, is that for other Gods, theists will be classified as gnostic atheists. And it will fail to give us an absolute classification of anyone, unless they have the exact same opinion for every God, which seems unlikely as Gods that are directly contradictory seem much less popular than ones that are not. I agree it would be more accurate, but it would make simple delineations harder.
to include oneself in the gnostic spectrum, does it make sense for an empiricist?
+Deadviny Dufter The problem seems to be that once again it depends on what God you are talking about. Some God perhaps could be proven or disproven with sense experience, but others could not. So the empiricist might be a gnostic for certain Gods but no others.
I wonder what you would call someone who rules out some Gods, but not all.
Also, I like your taxonomy, and I see why you would say "don't try to have a correct definition". But the "agnostic atheists" are misusing words. And more importantly, they're butchering philosophical concepts. So I have to respectfully disagree with your ending.
CheekyVimto08 An interesting question, frankly I don't know. Clearly there are a great deal of dimensions to this distinction that many people take for granted. in individual discussion I think that terminology often serves to hinder as often as it helps, when specific understanding of another's position can be more useful. But, for an overall picture, it is important to work towards clear definitions so that people don't simply use words to mean whatever they want them to. Though that is probably a question for the philosophy of language and meaning.
+Carneades.org I have my own taxonomy. I'll tag you in it when I upload the video.
+CheekyVimto08 I actually shagree with the lack of belief atheism now.
Carneades.org did you ever consider the inclusion of the term Anti-theist to describe the position that God/gods do not exist and use the term Atheist to describe the lack of belief in God/gods
I feel like your definitions are a good start but not quite there. My problem is you don't have a good definition for someone who expresses disbelief in God because they find it incredibly unlikely how ever they lack certainty to the proposition the way that a dogmatic atheist would. Similar situation for the theist.
Doesn't your claim that there can't be one correct definition for these terms simply rely on the fact that there is no single definition for the term "god"?
If we define Theism specifically as a belief in the Christian God (Jehovism maybe?) then defining these terms is not as much of a challenge.
In fact, I would argue that unless you know what god you're talking about, using words such as (A)theism and (A)gnosticism is meaningless.
I'm sure that some people believe clouds, trees and volcanoes to be gods. Thus, if we don't clarify what god we have in mind technically everyone can be a theist.
What also bugs me is that the only reason we're even having a discussion about these terms is cultural inertia. Replace gods with magical flying unicorns. Who in their right mind would call themselves dogmatic or skeptical A-unicornists? Do we really need a term for every non-belief of every made-up concept that's not supported by evidence? I think I'll call myself a dogmatic Abullshitist...
+Alexander Reiswich I'm not claiming that there can't be one correct definition, simply that there is not currently one correct definition. If you want to define them as God relative you can solve the problem, but you will be faced with the somewhat counterintuitive conclusion that theists are actually atheists in most situations. I agree that cultural inertia has a great deal to do with why the discussion is here, but that is only more reason for us to do our best to be clear when we use our terms to not talk past each other.
Carneades.org You're certainly right that clear definitions are important. To be honest, I'm somewhat annoyed by many self-proclaimed agnostics who don't in fact believe in god(s) at all, but simply feel that atheism sounds too certain and dogmatic (when it really isn't. The term they actually look for is weak atheism).
And yes, practically all theists (i.e. christians) are atheists in the same sense as all dentists are non-oncologists, but they can still be categorized as doctors, therefore I think it's sensible to call people who believe in a specific god as opposed to gods in general theists.
+Alexander Reiswich
//(A)theism and (A)gnosticism//
That's not the way the words were constructed. The Greek words "atheos" and "agnostos" already had the prefixes attached. "Atheos" is the root word for both "atheist" and "atheism". It is the suffixes that were added.
In the 16th century, the Greek word "atheos" was pulled out of antiguity and "ist" and "ism" suffixes were added. "Atheos" (no/not/without god) + "ist" (someone who believes) = someone who believes we are without gods..."no gods".
That word was constructed almost a full century before the Greek word "theos" was pulled out of antiquity and "ist" and "ism" suffixes were added to it, in the 17th century, giving us someone who believes "gods". There were no French or English words to attach an "a" prefix to back in the 16th century.
In this environment of people screaming "gods" and "no gods" at each other, Huxley came up with "agnostic". His definition wasn't about dogmatism. His definition was about objective evidence. It was a form of demarcation which could really be applied to any claim, not just claims about gods. Popper ended up doing just that (Popper also self-described as just agnostic).
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions." ~ Thomas Huxley
No evidence = untestable/unfalsifiable = unobjective/unscientific. Results: inconclusive and no belief as to the truth of the proposition. If nobody is providing any objective evidence, then we can assume they're talking out of their subjective asses.
//unless you know what god you're talking about//
I label myself in regard to the base abstract concept, rather than individual named gods.
There is no evidence that any religious writings should be taken as fact. However, behind all religious writings is a concept. “God” is to “god” as “Superman” is to “alien”. I do not accept a Superman comic as valid testable evidence for, or against, the existence of “aliens”. I do not accept a Bible as valid testable evidence for, or against, the existence of “gods”. I do not call myself an anti-alienist because I consider “Superman” fiction. I do not call myself an atheist because I consider “God” fiction. However, I consider myself agnostic about both abstract "aliens" and "gods" concepts.
+Alexander Reiswich //To be honest, I'm somewhat annoyed by many self-proclaimed agnostics who don't in fact believe in god(s) at all, but simply feel that atheism sounds too certain and dogmatic (when it really isn't. The term they actually look for is weak atheism).//
I Just prefer the labelling system on the right, here. What's the logic to broadening the definition of atheist to include no belief either way? I think it just creates a convoluted mess.
i.imgur.com/bIkjE99.jpg
The Huxley Agnostic Thanks for the extensive description and the graph.
We're talking semantics here of course, but I still can't help but disagree with the definition on the right quite strongly.
Gnosticism deals with knowledge in general, theism deals with a belief in gods. It makes perfect sense to seperate them.
In the model on the right, you'd be reserving the term agnosticism solely for knowledge / belief in relation to gods. Why?
This seems to me like you'd be going out of your way to treat belief *in gods* specially. Again, why?
Why should agnosticism not be relative to a believe in Santa Claus rather than god?
I don't think there is a good reason at all, other than having a less inflamatory, more pc label than "atheist".
You wouldn't have that problem in the left model.
Huxley's definition (which you quoted) is fine, but I don't think many modern agnostics subscribe to it strictly, because atheism would then be merely a subsection of agnosticism.
In other words, agnostics would have to call themselves atheists when it specifically came to the question of the existence of gods (so pretty much the same way skeptics talk about skepticism and atheism); But as we know, that's not the way most agnostics would see it.
Many if not most agnostics I talked to claim that since there is no conclusive evidence either for or against the existence of gods, the most intellectually honest position is agnosticism, in other words a non-commitment to either claim.
However, I think this is exactly the opposite of an intellectually honest position. If there is no evidence for X, then belief in X is unfounded (and invalid according to Huxley's definition).
Agnostics say it's dogmatic to posit that if, for instance, Allah doesn't exist, then no other gods exist. But that's merely a matter of proper categorization. If Allah doesn't exist because his properties are logically contradictory, all it means is that no being with the same properties as Allah exists. Every general category of gods should be examined individually. I, too, considered myself an agnostic at the time when I was exploring different concepts of god. Once I worked through all main categories and determined their validity (or rather lack thereof), I became an atheist. Meaning: there's no need to examine all possible god-ideas you can think of to conclude that they can't exist; You just have to examine all possible categories (which aren't many).
So the problem is not dogmatic disbelief, but a way too nebulous definition of gods.
To summarize: Claiming that a disbelief in gods is dogmatic (and irrational), because you can't possibly disprove every conceivable definition of "god" is fallacious. By that standard you'd have to remain open to the existence of all other magical and fantastical beings, which all agnostics in reality don't hesitate to dismiss.
The exception is only made for gods, and like I said, the only reason I can think of for this peculiar special treatment of this particular category of magical beings is cultural inertia and a desire not to alienate believers.
1. Your first problem seems to be a non-problem for the distinction. Its just a matter of context and terms that have vague reference points. It's quite easy to inquire what the subject of our belief and/or knowledge is. So, for the purposes of the conversation we are being theists or atheists about a specific entity, and we can atheists and theists about other entities. I see no issue here.
2. I'm a person who views a/theism in a similar view as the second approach. There are things that I "know" and "believe", there are others that I "believe" but don't "know". I know that I exist and I believe it as well. I don't know that there is not a tiger under my bed, but I believe that there isn't a tiger there.
3. That said, I think atheism here is sort of mischaracterized, or at least doesn't fit my usage. I've always thought about belief in an analogy to criminal law. Someone posits a claim, and then it is rejected or accepted. Rejection of said claim doesn't entail the support of the opposite claim. That I reject a singular claim for a singular entity's existence doesn't, to me, entail necessarily that I put forth the claim that the entity does not exist. In a legal context: that I believe that the prosecution has failed to prove a defendant's guilt, doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent. Or in the more popular analogy: if there is a jar of coins the jar must contain either even or odd number of coins. If I tell a person there are an odd number of coins, and that person rejects said claim, it doesn't mean that the person believes that there are an even number of coins. I suppose in some situations its not possible to behave in a way that isn't indicative of either (IIRC clifford's ship).
+PotaTOES 1. The point is that it seems strange that we would consider most theists, actually atheists, when it comes to most areas of discourse. It might be a small bullet to bite, but it seems to me quite unintuitive for someone to be a theist about one thing and an atheist about another.
2. I am unclear as to how the difference between knowledge and belief comes into play here. Perhaps you could clarify. (ua-cam.com/video/HEvDQc0GciQ/v-deo.html or ua-cam.com/video/jRxoHtGa4NM/v-deo.html)
3. I agree completely that there is the possibility to withhold belief on a subject matter. I agree that simply because you don't assent to p, it does not follow that you assent to ~p. I simply would call such a position a skeptical atheist, as they suspend judgement on the truth of God's existence. My point is that this is importantly different from someone that says that it is equally likely that God does and does not exist. It seems a very different thing to say that there is an equal chance that the number of coins in the jar is odd or even, and to say that there is an equal chance that the defendant is innocent or guilty. When you suspend judgement in the first case you are saying the two have an equal chance. In the second case, however, you are saying you don't have enough information to tell.
Carneades.org 1. Fair point, but as a person who dislikes universals, its not a large bullet to bite.
2. Ok so this is a little more complicated for me. I've done a bit of epistemology formally, so I have some familiarity but nothing that borders on expertise.
For the purposes of this definition I'm falling on the outdated idea of knowledge requiring infallible certainty. The things that I know are a tiny set of the things that I "hold to be true" as a mental state - all bound by the standards/criterion of logic. I believe many things but I cannot with certitude prove many of them. And yes this has the pyrrhic effect of demoting many things that in a different context I would consider "knowledge" to mere "beliefs", but I think it becomes useful for this definition. I know that certain gods cannot exist as they entail contradiction (at least imply contradiction to me without appealing to a posterior things) Meanwhile, there are other deities that I believe do not exist, but do not know whether they exist.
Of course, depending on context my definitions of knowledge and belief will change to some extent, and thus the criterion for them as well.
3. Hmm... all I meant to say here is that the sufficient criterion for being an atheist is that one only needs reject the claim for the god(s) in question. Anything further and beyond seems to be more of matter of terminology.
Although I can say that any probabilistic position seems absurd, at least on first glance. I have no idea how one can assign prior probabilities for something like a god claim, or as in Moore's situation the existence of an external world. Probabilistic accounts just muck up the situation.
Also you said this is on the philosophy of religion. I thought Atheism wasn't a religion
If one considers atheism to be the antithesis of theism then it is still relevant to the philosophy of religion. Also atheists that assert the non-existence of a god are in fact part of a belief based ideology which essentially is a godless faith, a faith/religion based on the lack of a god. either way atheism is relevant to the philosophy of religion.
5:10 - this depends on how you define “God”. A god is not God if it “does nothing”
So you define atheist as "positive atheist" and agnostic as "negative atheist"? I see including agnosticism, a position on knowledge and not mere belief, as a type of category error: so for me, I use negative atheist, as I believe in 0 gods because of lack of justification under my epistemology, but maintain the possibility that non contradictory gods may exist. separately, on the question of knowledge of a gods existence, I am agnostic, I don't have any knowledge, not justified belief that seems to deserve a label of true, not familiarity of via experience, no kind of knowledge at all, that any being that fits the definition of a god or God exists. In fact, for most god concepts, I think it is likely impossible to gain such knowledge unless the entity in question desired it to be so. So, when asked, I usually offer my position as agnostic atheist or negative atheist, but also include something like the above text to define the label because, as debate team taught me, labels don't matter as much as the positions and concepts you use them to represent, except as (IMO unethical/dishonest) rhetorical tactics, is when someone argues against a label they intentionally are defining differently than the person using it does (William Lane Craig disingenuously insists all atheists are positive, or as you called them, dogmatic atheists, even when one states his actually position)
I am an agnostic who believe that God is possible, but not necessary. I dont believe that odds must be exactly 50:50, but i do believe that they are neither 0:100 nor 100:0. I argue with both sides, theists and atheists, sometimes even agnostics. Also, i am not making any "knowledge claims" about any specific God, but i dont mind making "opinion claims" of which specific God is, by my personal opinion, more likely or less likely.
I feel a bit disappointed that person like me is not in your terminology. In fact, it seems to me that your terminology is THE WORST MODEL because it has no imagination, no coherent system, no 2d nor 1d scale, just five random definition points lying somewhere in blank space.
In terms of this video ignoring what precisely is religionists belief in god hence deciding what actually atheism means as completely secular person, the argument about measuring belief numerically says nothing about the materiality of real atheism. This video merely treats agnosticism as some range of belief worthy of discussing the real atheism. This simply waves one’s hands over the materiality of one or the other with no conclusion in totality of an atheism. This a sophism of no merit in discussing what is completely an atheism, or totalised sense of no religion at all. One can of course observe a religion like the Greek Pantheon has declined as a belief. That cannot suffice to understand a completely atheistic life.
With regards to how you distribute the probability of the Bayesian agnostic, if certain number of gods can coexist with each other then it is not necessarily the case that they have small probabilities. You can think of it as the probability of Yahweh existing is independent from the probability of Zeus existing.
+BlueLightningSky Interesting point. One could easily believe that many different Gods all exist. However it seems that there are sufficiently enough exclusive Gods (Gods that belief in which requires that you believe in no other Gods) to drive the probability for each other one down. But that does not preclude someone that believes in inclusive versions of all of these Gods. Cool idea!
I think it's also important to define god. What exactly is a god? I think of myself as an atheist toward all the gods that I've heard of so far (Jahve, Allah, Odin, Zeus, etc), but that does not mean I'm certain that there aren't incomprihensible, multidimensial beings who go beyond our full understanding. I just do not consider those things "gods", they're just another form of beings.
Simon Johansson Agreed. Some people worshiped mountains or animals as Gods, yet even the most dogmatic atheist probably won't deny that those exist. I agree that a clear definition is lacking, though important.
What if I just stick to the MGB definition of God? When I say I'm an atheist I just mean that I don't think that a Maximally Great Being exists. I also think that other concepts of God that I'm familiar with such as some Christian concepts and the Mormon concept are false or don't exist. Other concepts like volcanoes or the pantheistic concept I'd just say aren't gods. I guess I'd be agnostic towards a do-nothing God... but I'd still consider myself an atheist.
+MrTweej That's the interesting thing. It seems that you, and many others, are dogmatic atheists, towards particular Gods, but Skeptical Atheists towards others. You can consider yourself an atheist, but it seems that the type of atheist you are is dependent on which God we are talking about. It is not an uncommon position.
Let’s take the commonplace U.S. oriented condemnation of Soviet Communism as tantamount to a secular religion. The assertion presents a problem for defining atheism. In any sense if one takes god out of a religion, that means look only at the material conditions of the theist, what exactly is atheist? Such that without a god, removing the religion from a religious person means what? Saying god does not exist or basing one’s understanding as completely materialistic cannot tell us that someone is truly atheistic. There is no common doctrine atheism. There is no substance or materiality to being exclusively atheist as a conscious understanding. It is obvious saying there is no god at all burdens the description of atheist to act entirely without religion. One cannot simply adapt religious ethics, because that is not atheism. One cannot ask for belief because one is unclear on an atheist way of life.
In this video you assert that, when taking the "probabilistic scale" approach to Atheism vs being an Agnostic vs Theism, assigning a ".5" probability that the Christian God exists, means you'd only have the other .5, or 50%, left to assign to all other Gods.
I'd say this is a silly assertion. Ok, I'll peddle back a bit: I'd say you haven't figured out how probabilistic claims work quite yet. I'll explain where you made an erroneous assumption.
To anyone who's not a Christian, and that would most definitely include an Agnostic, the claim that the Christian God exists is wholly *independent* of a claim that Allah exists, or that Zeus exists. The actual rules of Probability state that claims being independent means that the total probabilities assigned to each claim does not have to sum up to 1.
In case you feel they are not independent and that is where the confusion lies rather than with the Laws of Probability, an Agnostic should have no problem claiming that *both* a Christian God *and* Zeus exist at the same time. Or that any combination of God-like entities exist, such as Allah, or Shiva, or Thor etc.... So, to take 3 of the 'largest' cases as examples, an Agnostic would say there's a .5 probability CG (new official Ahsim nickname :P) exists; a .5 probability Zeus exists; a .5 probability that Allah exists; a .25 probability that *both* CG and Zeus exist; a .25 probability that Allah and Zeus both exist; assuming they're not one and the same, which not all Religious Scholars have ruled out yet, also a .25 probability that CG and Allah both exist (if they are the same, it would be a .5 probability) and finally a .125 probability that all 3 exist. This is of course easily extended to an arbitrary number of God-like Entities.
Other point: You make some interesting points about the two-dimensional probabilistic scale of Atheism, being an Agnostic, Gnosticism and Theism regarding being Theist towards some Gods but Atheist towards others. That would be fair, were it not for the fact that you either failed to understand the exact definitions that were given here or, alternatively, perhaps you could be a little hazy on how Modular Logic works. So here's a refresher.
On the 2D scale, a Theist says the following:
_"There is a God and He_ (it's a Theist talking here, they'd capitalize the pronoun) _exists."_
Or, in a logical formula: _∃g, God(g)_. In terms of belief this becomes:
_Theist(p) := Person(p) /\ Believes(p, (∃g, God(g)))_
Being an Agnostic is then simply negating the entire second term of the Conjuction:
_Agnostic(p) := Person(p) /\ ~Believes(p, (∃g, God(g)))_
where "~Believes(Person, statement)" is taken to mean that Person p holds that there is a 50/50 chance that the statement is true.
Finally the Atheist, negating the second term of the "Believes" clause instead:
_Atheist(p) := Person(p) /\ Believes(p, ~(∃g, God(g)))_
Now, here comes the Modular Logic Refresher. "~∃" is equivalent to "∀: ~". So, the above definition of an Atheist can be transformed to:
_Atheist(p) := Person(p) /\ Believes(p, (∀g, God(g) -> ~Exists(g)))_
or possibly more accurately, constricting '∀g' to all 'g' that actually exist:
_Atheist(p) := Person(p) /\ Believes(p, (∀g, ~God(g)))_
So an Atheist is someone who holds some belief that *no* God exists. Believing that one God (or several Gods) *do* exist while others do not automatically makes one a Theist and disqualifies one from being an Atheist, since an Atheist must hold, or at least believe, that *all* Gods do not exist.
Final point: There *is*, in fact, a Scientific Argument against non-interfering Gods, much more convincing than those against Interfering Gods actually, and it's called Occam's Razor. Now, there are two possibilities:
1) You hold the belief that Occam's Razor is a silly argument and should not
be used. If that is the case, then I believe I may have found a crack in your
"Skeptic Armor"......
2) You do not hold such belief. If that is the case, why would you feel one way
or the other if someone (me, for example) _did_ use it?
Ahsim Nreiziev As an agnostic-atheist I'm personally averse to using any sort of philosophical razor, but that might be Quine creeping up again.
I am an atheist because I do not have a belief in any god.
I am an agnostic because I do not claim any knowledge about whether any god exists.
I am an agnostic atheist.
The only reason I'm an agnostic is because of Deism. Any organized religion I claim knowledge that they are not true and their gods are not real. We can know this because we can look at their history and see how they evolved.
A god that simply created the universe and set it in motion and doesn't interfere with it, I can't claim any knowledge about.
Considering the term "theist" is well defined, and the "a" prefix is a negator it's much simpler than that. If you're not a theist you're an atheist. The rest of this is really just up to which labels/movements/subcultures you like. Some atheists don't want to define themselves as such, because they have misunderstood the term, or don't want to risk limiting their options in life. They are still atheists if they are not theists. I can see how a bayesian wouldn't want to exclude hypotheses that are not falsifiable, but they hardly "believe in" all unfalsifiable hypotheses. Not believing is not the same thing as "excluding in face of future evidence" or "write protecting your brain".
I have aspirin in a small box, just like some people might have a bible in a drawer, but that doesn't mean that I believe that I'm ill. And I'm not going to call my boss tonight to tell him I might be ill and in that case I can't go to work tomorrow.
+fridaythe14th That is a fine definition and it seems pretty internally consistent. As I note in the video, so long as you clearly define what you are talking about, you should be okay. The problem comes when someone gets so caught up in the way that they label themselves or someone else that they forget the actual debate.
+Carneades.org I agree. Labels tend to comes with a big trade off, by association.
What will be the position of someone in the two-dimensional plane who thinks "God is Dead"😁
(ie, A God once existed for them in the past, perished forever in their future).
I think it would be in the centre point of intersection of all axis or somewhere outside the realm of graph 😉😁
Pls make a video about agnostic theism pls
It is an interesting and rare position. I'll add it to my list, but I don't know many philosophers that hold it.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I also couldn't find a stanford page for it. Pls at least recommand me a source for this position.
Well, I used to be one, and I'm married to one now. I think there are tons of agnostic theists out there, they just don't go around labeling themselves such.
That, sort of double venn diagram thingy at the beginning always reminded me of Dungeons and Dragons. You can be chaotic evil or chaotic good or lawful evil or lawful good or just completely neutral. I know what you're thinking. What a nerd right? It was actually very popular when I was a kid.
+Paul TheSkeptic It is reminiscent of D&D alignments, but it seems to me that while this distinction has the corners figured out, the sides and the middle are not clearly defined (which is one of the reasons that I object to it). You need the neutrals too.
Carneades.org He he, that's true.
You put all 4 definitions based on belief, bit gnostic and agnostic are statements of knowledge.
Also, there cannot be a middle ground between a binary proposition such as theism and atheism.
If you define terms the way you did, it seems to be a presentation which follows. But you started with arguably false premises.
You also started blending claims when you were talking about believing a 50% chance that one god exists, and saying it means the other 50% is left to cover all the other god claims.
Each claim is separate. Each claim can be viewed with it's own percentages. Yes and no on each claim would equal 100% each.
Furthermore, when defining skeptic atheist, you include that they would not say any specific god does not exist. A skeptic would hear the claim, "there's a god in my pocket", and check for evidence. And one may conclude the negative when the scope is specified.
There definitely is not one proper definition for these terms, but the usages you have chosen are very not good. They confuse things more, and definitions are always a tool for clarification.
To consider that a question can have only binary answers is to assume that the question isn't flawed. It also assumes that it is binary in the first place, which it need not be, for example, what if there is a thing that's like a god but isn't (eg gaia). What if there was a god but he destroyed himself when creating the universe? the refusal to see room for grey area doesn't preclude its existence. also "theism and atheism" isn't a proposition. I know the last point is knit picking but that one sentence in particular got my OCD going. sorry.
When I say atheist I mean someone who is decidedly and exclusively rejecting theism. This entails a burden of proof on the part of the atheist. The reasons for this are etymological. The prefix A is decisive and asserted as a truth claim in its own right. To say that something is asymmetrical is not to say it may or may not be symmetrical. No. It means decidedly not symmetrical and this claim is falsifiable. To say that something is atypical does not mean it could be typical but as of yet the case is unpersuasive. No. It means that it is not typical full stop. So when I say I an atheist I saying that the most reasonable position is to conclude there is no god (also defined etymologicaly) and that a falsifiable burden of proof falls onto me for making this claim. However due to popular usage I refer to myself as a gnostic atheist or in your somewhat unfair parlance, a dogmatic atheist.
+Jerad Clark Can you justify your Gnostic Atheism?
+Jerad Clark Can you justify your Gnostic Atheism?
THANK YOU!
An Atheist if a person who loves God with all the heart and all the soul and all the mind. An Atheist is a child of God and a comfort to his spirit. God bless the gifted atheists such as King David, Moses, Christ, me and you. Glory be to God wherever he is today! TBWBBWNIH
Huh, Ive never treated atheism as a spectrum. It is completely binary to me the same way belief is binary. Either you believe in god or you dont. An agnostic just doesnt believe that you can posses any knowledge of god so in that sense saying you are agnostic doesn’t imply you lack a belief in god.
Agnostic here is then binary for the sole reason atheism is binary and belief is binary. That means the opposite of agnostic would probably be called a gnostic but that is often confused with the actual Gnostics.
Correct, in the sense that you either have belief or you don't. You know something, or you don't.
But there are degrees here. Like you can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, depending on ones level of certainty or belief.
@@LastBastian throughout the entire video though he only talks about spectrums.
@@uzor123 Well, most of these videos aren't particularly great. Lol
@@LastBastian i mean i think the video is great, i was just surprised he didnt touch the subject when it comes to binary belief.
@@uzor123 I've watched a bunch of these today, and I've already forgotten the exacts of this video. 🤷♂️
Agnostic is not a lack of belief or disbelief in a God or gods, that's the definition of Atheism. Agnosticism is the belief that the nothing is or can be known about the nature of god. An agnostic can still believe in a god, and an atheist can be agnostic.
Termin warwager Normally a/gnosticism isn't a god-specific term (while a/theism is a god-specific term), and its normally just about the truth value of any claim. Are you including "existence" as a part of the nature of a god? Because then it sounds like existence is now a predicate of god, which then seems like you're asking for Kant to join the conversation.
The word (agnostic) can be used for non god topics, that however is not the formal definition of the word nor does it match the origin of the word. And yes when speaking about the nature of any god , that would include everything, including existence or non existence depending on context.
One can believe in god and be agnostic at the same time, just as one be be an atheist and agnostic at the same time. Atheism/Theism is just about belief, not knowledge.
. www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic
Termin warwager See I agree with you about how agnosticism relates with atheism (see my other post). I just don't believe that in a philosophical context agnosticism relates necessarily to god-claims.
I would disagree with you about whether existence is an actual property of a thing. I'd suggest, if you haven't, read Kant on this.
And yeah... oxford doesn't count for much. We're using our words in a more technical field. I'd suggest using SEP for a "definition" (plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#3)
PotaTOES
I cannot disagree more with that link, atheism for example is not the denial of the existence of God. Such a statement is bordering on insulting. Further in that chapter on atheism he speaks much more of pantheism than atheism. And he doesn't even consider pantheism a theism, and that's written as an opinion, not an academic effort.
Termin warwager SEP is not just an "opinion" its a citable source for universities. The authors are all philosophy professionals, and this specific author is quite well known (Smart).
If you argue that atheism is just not something, then its just an assertion. Or you're appleaing to prescriptive views of definitions, which is fine, but you're appealing to vulvar usage as overriding technical.
I held off on the messianic mind on pantheism... the distinction is hard.... can be affectively marginalizing. here's my disqui. I disliked this, not because I think that God is the verse, or in a clockwork universe. I think there is intuition involved in radical skepticism. The best link I can give you is on
schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com
The last link on us holy gfans.
T Dominguez did a recent video that also imparted this sympathy. And, the languish has now smitten me with the realy-zeal. If at both ends of intuition there are confounding dynamics. For one, in the mechanistic burden of design there is a lack, and that makes room for some physical blunders. In the other, my belief in a particle wave-errs (sic).
That's where I think a dissonance may be sufficient to make me contingently nontheistic.
words got mixed. I don't know what he believes
+Matthew Gore I am unclear as to what you are saying here.
If You do not believe or know that Jesus is God, then are you an Atheist and or Agnostic? Then there is polytheism!, do you believe or not know that they do not exist? Are you a Apolytheist?😉
This is my understanding:
Negative Atheism (most popular) - not embracing the theistic claim.
Positive Atheism - asserting that no gods exist.
Agnostic - not embracing the theistic or atheistic claim. (note that this places them also in the negative atheism camp)
+TheismIsUntenable That's a fine way to define them, I would simply call your positive atheist a dogmatic atheist, and your negative atheist a skeptical atheist. The question I would have would be where would you place someone that puts equal weight (or degree of belief) on a particular theistic claim and the denial of that claim.
A gem in a wasteland of philosophical drivel.
"Arbitrary "....you get it.
I am deciding to label myself, agnostic, or skeptic, or simply remain unlabeled. Even skeptical atheist seems too restrictive.
Using agnostic in which belief and knowing are conflated seems an interesting way to go (this is the way it is commonly used.).
Simply skeptic looks good. It doesn't try to answer every philosophical concern.
Unlabeled is very attractive.
I am strongly influenced by buddism,Taoism, post modern thought, Freud civilations and their discontents, existentialist but at the same time a big fan of modernism.
Our very language is suspect.derida.
Our consciousness is suspect -eastern philosophies, Frued, etc.
I would even question the ability to be an agnostic atheist.
Any association with these arrogant atheist preachers would also preclude me from even entertaining the thought of agnostic "atheist".
Why does Western man demand to label himself?
+cosmic waderer A good question to be sure. I use labels to try to help people understand what positions I hold, but they are easily corrupted and not to be trusted (and I therefore attempt to define them clearly) but that does not mean that I succeed, or that anyone can ever succeed. I'm as skeptical as one can be, so I even doubt that I am skeptical. Thanks for watching!
Atheism in agnosticism is the same thing
How so?
So confusing..
Try this:
a (prefix) - without, lack of
theism - *belief* in god/s
gnosticism - the claim of having *knowledge* of
atheism - lack of *belief* in god/s
agnosticism - claim or admission of *not* having *knowledge* of
Therefore, gnostic/agnostic and theism/atheism are *not* mutually exclusive terms.
Examples:
I do not actively *believe* in any gods, yet I do not claim to *know* for a fact that there cannot be any such thing that would qualify as a god. = *agnostic atheist*
I do not *know* for a fact that there is a god, yet I can't help that I *believe* anyway. = *agnostic theist*
I don't *believe* because I *know* there is no god. = *gnostic atheist*
I don't just *believe,* I *know* god is real. = *gnostic theist*
Bastian thanks so much for making it so simple to understand
@@gabbiosis - yes this video makes things unnecessarily complicated. He needlessly parses out not only belief or disbelief in God but also each individual god. He really gets into the weeds with it. Not helpful imo.
Bastians explanation is much more useful.
There are religions with multiple gods. In that case a theist can beleave in a do nothing God in my opinion.
When discussing philosophy and theology there are clear definitions of the words Theism, Atheism, and even Agnosticism, these definitions can be claimed to be right over and above other definitions that people may have decided on for these terms. Theism and Atheism are terms that were decided upon more than two millennia ago to facilitate communication across the gap of ages. Since the positions that the terms refer to are unchanging by nature all that would have to be done would be to agree on fixed terms to refer to those positions and later generations would be able to sort the rest out. We enjoy the benefits of this forthought.
Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism are all terms used in philosophy and theology for positions regarding theology. Each draws a separate and complete conclusion regarding the first question of theology, the God question. In the posts following this one, I am going to try to explain some things about the three recognized positions regarding theology, if you read it all the way through then I believe that you should be able to correctly identify each of those positions and explain the conclusion each has drawn.
To accept that the theological position produced by Agnosticism is strictly about a knowledge claim requires that we accept that over the course of more than two-thousand years no one ever even considered the possibility that someone might answer the God question with, "I do not know." We further have to accept that philosophers and theologians that were around at the advent of Agnosticism, about a century and a half ago, were so bewildered by someone answering the God question in this brand new way that they were completely flummoxed and failed to ever consider that "I do not know" might be a knowledge claim. I do not think these are good assumptions and instead think that we should look for an understanding that proceeds from the assumption that historically well-recognized philosophers had given the God question some consideration and generally understood the subject of philosophy, in doing this we may even have to embrace the idea that the position regarding theology that is produced by the ideology of Agnosticism is not entirely adequately described by "I do not know."
To accept the idea that Atheism is the lack of belief in God requires us to accept that over the course of more than two-thousand years no one ever even considered the possibility that someone might answer the God question with, "I never really gave it much thought." Neither not having given it much thought, nor lacking a belief that there is a God bring the God question to a close, and what these terms are for are positions with conclusions regarding that question. So without a conclusion, there is not a philosophical or theological position to be described and nothing to which to attach a philosophical term for a position. What remains would be well described as a social club and the rules that it might have for membership. At this point, it is worth noting that if someone creates a social club and they call it the Scorpions they do not then get to seriously contend that not all scorpions have chitinous exoskeletons because they are a Scorpion and they do not have one.
*An Overview of Atheism*
When discussing Atheism it is necessarily practical, and practically necessary to discuss Theism as well. The words Theism and Atheism are not like many other "-isms", they are not like Buddhism, Catholicism or Feminism. When you discuss many other "-isms", you are discussing the people who identify themselves with that term, and the beliefs that they collectively hold. However, Theism and Atheism are more like technical terms, they are terms for two of the three recognized ideological positions regarding the first question of theology, the God question, and for the people that might hold those positions. So, what the terms Theism and Atheism mean is not a reflection of what a given group of people believe, instead, what a group of people, or a person, believes indicates whether or not one of those terms would be appropriately applied to describe their position.
For something to be a position regarding theology, it must show that adopting that position draws a conclusion regarding the first question of theology. It must offer an explanation of why one should no longer be pursuing an answer to the question, does God exist, and thus brings the God question to a close. Both Theism and Atheism do this quite succinctly.
Having been recognized for more than two millennia, Theism and Atheism are the first two ideological positions regarding theology. Theism is the term for an ideological position that holds as a central tenet the affirmation that there is a God or gods. Conversely, Atheism is a term for an ideological position that holds as a central tenet the affirmation that there is not a God or gods. This can and has been described as disbelief in a God or a rejection of the proposition of a God, and with some provisions these are fine, but it is not well described as a lack of belief in God. One cannot be said to have embraced an ideology solely because they have failed to embrace something else, and simply saying that one lacks a belief that there is a God does not draw a conclusion regarding the God question. Atheism must have an overt act as part of its description because an ideology or ideological position cannot be described exclusively by what it passively does not do, embracing an ideology is not a passive act, even if it is done unwittingly. Since Atheism, just like Theism, is only a statement of position regarding one particular philosophical issue, then any descriptive term used in regard to that position such as "disbelief" or "rejection" must be understood to be describing an overt act, the act of disbelieving, or the act of rejecting. Otherwise, those descriptors must be rejected because they would then not be describing an ideological position, and that is what they are being called upon to describe here.
With the proviso that the act of accepting cannot be understood to be a passive act, I think it might be best to talk about the subject in terms of what each position accepts to be true. Theism accepts that there is a God, and Atheism accepts that there is not a God.
While it is true that Atheism embraces an affirmation that there is not a God and that affirmation, however it is described, must be understood to represent an overt act, this does not mean that Atheism necessarily makes such a claim about God's existence in an absolute sense. There will be those that do claim that there is no God in an absolute sense, and they would be correctly termed Atheists. However, while that position is sufficient to be called an Atheist it is not required. All that is required to be correctly termed an Atheist is for the individual to have reached a point that they are done looking and they have concluded that there is not a God to be found. Once again, having made up their mind on this issue does not mean they have made up their mind in an absolute sense, no absolutism is required for Atheism.
*The Etymology of Atheism*
Etymology is the study of words and word elements, tracking their use, and changes in their use and meaning, over time. It is a chronological account of a word's history, including a history of its elements, to lend perspective on the word's meaning.
When examining the origins of the word Atheism we find it comes from an ancient Greek word "atheos", created by placing a negating "a" prefix in front of the word "theos", which means gods or of the gods. I am given to understand that "atheos" in its use would best translate as "against, or in opposition to, the gods". It has been used as a term for an ancient Greek cult that held the, for the time, heretical belief that there were no gods.
Later the Romans adopted the word, "atheos, -is, -ism". The Romans used it to mean "against the gods of the state", the state being Rome. We have no evidence that Romans adopted the word "theism" or its equivalent. This is significant because it breaks the chain of the "a" being used as negating prefix, it becomes just part of the word. Interestingly, the Romans used the term as an unpleasant way to describe Christians, because they would not recognize the Roman gods. Later on, as Christians themselves, the Romans used it as an unpleasant way to describe non-Christians, because they refused to forswear their non-Christian gods.
Starting in the late 1500's through the mid-1600's the French adopted the word "atheosism" from the ancient Romans, and its adapted form came to be "athéisme". They adopted the meaning as "against the gods of the state", this time meaning Christianity or more specifically Catholicism, and it found popular use in the French language. Again they did not adopt "theism" for popular use at this time, and this breaks the chain in the use of the "a" as a negating prefix for a second time.
While the French were adopting the term 'atheism' into their language, theologians and philosophers had been using the terms Atheist and Theist for centuries, and the meaning they used for Atheism was a belief that there were no gods. In France at this time the Church had a near monopoly on higher education, and it exerted its influence on the French language. If one did not want to sound like an uneducated peasant, one used the term Atheism to mean a belief that there were no gods, or God. This changed its meaning in popular use quite quickly, so quickly in fact that its meaning was transitioning even as it was being adopted. Later-on it was adopted into modern English from French with this new/old original meaning of a belief that there is not a God or gods.
So, from the Greek, through the Romans and Latin, then through French, "Atheism" came into popular use in modern English. During most all of that time it was in use by dusty old theologians and philosophers, and for them its meaning has steadily been the positional belief regarding theology that there are no gods. It is worth noting that over the two and a half millennia history of the word "Atheism" there is absolutely no etymological support for it being used to mean a lack of Theism, against or opposed to Theism, or in any way to describe a position regarding Theism.
P.S. The spelling of some of those transitional forms may be a little off.
*The Etymology of Agnosticism*
The word _'gnosis',_ with a lower case "g", refers to special, perfect or revealed knowledge of God, or God's will, in other words, revelation. The word _'Gnostic',_ with an upper case "G", refers to a belief that one can pursue revelation though a specific regimen featuring privation, prayer, and a general rejection of the material world. The word _'gnostic',_ with a lower case "g", can also be found referring to groups that hold as a focus the development of a _'knowing'_ relationship with God, they believe that through following their practices one can achieve revelation. In all of these uses the term gnostic is being used to refer to revealed knowledge, or revelation.
"The Agnostics" is a name later given to an ancient Greek cult that held the, for the time, heretical belief that everyone, or every man really, could commune with the gods without the benefit of an intermediary, such as the clergy. They eschewed the idea that revelation was special, as in conferred only on the few. This was seen as being contrary to the monastic aesthetic teachings of the contemporary Gnostics, hence the name, made by placing a negating "a" prefix in front of "gnostic", and meaning "against, or in opposition to, the Gnostics".
The modern usage of the terms Agnostic and Agnosticism in philosophy have their origins in the ideological proposition that scientific thinking and principals could be used to address more things in life than just science, specifically theology. Thomas Henry Huxley, the man credited with coining the modern term "Agnosticism" in 1869, when talking about the ideology that now bears that name, was making reference to the Agnostics and their rejection of both the Gnostics and the "special" nature of revealed knowledge. He was also referencing science's own more sweeping rejection of special or revealed knowledge altogether. The term Agnosticism is not about knowledge per se, it references the ideology's rejection of revealed knowledge.
The uses of agnostic to mean not taking a side on an issue are poetic usages and often comedic in nature, implicitly portraying the two or more sides as being dogmatically entrenched. This form of usage has become popular enough to introduce a change in the popular meaning of agnostic. However, it has not changed the meaning as regards theology or in philosophy.
*An Overview of Agnosticism*
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion regarding both the ideology of Agnosticism and the theological position that it produces. It seems that part of the problem may be coming from people not realizing that those are two separate things, there is the ideology of Agnosticism, and there is the position regarding theology that is produced by it. This can lead people to conflate the two and sometimes generate further confusion by trying to back-figure it from what the name sounds like to them or how it is spelled.
Any involved discussion of the ideology of Agnosticism is going to be covering the nature of knowledge and knowledge claims, and it generally should cover epistemic responsibility, the idea that every member of a society has a responsibility to every other member for the beliefs they hold, even those that are privately held. These are related to the intellectual best practices of philosophy and science, the ideology of Agnosticism started from the premise that scientific reasoning could prove useful when applied to other areas, so this should not be surprising. It is through the combination of these claims about the nature of knowledge and beliefs concerning epistemic responsibility that Agnosticism produces a third position regarding theology. They are not the position itself, they are what produces that position. So the conclusion that Agnosticism is about knowledge, is pretty good. However, the conclusion that the position regarding theology that is produced by Agnosticism is about knowledge, is in error. It would be a much better to say that it is about epistemic responsibility. The belief that it is wrong, a violation of epistemic responsibility, to come to a conclusion as to the existence of God is central to the recognition of Agnosticism producing a third position regarding theology.
When applied to the theological God question, scientific reasoning, and hence Agnosticism, comes to the basic conclusion that it would be inappropriate, at least at this time, to come to any firm conclusion as to the existence of God. This is not ambivalence, nor is it indecisiveness, it is a statement of position regarding theology that is as distinct from Atheism as it is from Theism, or as they are from each other.
For a couple thousand years it was held that there were only two basic ideological positions regarding theology. Theism, where it is held that there is a God or gods, and Atheism, where it is held that there is not a God or gods. Everything else was regarded as not having a position as regards theology. Whenever there was a new advent in philosophy that reflected on theology it would excite a discussion over whether or not it produced a new position regarding theology. Although over the course of two-thousand years they did not find another position regarding theology, and even though it was a widely accepted premise that one did not exist, they managed to produce a rather clear definition of what would be required in order to produce such a position through the process of refuting the idea that various philosophies might be doing that. One of the theoretical criteria proposed was that any new position regarding theology would have to be antithetical to each of the other two existing positions, just as they are to each other.
Agnosticism was not put forward as a route to producing a third position regarding theology, but rather just as an interesting ideology. When examined by philosophers it was noticed that it met all of the criteria that had been established to produce another position regarding theology, including that the position produced by Agnosticism was diametrically opposed to both of the previous two positions, and all three positions were antithetical to each other, one could not embrace any one of these positions and at the same time hold either of the others.
The Ideology of Agnosticism producing a third position regarding theology introduced quite a change. Think of the corner of a cube, each line coming together to make that corner represents one of the axes of the three spatial dimensions, each diametrically opposed to the others. Agnosticism added a Z axis to theological positions. That is quite a change and it is why the name of Agnosticism is widely known. If not for producing that third position, Agnosticism would probably be a rather obscure ideology that enjoyed some popularity in the late 19th century. The unfortunate upshot of this is that people are not really familiar with either the position or the ideology, and very rarely with both.
*Some Details of Agnosticism*
There is still the issue of why the Agnostic's theological odyssey is over, this is a requirement for something to be considered a position regarding the first question of theology, one has to draw a conclusion and that involves bringing the subject to a close. Why the quest for more information, or the continuing search for God, should end is something that is included in the positions of Theism and Atheism. They are respectively, I think I can stop looking now because I believe that have found God, and I think I can stop looking now because I believe that there is no God to be found. But Agnosticism does not enjoy the same elegant simplicity, so it needs to prove this element. Fortunately, this can be done through a series of easily understood logical steps that are based on scientific reasoning and also eschew the pursuit revelation, which helps nicely with the name Agnostic.
Before answering the first question of theology, the God question, there is also a general acceptance of terms that must be embraced in order to understand the question and satisfy it. What we would be considering the possibility of is the creator of this universe, an Omni-God. Fortunately, we do not need to concern ourselves with just how absolute this God's Omni-powers are, we can say that they are sufficient to create this universe and warrant the term Omni then, with the note that should it become necessary we can revisit the issue, we can move on.
If there is such an Omni-God we can say a few things concerning them. We can say that an awful lot of looking for this God has gone on, and we can say that no one has produced hard evidence for this God's existence. We can say that there is no reasonable way that an Omni-God would be unaware that we as a species have been trying to establish contact and we can say that an Omni-God would have no trouble establishing contact if they wanted it. From what we have said so far we can say that this Omni-God is not affirmatively disposed towards contact.
There are a few internally consistent logically framed theories of why a God might not be in favor of contact. Many of these involve the idea that God's presence could interfere with the free will of mankind. They fairly universally set up a situation where the God is in an adversarial position to man's achieving theological certainty. So any conclusion that we might draw on the issue of God's existence would need to account for the possibility that there was an Omni-God that actively did not want to be proven to exist. Given that the postulated entity for which we must account could be described as all-knowing, all-powerful, and not restricted by the laws of physics or the boundaries of time, it would seem to be reasonable to say that one is not going to find an Omni-God against their will.
There is one more possibility for finding an Omni-God that does exist, but first let's take a look at the other possibility, that there is no God. Given that this stands against the possibility that there might be an Omni-God who wishes to remain sequestered, it is for practical purposes impossible to prove that there is no God in any absolute sense. One would have to have reached the end of knowledge and know absolutely everything before they could state that with absolute certainty there was no Omni-God who was trying to thwart their own discovery. The end of knowledge, the state where there is nothing that remains unknown, is not a state that exists beyond abstraction, even if it is a useful abstract concept in some conjecture. If you cannot show that a state is achievable then you cannot say that anything is working towards that state. So the fact that someone is adding to the sum of all man's knowledge does not mean that they are working towards the end of knowledge. Just because someone is headed in a given direction does not mean that the destination that they have declared does in fact exist, nor does it mean that their efforts are moving them towards that destination. If someone declares that they are heading off to the fabled land of Xanadu and that it lies to the West, so they shall travel West until they get there, it does not matter how likely or reasonable it is that Xanadu, were it to exist, would lie to the West of where they are at, if Xanadu cannot be proven to exist then their heading West cannot be said to be moving them any closer to Xanadu. At present, no one can say that we are moving towards the end of knowledge.
The last possibility of proving an Omni-God's existence involves empirical evidence in the sense that it is derived strictly from personal experience and is not dependent on scientific reasoning or method, we are talking about revelation. An Omni-God might be able to reveal themselves to someone in such a way that the recipient of this revelation could be certain that it was not a delusion and yet leave no possibility of them being able to prove the event to anyone else. The problem is that no one has ever been able to prove revelation has ever happened, not this special private kind or any kind at all. Not surprisingly, no one has ever been able to demonstrate a route towards achieving revelation either. This leaves revelation as an abstract notion that may possibly be useful in some conjecture, but it is not something that one can be said to be working towards. For these reasons, we can reject the possibility of revelation and the gnostic idea of pursuing it.
If an Omni-God exists they are not favorably disposed towards contact, and one will not be able to establish their existence against that God's will. Despite there being an abstract concept of the possibility of disproving an Omni-God, we do not have good reason to believe that the state necessary to do that actually exists, so no one can be said to be working towards that end or waiting for that result. For similar reasons, we can discount revelation and the possibility of working towards it, we cannot demonstrate that revelation factually exists and we do not know of any way of achieving it. At this point we can say that no more looking for God is called for because there are no avenues of exploration indicated. If we add to this an ideological understanding that epistemic responsibility does not permit engaging in beliefs that one cannot justify, then we have an ideology that has reached a conclusion regarding the first question of theology while refusing to draw a conclusion as to the existence of God on moral or ethical grounds, and that ideology has been very aptly named Agnosticism.
This is exactly why I don’t believe in any of it lol
The biggest difference is between the man God hates and the man God loves. The man God loves is himself. The man God hates tends to be you and I. But please be patient until death. God hates us for a reason and only for a season. One day he will love us as he loves himself. Not in this life but in the better one to come where he will be God in deed and in love.
+Musick IsKey Ikpu!
+Musick IsKey Interesting claim. Why do you believe that God exists? Why do you believe any of this?
+Carneades.org I believe that God exists because I feel his hate (and occasionally his love.) The hate that God for us as ex evil doers is stronger than his love for us as repentant sinners. This causes even repentant sinners to suffer. Suffering is evidence that God is alive. Nothing else in the universe has an interest in creating intelligent suffering as God has. If you truly do not believe in God I envy you because it means you do not suffer. You do not suffer because your unbelief shields you from his hate as a man's wealth shields him from his hunger. You will not see heaven but at least you're not half-way burning in hell right now like the rest of us.
Atheists says there is no god, so be it,Agnostics say there is no god,but bope it doesnt hold it against me😎