Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 95 (630557)
08-26-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Jack
08-26-2011 6:03 AM


Re: Intellectual dishonest applies to beliefs
But there is no reason that all beliefs need be consistent.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2011 6:03 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2011 10:52 AM jar has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 17 of 95 (630560)
08-26-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wollysaurus
08-25-2011 2:54 PM


Sometimes
Hello Wollysaurus,
We are people. We like things to be simple and put them under nice labels and have everything organized and proper. It's just easier that way.
But people aren't simple. We don't fit in boxes very well. Even if we did, people are also fickle and change their minds.
In general, about the only thing you can be sure of when someone claims to be an atheist is that they don't believe in God. This can range from "simply lacking a belief in God" to being "absolutely, 100% sure that God does not exist".
And, on top of that, there are even levels of non-belief. Do you mean in the general, practical sense? Or in a rigorous, theoretical, knowledge-of-the-universe sense?
Wollysaurus writes:
However, none of that seems to dismiss the possibility that there is/was a higher power responsible for what *is*. It's as impossible to disprove that a god (or whatever you want to call it) started this whole ball rolling, when we can't seem to get past certain points in history (abiogenesis, big bang, whatever).
To me, atheism isn't about disproving that a god started the whole ball rolling, atheism isn't about disproving anything. Atheism is about being intellectually honest about how someone acts towards the idea of God.
I act as if God does not exist. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't consult God over matters of my heart, I don't plead for God's approval or support, I don't ask for God's help, I don't fear God or love Him. Since I live my life in a way that assumes God does not exist, it is only intellectually honest of me to say that I am an atheist.
If I were to say "I am agnostic towards God". This would imply that I respect God's possible existence in some way. That some part of my life... somewhere... says "I should do this, because God may exist." But, I never consider such a thing when deciding my actions.
As the saying goes... actions speak louder than words. And, in practical terms, I certainly am not agnostic towards God and it is only honest of me to say that I am an atheist because that is how I live my life.
If someone asks you, "Do you believe in Thor?" Can you honestly say that you are agnostic just because you can't disprove his thunderous existence? Such a thing, while living and making decisions as if Thor does not exist, seems dishonest to me.
So, is atheism as intellectually dishonest as, say, a YEC twisting evidence to fit a flood model?
I agree that it is intellectually dishonest to say "I know, with 100% certainty, that the concept of having a higher power being responsible for what *is*... is absolutely false, even on a theoretical level." But to imply that such an idea is what the word "atheist" means... is simply incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wollysaurus, posted 08-25-2011 2:54 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4491 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 18 of 95 (630575)
08-26-2011 10:01 AM


I think we may have reached a point where a severely wounded horse is being wacked with a stick.
He's not quite dead yet, though.
I definitely concede that my question was flawed and that my own overly simplistic definitions are largely to blame.
I said:
quote:
I suppose it may come down to a question of language for me then. To me, the implication is that the individual *knows* there are no gods, begging the question "how do you know?"
The following, I think, is very relevant:
Stile writes:
We are people. We like things to be simple and put them under nice labels and have everything organized and proper. It's just easier that way.
But people aren't simple. We don't fit in boxes very well. Even if we did, people are also fickle and change their minds.
My definition of "atheist" obviously doesn't square with some of your very well thought out replies. Maybe that is because when I say "theist" "atheist" or "agnostic" my perceptions are shaped more by popular reaction than philosophical depth.
When someone says they are an "atheist" in a public setting, it evokes immediate perceptions or stereotypes in the minds of those who hear it. I would go so far as to say that beyond thinking that the person "knows" there is no god, the hearer believes the individual "rejects" the very concept of a god or higher power.
That is a powerful and emotional trigger for many people.
But why does it matter to me?
I ask the question in the first place because I have been unsure what to tell people about my own beliefs -- or lack thereof -- for years. I have waffled back and forth since I was a teenager, ultimately coming to the (intellectual) conclusion that there is probably not a god, but bound by the (emotional) boundary of stating flat out that I am an "atheist", in part because I cannot with certainty state that I "know" god does not exist. I simply don't *believe* that a being with the characteristics commonly ascribed to the Judaeo-Christian deity or other common concepts of a creator exists.
Since I want to make sure my positions are defensible and rooted in rational thought processes, when I label myself I usually say that I am an agnostic or, if I want to avoid something uncomfortable, I say that I think there is probably a god but that he doesn't get involved much. I have truly held that more Deist viewpoint, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I believed in this absentee god more because I *wanted* there to be a "divine" reason for the universe than I had evidence to validate that belief. It was an emotional, rather than thinking, decision.
Hope this helps to clarify my position and errors within this thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 08-26-2011 10:31 AM Wollysaurus has not replied
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2011 12:56 PM Wollysaurus has not replied
 Message 24 by Stile, posted 08-26-2011 2:06 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 95 (630578)
08-26-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wollysaurus
08-26-2011 10:01 AM


Wollysaurus writes:
I think we may have reached a point where a severely wounded horse is being wacked with a stick.
He's not quite dead yet, though.
*Picks up a baseball bat and starts whacking the horse some more* WHY.....WON'T....IT....DIE!!!!!.... WHYYYYYY!!!!!....
I definitely concede that my question was flawed and that my own overly simplistic definitions are largely to blame.
Yay! Victory!
My definition of "atheist" obviously doesn't square with some of your very well thought out replies. Maybe that is because when I say "theist" "atheist" or "agnostic" my perceptions are shaped more by popular reaction than philosophical depth.
When someone says they are an "atheist" in a public setting, it evokes immediate perceptions or stereotypes in the minds of those who hear it. I would go so far as to say that beyond thinking that the person "knows" there is no god, the hearer believes the individual "rejects" the very concept of a god or higher power.
But that's more of a problem caused by the hatemongering and ignorance prevelant in some religious groups than the actual definitions of the word. By the way, here in Europe, that is usually not the reaction you get. Mostly because there are more atheists here.
That is a powerful and emotional trigger for many people.
Understandable, we are the god haters that want everyone to go to hell and sin and rebel against god. At least, according to them.
But why does it matter to me?
I ask the question in the first place because I have been unsure what to tell people about my own beliefs -- or lack thereof -- for years. I have waffled back and forth since I was a teenager, ultimately coming to the (intellectual) conclusion that there is probably not a god, but bound by the (emotional) boundary of stating flat out that I am an "atheist", in part because I cannot with certainty state that I "know" god does not exist. I simply don't *believe* that a being with the characteristics commonly ascribed to the Judaeo-Christian deity or other common concepts of a creator exists.
Understandable. My advice is that if you think that you'll run into big problems by calling yourself an atheist, by all means keep calling yourself an agnostic.
Since I want to make sure my positions are defensible and rooted in rational thought processes, when I label myself I usually say that I am an agnostic or, if I want to avoid something uncomfortable, I say that I think there is probably a god but that he doesn't get involved much. I have truly held that more Deist viewpoint, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I believed in this absentee god more because I *wanted* there to be a "divine" reason for the universe than I had evidence to validate that belief. It was an emotional, rather than thinking, decision.
Hope this helps to clarify my position and errors within this thread.
It does. And I admire your mindset, it's "intelectually honest".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wollysaurus, posted 08-26-2011 10:01 AM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 20 of 95 (630579)
08-26-2011 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
08-26-2011 8:21 AM


Re: Intellectual dishonest applies to beliefs
I don't know about 'need', but they're not intellectually honest unless they are.
That's one of the cornerstone of what intellectually honest belief systems are all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 08-26-2011 8:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 08-26-2011 10:55 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 95 (630580)
08-26-2011 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
08-26-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Intellectual dishonest applies to beliefs
So you believe, and that is fine if that makes you feel good.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2011 10:52 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2011 6:32 AM jar has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 22 of 95 (630587)
08-26-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wollysaurus
08-26-2011 10:01 AM


I think we may have reached a point where a severely wounded horse is being wacked with a stick.
He's not quite dead yet, though.
I think it was on the talk.orgins newsgroup years ago that I read this description of going beyond beating a dead horse: "Furiously whacking a patch of ground where, ten years previously, there had lain a dead horse."
Not that we've even begun to reach that point yet.
Certainly, one label does not fit all. Everybody's beliefs are their own, arrived at in their own way -- as Unitarian-Universalism teaches, we each build our own theology, something that a fundamentalist Christian co-worker agreed with (though I suspect that most would not). With certain sects, especially those that more aggressively train their followers, their label more closely fits their members, but with less strict denominations we will see much greater variance of beliefs and attitudes, such that their label does not fit very well. How even less so, then, does the label of "atheist", with a list of specific beliefs and attitudes, actually fit real atheists, especially since there is no one single unifying doctrine, but just the single fact that they do not believe in the gods (which itself can have at least two meanings -- see below).
These labels, like most words, have both their denotations (the meaning of the word) and their connotations (ideas and emotions that are attached to those words by various groups). For example, the Gautama Buddha taught against believing in the gods, because that would only prevent you from attaining Enlightenment, but, even though that would make Buddhism essentially atheistic, very few Buddhists would want to describe themselves as atheists because they see it as carrying materialistic connotations. Another example is how creationists have employed the term "evolutionist" as a denotation for anyone who accepts evolution, but overloading it with all kinds of negative connotations (eg, atheist, anti-God, trying to destroy Christian children's faith, cannot be trusted, will not tell the truth) so that when their opponent accepts the label of "evolutionist" he has already lost the debate; for that reason, I do not like the term.
Similarly, as you have observed, there are some rather vicious connotations our society has attached to "atheist". I have been subjected to virulent discrimination with extreme prejudice by an "absolutely non-sectarian" national organization with international ties because of what they believed about my being an atheist, not about what I actually believe. So many times a fundamentalist (usually in an online creationism discussion) would viciously attack me for holding a long litany of "atheistic" beliefs and attitudes, none of which I hold nor would hold. And certain ones would come repeatedly and independently, meaning that they had to have come from somewhere -- once while visiting an ex-Christian forum, one ex-Christian quoted some Bible verses which contained those exact same "atheist traits", so that's one source (unfortunately, I did not write down the references and was never able to find that post again).
And those negative images and attitudes about atheists are taught and emphasized over and over again so that they have become "common knowledge". Used to be that atheists were the least trusted and least popular group in the US, but then after 9-11 Muslims bumped us back to the #2 spot (with Mormons bringing up third). But now, as linked to in another topic here, NY Times reports that the Tea Party and the Religious Right have now surpassed atheists in unpopularity (see http://www.nytimes.com/...pinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html), so there is still hope.
As said, we have all arrived at our own personal theologies in our own ways, even though we may use a common label to describe ourselves. For that reason, I normally shy away from atheists' discussions of the definition of "atheist"; we each have our own ideas about that definition which don't usually agree with each other.
Joke:
quote:
The new arrivals to Hell are being given their orientation tour. One feature of Hell is that each religion has its own area with torments tailored that that religion based on the beliefs that they agree on. Then the group comes to one area where everybody's standing around drinking coffee and talking. "What group is this?" "Those damned atheists! They can't agree on anything!"
Though when I originally heard it, that group was Unitarian.
Here's my take:
The supernatural is a problem. We cannot sense it, so we are unable to observe it or even detect it. We cannot know anything about it, including whether it even exists. We cannot positively say that it exists and we cannot positively say that it does not exist. Even less so can we describe in precise detail the qualities of supernatural beings more commonly called "the gods". All we can positively say about the supernatural is that we cannot know anything about it.
I would agree that agnosticism -- meaning the realization that we cannot know anything about the supernatural -- is the only honest position we can take. From there, we would need to proceed on assumptions, AKA "on faith", or decline to proceed. The two basic assumptions that one would make would be theism or atheism.
In the theistic assumption, one decides that the supernatural does exist as do the gods. From there, one would need to make more assumptions regarding the identities of the gods, their characteristics, and entire intricately detailed theologies. A theistic agnostic could not help but realize how increasingly untenable this position becomes, being based on a long chain of assumptions; a non-agnostic would not realize this. An honest theistic agnostic would need to keep in mind that his theistic beliefs must be held tentatively.
In the atheistic assumption, one assumes that the supernatural does not exist and hence neither do the gods. Beyond this point, no further assumptions need be made. Of course, an honest atheist would need to keep in mind that this assumption must be held tentatively, since there is no positive proof that the supernatural does not exist and even though this assumption is the safer and more certain one. I am not sure what to say about non-agnostic atheists, which I would assume must exist.
Though there are variants of the atheistic assumption, which also alludes to variants of the theist assumption. For example, an atheist might not make the philosophical assumption that the supernatural does not exist while making the working assumption that it does not; i.e., allow for its possible existence while proceed as per the evidence, or rather lack of evidence, that it does not.
Part of that reasoning is that even if the supernatural does exist, we still have no way of knowing whether the gods exist. And if the gods do exist, we still have no way of knowing anything about them. Instead, all we have are theists' manifold webs of assumptions about the gods. Even if the gods were to exist, how am I to believe what other humans, similarly incapable of perceiving the supernatural, tell me about them? Even if one of the gods were to communicate that information to a person (AKA "Revelation"), then, as Thomas Paine observed, as it got repeated to others it would immediately become hear-say and hear-say upon hear-say many times over. And instead of describing the actual god, these followers create their own version of that god that over time deviates more and more from the original actual god.
The question "Do you believe in God?" has different meanings. One is whether one believes that this "God" exists. And that itself has different meanings. Does an actual supernatural entity/force/ whatever exist that could be called "God"? If so, then is it the same thing as what believers in "God" mean by "God"? Not likely. What's more likely is that Man has created "God", mainly in his own image, in order to explain and describe what he imagines about the supernatural. Man would have created "God" thus whether some supernatural "God" actually existed or not. Thus, the question "Do you believe in God?" actually refers to that abstract creation of Man and not to an actual supernatural god. And as an abstract creation of Man, "God" does not exist.
The other meaning is whether one can put one's faith in this "God" and in what Man says about "God". Substitute other things and concepts for "God". Does fascism exist? Yes, it does. Do you believe in it? No, you don't. (one would sincerely hope not) Does my ex-wife exist? Unfortunately, yes. Do I believe in her? Hell no! So then by answering "no" to this meaning of "Do you believe in God?", I'm saying that I cannot put my faith in what Man has made up about "God", nor in the "God" that Man has created.
I am an atheist and I have been one for the past 48 years. Basically, what I mean by that is described in the previous four paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wollysaurus, posted 08-26-2011 10:01 AM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 23 of 95 (630589)
08-26-2011 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wollysaurus
08-25-2011 2:54 PM


A dna test is made to determine the father
the resoults are 99.999997 % acurate
An atheist would always say yup im the father as the evidence says
An agnostic could say we dont know who the father is there is a chance its not me
A theist would go i am not the father screw your sicence it has a chance of being wrong
Im not saying that atheists are honest or agnostics and theists are dishonest its just a diferent way of precieving reality and 2 of them are worng.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Jesus was a dead jew on a stick nothing more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wollysaurus, posted 08-25-2011 2:54 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 24 of 95 (630591)
08-26-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wollysaurus
08-26-2011 10:01 AM


This is the place
Wollysaurus writes:
I definitely concede that my question was flawed and that my own overly simplistic definitions are largely to blame.
Well, that's quite the negative way to say you learned something
My definition of "atheist" obviously doesn't square with some of your very well thought out replies. Maybe that is because when I say "theist" "atheist" or "agnostic" my perceptions are shaped more by popular reaction than philosophical depth.
Yeah, well... it's kinda what we do here. Some have been doing it for years. A few have even been doing it for decades.
Your question was kind of like walking into a zoo, going up to the zoo keeper and saying "I want to see the monkeys!!!11." Yes, that's very nice, but the zoo likely has many different species of monkeys
But, really... you're absolutely right. In general, most folk haven't been thinking about these things for years or decades. And those words certainly do have main-stream ideas tied to them.
That is a powerful and emotional trigger for many people.
Truer words have not been spoken.
I've found that if you find these sorts of things interesting to talk about and discuss... this is the place to do so. Lots to learn and lots to do, and you don't have to worry (too much) about offending folks.
I'm still pretty scared to discuss such things face-to-face with friends or family. The emotional attachments and possible pain is just something I don't want to be a part of. Here, however, is the time and place for such talk. People here want to examine their emotional attachments... or, at least, they want others to...
Hope you stick around for a while... it's kinda nice and refreshing here, too

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wollysaurus, posted 08-26-2011 10:01 AM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 95 (630623)
08-26-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
08-25-2011 10:21 PM


Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes:
Now in order to be consistent, this agnostic must also refuse to say that there are no werewolves or fairies or unicorns, on the same basis. And yet I have not seen agnostics behave in this manner, nor do they question the honesty of those who say that werewolves are mythical. And yet intellectual consistency would demand that they should do so.
I don't know that this is necessarily true: werewolves, fairies and unicorns are a lot more clearly defined than gods are. Since the lack of clarity about the definition of god seems to be a major point of focus for many agnostics, I don't think it's inconsistent for someone to be agnostic towards the general concept of gods while not being agnostic towards specific supernatural concepts like werewolves, fairies and unicorns. Certainly, if a person maintains agnosticism towards, e.g., the Christian god, your argument holds.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2011 10:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 8:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2011 8:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 26 of 95 (630625)
08-26-2011 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wollysaurus
08-25-2011 2:54 PM


quote:
My question is, isn't agnosticism a more intellectually honest position than atheism?
It is even more honest than most theologies, which seems to have all the answers. Agnosticism is most compatable with the Hebrew version, which describes the creator as indescrible and that none can live and know the creator - is that not the same as agnoscism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wollysaurus, posted 08-25-2011 2:54 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 27 of 95 (630626)
08-26-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
08-26-2011 8:20 PM


Can the mind imagine something which does not or never did exist? Can anyone imagine a new color?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2011 8:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 08-26-2011 8:39 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2011 8:43 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 95 (630627)
08-26-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by IamJoseph
08-26-2011 8:28 PM


Of course I can imagine things that never existed.
Of course.
I can imagine an absolutely straight line, latitude and longitude, several magnitudes of "infinity", parallel lines that meet and even cross, dragons and elves, even the god you try to market.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 8:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 8:59 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 95 (630628)
08-26-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by IamJoseph
08-26-2011 8:28 PM


Can the mind imagine something which does not or never did exist?
Yes.
Can anyone imagine a new color?
Blurple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 8:28 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 95 (630629)
08-26-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
08-26-2011 8:20 PM


I don't know that this is necessarily true: werewolves, fairies and unicorns are a lot more clearly defined than gods are. Since the lack of clarity about the definition of god seems to be a major point of focus for many agnostics, I don't think it's inconsistent for someone to be agnostic towards the general concept of gods while not being agnostic towards specific supernatural concepts like werewolves, fairies and unicorns. Certainly, if a person maintains agnosticism towards, e.g., the Christian god, your argument holds.
So long as one hasn't seen any evidence for anything that one might consider a god, my argument holds.
Incidentally, how well-defined is a fairy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2011 8:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 9:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 63 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2011 1:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024