Agnostisism a product of anti-atheism?

[Hypernova]

This is a post in another thread, but it's a topic I wanted to talk to agnostics and atheists about. Why is there a distinction? I have a hard time seeing any real difference between the two positions, apart from the way they are perceived by the general community. If atheism is simply life without the belief in a god, then why do agnostics call themselves something different?

---

This is from another thread.

http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Fee...nce?page=6

(01-03-2011 07:14 AM)Painkiller Wrote:  As I've said before "Agnostic" and "Weak Atheist" are largely interchangable.

I personally define myself as an agnostic atheist, as agnostisim and atheism are essentially answers to two different questions in my understanding of the terms i.e. one goes to what you believe, the other to what you know.

Under those definitions, if I were to describe your position to a third party i would describe you as an agnostic atheist.

I'm not telling you what you should call yourself.

Quote:To me, the difference is whether you define yourself by uncertainty or the probability of God's non-existence.

I don't know any atheists who define themselves by the probability of gods non-existence. The stock line I usually hear, and the one i profess, is that without the belief in a god or gods, you meet the criteria of atheism, whether one chooses to use that term or not.

Quote:I wouldn't call myself an Atheist, even a weak one, because I genuinely believe that the impossibility of answering this question objectively renders both answers equally valid (though it's important to note that the arguments they use and evidence they present is not always on an equal level).

First of all holding that position does not bring you into conflict with atheism. I'm an atheist and I accept the plausibility of the notion that the question may be unanswerable. But i do not believe in a god, thus, atheist.

Second of all the fact that a question may be unanswerable does not render two answers equally valid. If you accept objective reality then you must accept the fact that there is, in actuality, an answer to the question. One answer is right and the other is wrong. God either does, or does not, exist. Even if we can never know the answer, we can, through circumstantial evidence begin to weigh the likelihood. To use the well worn example, there may be a pink teapot orbiting Mars. For all intents and purposes, this is an unanswerable question. Does that mean that the yes and no values are equally plausible or likely?

Quote:Also, as I said on the "Atheists talk too much" thread, I only seem more atheist here because most of the regular atheists are so reasonable, flexible and open to the possibility that their answer might not be universally right - in other words, you lot are closer to agnosticism. Put me in a group of Dawkins-model "all religion is stupid" atheists and I'll be right on the other side of the fence.

I don't particularly like Dawkins, but i have read and listened to much of his work and I have never, ever heard him say he could not be wrong. That is, in fact, the antithesis of his position. Of any position which is built upon the foundation of rational, sceptical principles. Especialy that of an academic and a scientist.

When it comes to the question of gods existence, I think you'd find the vast majority of atheists, including Hitchens (RIP), Dennet, Dillahunty, Harris and Dawkins, hold practically an identical position as you.

Quote:The reason why I made that post is the common idea that Agnostics are wishy-washy fence-sitting poofs who don't know what they believe - for me, my Agnosticism is a firmly held conviction that both sides of this debate are choosing the answer they prefer and universalising their own thought process.

Well then you don't understand the term atheism, or what the vast majority of atheists - in my experience - actually believe. I haven't chosen the answer, and I've never heard an atheist argue that they know god doesn't exist, and very rarely have i heard or read one say that they believe no gods exist.

This is a problem I have with agnostics. It seems to me that the entire reason people invented the label is because of prejudicial attitudes towards atheism. The 'atheist paradigm' which seems to circulate generally is one which you just espoused; atheism is a positive assertion that no god exists and atheists are just as set in their beliefs as theists. It seems like a group of atheists simply invented a term which avoids these prejudicial attitudes.

This isn't personal, I just really have trouble understanding agnostics and why they differentiate themselves with atheism.

[Painkiller]

I'm sorry Hyper, I'm recovering from a wisdom tooth extraction so my answer's probably going to be sharper and less helpful than it would normally be. I'm not offended by what you've said, don't worry, but I find myself not really willing to explain further than I have on the thread you quoted, and also my OP and responses here: http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Wha...don-t-know

I do understand the term "atheism", thanks, and I'm pretty sure that any regular atheist poster on here will back me up on that. I think it's worth noting that as someone who teaches about religion in a largely secular country, my experiences are probably very different to yours. I come across a lot of pupils who define themselves as atheist who are quite ill-informed and aggressive about their position - I find being able to define myself in a middle position helps me to make a bridge between the two positions. Your point about "prejudicial attitudes towards atheism" probably carries weight in parts of America, but over here it falls completely dead - secularism is the norm, and being theistic makes you the weird uncomfortable one. Check out Douglas Adams famous (and easy to find online) interview with American Atheist magazine to see what I mean. It sounds like your particular atheism is the kind I'd have no problem summing up, but it's NOT the only one out there. You've never met someone who calls themselves atheist who's sure that no "Gods" exist and believes utterly that he's right? That's great - I have. A lot. Maybe in any given culture the hard-of-thinking drift to the most popular world view, and over here it's secularism.

EDIT - That's not to confirm your point that I'm distancing myself from atheism, or anything like that, more that your assumptions seem to be based on aspects of your culture which aren't really true of mine, and that defining myself as an agnostic allows me to demonstrate to the pupils I teach that not-believing-in-God doesn't have to be the same as believing-in-not-God. Where appropriate I do make it clear that atheism (and theism) are quite broad spectra, and cover a range of positions.

Bottom line, these are words that mean as much or as little as we want them to. My position has been laid out clearly for all to see, and I choose the term Strong Agnostic because it makes more sense to me, but as long as you engage with my actual point, you can call me a Green Monkey Farmer and I won't really care. Also, although like I said I've not taken it personally, I find "having a problem with agnostics" quite an uncomfortable concept. Take issue with the position, not the label. One of the things that drove me out of religion was the tribalism, let's not carry it into non-religion too - I won't have anywhere else to go.

[Hypernova]

(05-18-2012 12:53 AM)Painkiller Wrote:  I'm sorry Hyper, I'm recovering from a wisdom tooth extraction so my answer's probably going to be sharper and less helpful than it would normally be. I'm not offended by what you've said, don't worry, but I find myself not really willing to explain further than I have on the thread you quoted, and also my OP and responses here: http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Wha...don-t-know

That's cool, I just didn't want this to come across as being aimed at you personally. Its a question i have had for a while and when I stumbled across your post It exemplified what I wanted to adress.

Hope the teeth feel a little better.

Quote:I do understand the term "atheism", thanks, and I'm pretty sure that any regular atheist poster on here will back me up on that. I think it's worth noting that as someone who teaches about religion in a largely secular country, my experiences are probably very different to yours.

I'm actually an Australian and this is also a very secular nation. We even have a Prime Minister who is openly atheist, which is sweet. However I do come from a religious family and am a member of the, largely american, atheist internet community. Thus I have access, albeit over the net, to american cultural views.

Are you, Dutch BTW? Danish maybe?

Quote:I come across a lot of pupils who define themselves as atheist who are quite ill-informed and aggressive about their position - I find being able to define myself in a middle position helps me to make a bridge between the two positions.

That seems fair enough. But it does seem to illustrate my point though. The very necessity to take a middle position indicates a problem of perception, maybe furthered by those ignorant atheists you describe, and the impact that has on the perception of atheism by theists.

Quote:Your point about "prejudicial attitudes towards atheism" probably carries weight in parts of America, but over here it falls completely dead - secularism is the norm, and being theistic makes you the weird uncomfortable one. Check out Douglas Adams famous (and easy to find online) interview with American Atheist magazine to see what I mean.

I guess I'm not only referring to general attitudes in the community but attitudes amongst the religious and quasi-religious. The idea of the 'strident, dogmatic atheist' who's just as bad as the most evangelical Christian seems to be a dominant one amongst not only theists, but other members of the public such as yourself. Although paraphrased, its a view you espoused in the above quote.

Even if you only have a small segment of the community holding prejudicial views of you, it is still unpleasant.

Quote:It sounds like your particular atheism is the kind I'd have no problem summing up, but it's NOT the only one out there. You've never met someone who calls themselves atheist who's sure that no "Gods" exist and believes utterly that he's right? That's great - I have. A lot.

Honestly, apart from a few douche-bags on the net, I haven't. And I maintain the position that the form of Atheism you describe is no where near the dominant form. But relying on anecdotes isn't going to get us anywhere.

However if you look at the published positions of public atheists, including those as supposedly strident as Dawkins, you'll find thier positions are not as you describe. In the God Delusion Dawkins states clearly that he could be wrong, in fact he never once claims absolute certainty - no scientist ever would - about anything in his book. The main point is the importance of forming a belief only after evidence is presented. Again, no where in God is Not Great does Hitchens claim absolute certainty about anything. I've only read the Moral Landscape, but I've never heard Harris claim absolute certainty about any of his positions. In fact, as far as I know, none of them even hold the position that no gods exist.

The reason I claim that this is the dominant position amongst atheists, apart from what is discussed above, is that it is the most rational. In my experience, most Atheists came to their atheism by a rational appraisal of the evidence.

Quote:Maybe in any given culture the hard-of-thinking drift to the most popular world view, and over here it's secularism.

It is here too. However that doesn't change the fact that there are people i meet, some of whom are religious, some of whom are not, who assume that I am the type of person you described - strident, dogmatic ect - simply because i call myself an atheist.

Quote:EDIT - That's not to confirm your point that I'm distancing myself from atheism, or anything like that, more that your assumptions seem to be based on aspects of your culture which aren't really true of mine, and that defining myself as an agnostic allows me to demonstrate to the pupils I teach that not-believing-in-God doesn't have to be the same as believing-in-not-God.

But that is the kind of misconception I'm talking about. Atheism simply is not a positive assertion that there is no god. Its not even the belief that no god exists. By calling yourself an agnostic you further that misconception.

In the classic understanding of the term, atheism/theism is a valid dichotomy. There is no third option. In order to create a third option, we have to alter said understanding, which is what you have done above.

Quote:Where appropriate I do make it clear that atheism (and theism) are quite broad spectra, and cover a range of positions.

Yes, but it is a very specific answer to a very specific question. It is no more a religious position than bald is a hair colour.

Quote:Bottom line, these are words that mean as much or as little as we want them to. My position has been laid out clearly for all to see, and I choose the term Strong Agnostic because it makes more sense to me, but as long as you engage with my actual point, you can call me a Green Monkey Farmer and I won't really care.

I agree concepts are important, rather than names. However, my whole point here is the very need for the term agnostic appears to be a product of a wider prejudicial misconception about atheism which, I would argue, includes your description of the average atheist position. As you stated yourself, you use it as a method of 'bridging a gap' and thus, it seems to me that agnosticism is a product of that gap.

Of course you can call yourself whatever you think describes your position best. I guess I'm just wondering why you, and other agnostics, avoid the term atheist. As for the position you hold it appears to be extremely similar to mine, and many other atheists.

Quote:Also, although like I said I've not taken it personally, I find "having a problem with agnostics" quite an uncomfortable concept.

Perhaps a poor choice of words. The issue I have is people making prejudicial assumption about me. I hope that my conduct and argument illustrates my actual intent and position.

Quote:Take issue with the position, not the label.

But that's the whole point. As far as I can tell there is no difference in position, apart from your perception of the atheist position. The fact that another label is required illustrates, to me, that there is a problem.

Quote:One of the things that drove me out of religion was the tribalism, let's not carry it into non-religion too - I won't have anywhere else to go.

This isn't even close to sectarianism. As I said above, under the definitions of atheist and agnostic I'm used to you are an atheist.

[Painkiller]

Like I said mate, call me a Potato Ninja if it makes you feel better. Personally, I'm going to continue using "agnostic" as it resonates better with how I feel about myself. I understand your point, but I think you're seeing an attack on your position where there is none.

My position is that the objective nature of the Universe (if it even has one) is beyond our ability to observe, and I get the sense that you don't disagree with me. If it makes you feel better, think of me as a Weak Atheist with respect for the positive influence that faith and organised religious practice can have on the lives of believers - I won't be offended. I'm sorry, but I have no intention to be drawn into a semantic debate over my choice of label, or be told that I don't understand a position I spend a lot of my time on here defending.

I'm English, by the way.

---

Sorry if I seem snappy or blunt, by the way, but if there's one thing that pisses me off on here it's the "no, you're not an X, you're a Y!" thing. If we spent less time telling people what they are and more time engaging with their positions, we'd have less pointless squabbling and shouting.

[Hypernova]

(05-18-2012 03:01 AM)Painkiller Wrote:  Like I said mate, call me a Potato Ninja if it makes you feel better. Personally, I'm going to continue using "agnostic" as it resonates better with how I feel about myself. I understand your point, but I think you're seeing an attack on your position where there is none.

Like I said, this isn't directed at you. Perhaps I shouldn't have started this thread with a response to your post. I'm not here trying to convince you to call yourself an atheist. I just honestly don't understand the agnostic position.

Quote:My position is that the objective nature of the Universe (if it even has one) is beyond our ability to observe, and I get the sense that you don't disagree with me. If it makes you feel better, think of me as a Weak Atheist with respect for the positive influence that faith and organised religious practice can have on the lives of believers - I won't be offended.

The only difference between our respective positions that I can tell is I don't believe, or assert, that the objective nature of the universe is inherently unknowable, though i accept that may, in fact, be the case.

Quote:I'm sorry, but I have no intention to be drawn into a semantic debate over my choice of label, or be told that I don't understand a position I spend a lot of my time on here defending.

I'm English, by the way.

This isn't a semantic debate, at base its about peoples perceptions of atheism. And I'm sorry, but the fact you don't understand atheism is evident in your portrayal of it and of prominent atheists. But like I said, this isn't about you personally. Its about the whole notion of agnosticism.

[Painkiller]

I understand that your position is a specific refutation of what you think the word "God" means. I understand that it's not a faith claim or a religious position. I don't think I've said anything that could make you think otherwise. However:

a) the word "God" means so many different things to so many different groups that refuting it is necessarily a broad position. You say that you reject "a specific" claim, but "God" is not a specific concept - it can mean anything from a big man in the sky to the objective nature of the Universe itself, with a wide spectrum between
b) there are degress of extremity in the statement of atheism. Although many like you simply state that they have no reason to actively believe in God, there are people who call themselves atheists who actively state that no such thing as "God" could ever exist. Yes, there are.
c) because of the two previous points, Strong Atheism can be a firm statement that there is absolutely no "higher" or non-empirical reality or existence beyond the physical

the position outlined in c) is very different to where I stand. It doesn't represent all atheists, but it is a position on that spectrum.

Once again, I believe that the objective nature of the Universe is beyond our ability to observe or understand. I BELIEVE this. I am not simply rejecting a specific or broad notion of "God", I am rejecting the idea of objective knowledge about the Universe at all.

For these reasons, I think the word agnostic suits me better than atheist. You don't. That's fine, but you're seeing anti-atheist prejudice where there is none. You're a relative newcomer to this forum, but go back and check some of the older threads - I've spent a lot of time defending atheism on here, and making exactly the points about it being non-religious and non-dogmatic that you're making at me here. Perhaps my previous post was poorly worded, it's easy to get carried away on the internet, but you're misrepresenting me here (and yes, I know, the thread isn't about me - but guess what, you opened with a quote of mine, you're addressing me directly and you've accused me of not understanding what atheism is twice now).

---

Sorry about the repeated edits. I got surprisingly annoyed by your post at first, and made the mistake of posting before taking a moment to calm down. Srs bsns.

[Hypernova]

This is getting beside the point. As I said, I didn't mean to make this thread about your beliefs specifically.

(05-18-2012 03:25 AM)Painkiller Wrote:  I understand that your position is a specific refutation of what you think the word "God" means.

That's what I mean about a misunderstanding of atheism, I haven't refuted anything. Atheism isn't defining some specific concept of god and then refuting it. I simply lack the belief in any concept of god I have been exposed to.

Quote:I understand that it's not a faith claim or a religious position. I don't think I've said anything that could make you think otherwise.

Well referring to a spectrum of theist and atheists implicitly equates the two.

Quote:a) the word "God" means so many different things to so many different things that refuting it is necessarily a broad position. You say that you reject "a specific" claim, but "God" is not a specific concept - it can mean anything from a big man in the sky to the objective nature of the Universe itself, with a wide spectrum between

Like I said, I haven't refuted anything. This is what I mean about a misconception. Atheists don't hold the negative position.

Quote:b) there are degress of extremity in the statement of atheism. Although many like you simply state that they have no reason to actively believe in God, there are people who call themselves atheists who actively state that no such thing as "God" could ever exist. Yes, there are.

There may be those people, but the fact that they believe no god exists stands aside from their atheism. Atheism, by definition is not a positive claim, it is simply being without theism in any of its forms. Any positive claim about the nature of the universe exists is in addition to 'being an atheist'.

Its a simple term; a - theism = without - theism.

Quote:c) because of the two previous points, Strong Atheism can be a firm statement that there is absolutely no "higher" or non-empirical reality or existence beyond the physical

Well, I dispute the first two premises. And anyway, that's simply a statement of philosophical materialism, not atheism.

Quote:the position outlined in c) is very different to where I stand. It doesn't represent all atheists, but it is a position on that spectrum.

I dont think it represents atheism at all.

Quote:Once again, I believe that the objective nature of the Universe is beyond our ability to observe or understand. I BELIEVE this. I am not simply rejecting a specific or broad notion of "God", I am rejecting the idea of objective knowledge about the Universe at all.

That's fine. If we were talking about the validity of your beliefs specifically, i would reply that you are making a positive claim about the nature of the universe, which would require supporting premises. But, again, I don't really care.

Quote:For these reasons, I think the word agnostic suits me better than atheist. You don't.

No, I just don't understand why agnostics in general use them as mutually exclusive terms. Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you to call yourself something different, but I'm trying to get at the base reasons behind the perceived difference.

Quote:That's fine, but you're seeing anti-atheist prejudice where there is none.

Really? You don't think there is anti-atheist prejudice in wider society or amongst theists?

Quote:You're a relative newcomer to this forum, but go back and check some of the older threads - I've spent a lot of time defending atheism on here, and making exactly the points about it being non-religious and non-dogmatic that you're making at me here.

That's fine. I'm just addressing what I see here. Like I said, this isn't some personal attack against you.

Quote:Perhaps my previous post was poorly worded, it's easy to get carried away on the internet, but you're misrepresenting me here (and yes, I know, the thread isn't about me - but guess what, you opened with a quote of mine, you're addressing me directly and you've accused me of not understanding what atheism is twice now).

This has become about you now I suppose, it honestly wasn't the intent though. Again, I'm not addressing you as a person, just what you've said here. If that does not represent your position then I apologise.

[Painkiller]

Okay, attempting to distance it from the analysis of my personal position and get onto the broader issue, let's try it a different way:

"There are people who think that they know how the Universe works, and people who don't. If you don't, you're an agnostic. Calling yourself atheist is unnecessary, as it suggests the rejection of one specific answer, rather than simply admitting that you don't have an answer at all. In fact its harmful, as it gives priority to that specific answer - you become someone who doesn't believe in "God", rather than someone who simply doesn't know how the Universe works. Could it be that people call themselves the more dynamic sounding atheist' in order to distance themselves from the perception of agnostics as weak-spirited fence-sitters who don't know what they think?".

Why is what I've just written (which I don't believe, in case that's not clear) any less valid than your point here? If one of these labels is unnecessary, why is it agnostic and not atheist?

Also, I'm sorry if I sound like a dog with a bone here, but the thread hasn't "become about me" - more than half of your OP was addressed at me directly, and contained a claim about my personal knowledge and understanding. Perhaps I'm being sensitive, but I fail to see how it could have gone any other way.

[jrpurdon]

(05-17-2012 10:51 PM)Hypernova Wrote:  I don't know any atheists who define themselves by the probability of gods non-existence. The stock line I usually hear, and the one i profess, is that without the belief in a god or gods, you meet the criteria of atheism, whether one chooses to use that term or not.

I might be able to throw a monkey wrench into this. I'm quite certain that gods do not exist, and I do feel that this belief has a lot to do with who I am. To muddy the waters a bit more, I'm also viciously agnostic, believing that there's no way to determine absolute truth from subjective experience (and what do we have other than our subjective experiences?) Knowledge and certainty are two very distinct categories to me.

[Hypernova]

(05-18-2012 04:54 AM)Painkiller Wrote:  Okay, attempting to distance it from the analysis of my personal position and get onto the broader issue, let's try it a different way:

Cool. OK, let me pull this apart.

Quote:"There are people who think that they know how the Universe works, and people who don't. If you don't, you're an agnostic.

Agreed, like I said, I define myself as an agnostic, and as an atheist.

Quote:Calling yourself atheist is unnecessary,

Perhaps.

Quote:as it suggests the rejection of one specific answer, rather than simply admitting that you don't have an answer at all.

This is simply incorrect. In reality it is a tautology. When presented with a proposition, not knowing the answer and rejecting the specific claim are exactly the same thing.

Quote:In fact its harmful, as it gives priority to that specific answer - you become someone who doesn't believe in "God", rather than someone who simply doesn't know how the Universe works.

Again, in any detail theism is no where near a specific idea. There are an infinite number of concepts which could be defined as 'god'.

Quote:Could it be that people call themselves the more dynamic sounding atheist' in order to distance themselves from the perception of agnostics as weak-spirited fence-sitters who don't know what they think?".

Sure, and I would challenge that as well. Like I said, I'm an agnostic.

Quote:Why is what I've just written (which I don't believe, in case that's not clear) any less valid than your point here?

Well, because it is fallacious. In fact, it actually supports my hypothesis.

Quote:If one of these labels is unnecessary, why is it agnostic and not atheist?

That's essentially a strawman, I never claimed one of them was unnecessary. In fact, as I have stated several times, I use both terms to describe myself as they address distinct categories.

Perhaps I should clarify my hypothesis. Given the basic meaning of the word atheism, as someone or some concept that exists without theism (I'm open to a discussion on definitions), I am questioning whether the reason some people who fall under that definition, have abandoned the term, is either partially or wholly, a product of a negative view held by other elements of society towards atheism.

Here's an example. In this video Neil deGrasse Tyson outlines the reason for describing himself as an agnostic, rather than an atheist, is (more or less) his desire to prevent people from holding prejudicial beliefs about him. In my opinion he virtually defines atheism as I understand it and then calls it agnosticism.

Quote:Also, I'm sorry if I sound like a dog with a bone here, but the thread hasn't "become about me" - more than half of your OP was addressed at me directly, and contained a claim about my personal knowledge and understanding. Perhaps I'm being sensitive, but I fail to see how it could have gone any other way.

Again, i should have addressed your post in the other thread and started this one afresh. There was some elements in that post which I disagree with, which is why I addressed them. I would argue that someone disagreeing with your opinions, even if they have been espoused for a long time, isn't ever something to take personally. Idea's are idea's, they don't necessarily reflect on the person. You have challenged my opinions/beliefs here haven't you?

---

(05-18-2012 05:26 PM)jrpurdon Wrote:  I might be able to throw a monkey wrench into this. I'm quite certain that gods do not exist, and I do feel that this belief has a lot to do with who I am.

I hate to get bogged down in formal logic here, but believing something to be the case or thinking it likely is very different to asserting it as true. If you made me bet I'd put money on there not being a god, good money, but I will not argue that as a supportable fact.

To clarify, is this what you are doing? Asserting that no gods exist? I am yet to meet an atheist who has asserted that claim so maybe you'll be the first.

Quote:To muddy the waters a bit more, I'm also viciously agnostic, believing that there's no way to determine absolute truth from subjective experience (and what do we have other than our subjective experiences?) Knowledge and certainty are two very distinct categories to me.

Well, if you are asserting that no gods exist to a level of absolute certainty, I would say you had an internally inconsistent worldview.

Anyway to the point, radical doubt reduces absolute certainty to only two areas in my book; the existence of my mind and things that are true by definition. Thus we must assume that objective reality exists if we are to form models of it.

However beyond that, Knowledge requires a level of relative certainty. Plato defined knowledge as justified, true belief. If we accept this definition, radical doubt renders absolute certainty on a belief being true moot, thus the all important element is the justification. Although the level of evidence one finds compelling is somewhat subjective, a belief must be supported by evidence (justified). So to the relevant question;

Do you know that no gods exist?

And anyway, under the definition of atheism I have used here, any assertion about the universe that does not include the belief in the existence of a god is additional to someone's atheism. Its why I define myself as an agnostic atheist.