Theist: "God exists."
Atheist: "God does not exist."
Agnostic: "Proof of God does not exist."
Which are you?
You know, you can be more than one. Each of the top two has taken a big leap of faith, that neither one can back up with proof.
You can just about guess where I stand, I'd guess.
Comments
Theists take a huge leap of faith, that's correct.
Agnostics are NOT, contrary to your assertion, people who are sitting on the fence waiting for proof. Agnostics believe in a deity, just not any one deity in particular. They are unaligned.
Agnostics, in other words, are having a bet each way, on the off chance their is a heaven (and they'll be offered a place), or in case they need to send up a prayer. By believing in "something", agnostics keep their options open, for self-serving reasons.
Atheists, on the other hand, have no beliefs, which requires no leap of faith at all, since science provides all the proof necessary.
You seem to make the all too common mistake of believing that atheism is the opposite of theism, which it isn't. Atheism is not a believe system, it requires no proof per se.
But I'm a bit confused, as I never claimed agnostics sit on any fence. Agnosticism is a very definite, very strong stance. "Proof of God does not exist" is a very strong claim! And unlike the other two, it is one that can be backed up. Talented agnostics can and have shredded every argument a theist can advance claiming proof of God.
It strikes me that your definition of agnostic is far less definite and far more of a fence-sit.
As to an atheist who has no belief, and no opinion on whether or not God exists - what would be their goal for self-identifying as an atheist? The atheists I know share a very definite belief: that God does not exist. That's a pretty basic, low place to set the bar. Any atheist who can't stand up for that one - again, why claim the name? Picture such an atheist in a conversation: "Does God exist?" "I have no belief on the topic, I have no beliefs whatsoever."
That's not much reason to call one's self an atheist. Now, let's ask this other person: "Does God exist?" "NO."
Now that's an atheist!
I guess a person can identify as an atheist, and still refuse to believe that God doesn't exist. It just seems strange. Talk about fence-sitting!
So to make it clear what I meant on my side, I pulled some definitions for atheism and agnosticism (from my computer's built-in Oxford American Dictionary):
atheism - the theory or belief that God does not exist.
agnosticism - the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of God, or of anything beyond material phenomena.
I'm just trying to clear up my side of what I mean. The original post was made with reference to these more common, ordinary dictionary senses of the words. Pretty pedestrian for such high-flung stuff as is being discussed! Of course, the definitions you are using may well be equally valid, but they do appear to be far different senses of the words.
I've learned that that no fruitful discussion can be possible, in the absence of a basic agreement in terms being used.
I'll have to confess to a life-long acceptance of the colloquial use of "agnostic".
You're quite right about the definition, yet, most people claiming to be agnostic - and it's a popular category - are people who elaborate with details of a belief in "something" or even "a god", but don't lay claim to associating with a particular religion.
Most people then, so it would seem, claiming to be agnostic don't realize that they're claiming disbelieve, due to lack of evidence, and that's closer to atheism than I'd previously understood it! (Yes, yes, stoopid!)
Atheism, on the other hand, is I would argue, and it is possibly semantic, not a "BELIEF", which implies faith. Atheism is not a faith, not a belief, nor even an opinion, since so much science backs it up.
This is probably a bit like the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic: the psychotic knows that 2 plus 2 equals 5; the neurotic knows that 2 plus 2 equals 4 but can't stand it.
But of course, that's just bias on my part. Because a person who believes the details are unknowable, but persists in believing there "is something" - the colloquial use you cite - sure, that's still agnostic. Sure: perfectly valid use. As long as they remain firm that the truth and particulars are unknowable! The main crux of being an agnostic is the claim that the truth of the matter is unknowable.
As to atheism and belief, you are quite right up top when you say it is not a belief system. But to my way of thinking, an atheist must still believe (at a minimum) "There Is No God." Believing at least that, is what makes them an atheist.
I'm not sure there's a word for someone who has no beliefs concerning the existence of God whatsoever. An apatheist, perhaps? :-D
But what of those, increasing in number, who, rather than having no beliefs concerning the existence of god, don't even consider it a question requiring an answer or a stance?
Those raised, in essence, as atheists don't think about the question. Godlessness is normal to them.
They need a special name too!
But in any case, it looks like apatheism is already a word, and it sounds similar to what you describe - although it is more concerned with a manner of acting, than with any stated belief. Apatheism is also called "pragmatic atheism" or "practical atheism."
This could be the word you're looking for!
As with the other labels, I'd be suspicious of the motives for those who claim this one. Some would certainly come to the apatheist stance as their necessary stance, proceeding out of intellectual integrity and an honest and serene disregard of the question. But most people, I think, would be embracing it because the question makes them uncomfortable, because they really don't know what to think, or even, know what they do think - and they don't want to have to think about that.
I believe it is always better to know one's self and one's own beliefs thoroughly! Unwillingness to discuss a question should always be based on positive knowledge of why it is a worthless question.
Heck, I'll discuss even the most worthless question, if someone is insistent. A belief itself may be something I find invalid and boring, but a person expressing it is going to new levels of why that may add to my understanding of that belief.
Obviously, if it's the same person who's already tried to explain it to me over and over and over...the fascination wanes...
Why must anyone?
Knowing oneself doesn’t require an examination of questions of either god or religion. It’s only man-made religion (and man-made deities) that insist this should be the case.
It isn’t a requirement by any objective measure or any objective though, any more than knowing oneself requires one to have read and formed an opinion on Shakespeare or Keats or JK Rowling.
Apatheism - how fabulous! A real word and I swear I've never come across it before. I'm surprised it's not commonly used. It should be an option in the census.
Pity it's so culturally skewed though. It suggests that failure to examine, or disinterest, in the question of god isn't a valid intellectual position, but is founded in mere laziness.
Still in search of a more positive expression then!
What does the mind have to do in life, but ponder all things and decide? To someone who would ask "why know one's own beliefs?" I could only respond "why shirk the duty of self-knowledge?" Self-knowledge does not end at the skin, but extends the length and breadth of all that can be sensed and contemplated. Why should religion's man-made aspect rob us of our ability to know and express how we feel about it? Of course I understand if it's a case of not wanting to hurt peoples' feelings. Compassion isn't the exclusive province of religion.
But it's one thing to decline to express, and another to declare that it is better not to have or know one's stance. This I don't understand. For things truly unknowable, an appropriate stance might be pure skepticism: "In the absence of proof, I suspend judgment." But that's not a lack of a stance, that is a strong, examined stance - arguably, the strongest stance that can be justified by reason.
As to assumptions, I live by them - as do you, as do we all (a point made here in a somewhat silly way). We can't plan our lives without them. What people object to in assumptions is when the assumptions are not well-examined. What we can do is ground our assumptions as best we can, and re-examine our assumptions as needed.
I believe there is no topic where it serves the individual to remain unknowing of their own belief upon it. I said before that belief can be an affirmation, a rejection, or a suspension of judgment. But it needn't be absolute - it can be in any combination: an affirmation of some aspects, a rejection of other aspects, and a suspension of judgment on yet other aspects.
Your original agnostic for instance, rejects or suspends judgment in many specific aspects of God-as-popularly-depicted, while affirming a belief in "something."
It's been very helpful in my life to know what I believe. It gives a certain confidence so that I don't mind being questioned, and it gives a curiosity in what others believe.
Anyway. I heartily recommend it! :-D
The root of this issue to me is not belief in anything, but belief itself. Belief is not supernatural - nothing could be more down to earth, really. But the way we go about belief can make a great difference in how effectively we can manage life and particularly, change.
And of course: one might say: "Religion is a waste of time, and it has wasted too much of humanity's time and too many of our lives. I will not dignify it with my consideration." That's potentially a strong stance, too, and it could be underlain by either an atheist or agnostic core. The atheist says that religion is a waste of time because God does not exist. The agnostic says that religion is a waste of time because we cannot know whether God exists, and because even if there were a God, the attributes attributed to God by religions are self-contradictory and often absurd - we'd be better off discarding them.
The strength of any stance is not in where you end up, in terms of specific belief. The strength is in knowing what underlies that belief. Consideration is never a waste of time, even (perhaps, especially) if it ends in a repudiation of that which is considered. There are all sorts of advantages: the self-examined person will be less likely to be troubled by or react with impatience or defensiveness to questions or new data. They will be better able to revise and improve the opinions they hold based on new information, because they can see how the new information relates to what they already believe. Open-mindedness without self-examination is a fantasy, or worse - an unmoored drift with the prevailing current.
This is a far bigger issue than any single belief. I believe that the most important thing is: one must not fear to be wrong. One must have courage of convictions - but courage of convictions is mere obstinacy, without a deep understanding of what those convictions rest upon. It might be better to say that before courage of convictions, must come the courage to rigorously scrutinize one's convictions.
Man. I think I need to cut this off, this is getting to be a post in itself... :-D Thank you for humoring me, though!
Hm. I may make some of this into a post, at that. :-D
One “assumes” things for the sake of argument, as expediency, in lieu of interrupting activities so as to run off and find all possible evidence. The use of “assume” is an inherent acknowledgement that one does not, at this time, have evidence, or full evidence, but that life must go on in any case.
If human kind never assumed, we’d still be living in caves.
By contrast, when one presumes, one accepts something as true, with nary a care for lack of supporting evidence.
Yet another two words misunderstood and misused. But what can you do?
When I was a kid, shit like that really pissed me off. I was like, "why do we need all these tentative could-be synonyms?" "can't they just pick one for the pejorative?"
Far more difficult to contend with though is the notion of the examined life. It’s a white upper-class / aspirational pre-occupation, isn’t it?
The implication that those who don’t have the option to indulge themselves are leading the “not worth living” lives is dismissive and grossly unfair, non?
Intellectually and psychologically too, not everyone is well equipped to pursue too much, or too deep, self-examination.
More pragmatically still, you’re assuming (yes, there we go!) that the well-springs for all are deep, or at least deep enough to warrant closer inspection, sufficiently deep for immersion. See, I’m not exactly convinced. You seem to be more charitable about the human condition than I am.
What does the mind have to do in life, other than ponder things and decide?
Hmm, let me think: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs springs to mind, and most people – keep in mind there are 6 billion or so, and counting – don’t ever come close to indulging self-actualization fantasies before they die. Life used to be short and brutal, for 100s of millions it still is, for the rest it’s long and brutal.
Decide? On what? In the hypothetical, sure, but in the practical, our decisions are negligible. Besides, why does one have to decide? The older one gets …. the cliché … the less one knows. It’s true. Somewhat. The older one gets the more certain one becomes of many small and random pockets of things that were only misty, seemingly insignificant, in our youth.
What if, as was suggested not long ago, that some people’s brains are wired for religiosity, and some aren’t? Knowing thyself, at least in relation to god, might amount to a brain scan and a yes/no. Free will and self-examination would be redundant.
MRIs have also shown (ah, bless science hey?) that what we believe to be free will, our volition, is beaten to the punch by our brains - before we consciously become aware of, or articulate or action what we like to think of as being our decisions. This sequence of events: synapses decide first, our actions or expression of the choice is secondary, suggests that what we hold so dear, what we believe is conscious and free decision making is so hard-wired that we can’t even take personal credit for choosing the color of our socks. Our brains did it, we just reacted.
I’m throwing that out as something very much worth contemplating Dogimo, and because these are the provocations, the tantalizing notions that I find more intriguing and challenging, than, for example, whether elves live at the north pole, or whether god really does kick back why children suffer or die.
I can’t agree that unknowable things justify skepticism. While humans know an awful lot, thanks to mathematics, the scientific method, natural scientists and engineers, and so on, more than half of all research results are eventually proven to be wrong. On that basis, skepticism is a pre-requisite, a requirement, pretty much all the time, including for things that are, or will be, eventually, entirely knowable. It is skepticism, after all, that often leads to truths that have long been avoided by the majority.
In the US, the huge majority not only believe in god, they also believe that Satan exists, and so does heaven.
They are certainly not incompatible! Neither human belief nor human knowledge is infallible (unless one resorts to tautology, and defines knowledge as "that which is certainly true" - in which case it becomes an effectively unknowable quantity!). Knowledge is one of the things that beliefs can be based on. But within knowledge itself: a great deal of interpretation goes into the facts, understandings and skills that we collectively call knowledge. The sum of human knowledge continuously undergoes revision.
Goodness! Scurrying off to work. I'm sure I'll have to touch a few more of these later, but a quick few!
>Far more difficult to contend with though is the notion of the examined life. It’s a white upper-class / aspirational pre-occupation, isn’t it?
I believe dirt-poor Asian hermits beat us to it by a long sight. If it is indeed, as you suggest, a luxury, it's an odd one: completely cost-free, immeasurably benefit-rich! However, I am not the one who has claimed that unexamined life is not worth living. I think you brought that in. When touting the benefits of a good thing, I don't generally find it necessary to tell other people their life sucks! Hehehe...although, what a funny thing. I guess some people do do that! Weird. Seems counterproductive to me.
>Self-knowledge as duty sounds rather unappealing.
Sounds? Perhaps so, but in practice, it rules!! Your points about skepticism only sway those who fear to be wrong. A true skeptic suspends judgment where good indicators are lacking, and never fears to revise a previously well-grounded opinion in the face of disproof. The heart of the scientific method is not smug superiority, but a humble and diligent search for the best-established truth. I, alas, and not a true skeptic. Skepticism is a tool, for me, rather than a moral standard or something I'd let rule me. I remain swayed by hard-held hunch, on certain matters.
>How many in the US have examined their persistent, willful, belief in Satan and heaven? Or the purpose being served by holding tight to such beliefs?
At least two that I know! And well worth it (examination, I mean).
Far more important to know than the reality of any belief: our belief does not change that reality. Disbelief does not take an existing thing, and make it not exist. Belief does not take a nonexistent thing, and bring it into existence.
I must flee! For the moment. To work! And then later: to Pool! It's Thursday night, I have to eschew philosophical digressions for trash-talk and badly-chosen, spectacularly made shots. But I thank you Caz for food for thought, and will certainly return to touch on a few things missed this first gloss through!
"Know thyself", as they say.
This is perfectly within the reach of every person with a mind. It is not mandatory, but it's hardly hard. I bore myself sweetly to sleep each night, in thought on these things. It need not be deep, it need not involve artsy thinkiness. In fact, such things add zero value. Names of philosophers and schools of thought are the trivia of the field, not its essentials. All that is essential is:
a mind.
an inclination.
What can the drawback possibly be, to so mild, so familiar, so unthreatening an occupation as one's own self? "You might not like what you find"?
Shoot. That's not a reason to eschew it, that's a reason to HOP TO IT!
Thanks for crediting me with Socrates most famous quote though, from his trial: “The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.”, but I refuse to appropriate his glory.
The skeptic, I believe, embraces the chance to be wrong or right. Being a skeptic is a fearless stand. It’s those who cling to dogma, cling to their convictions, they are the people who are terrified and deeply threatened by the thought of being wrong. Indeed, they refuse to acknowledge that their beliefs are wrong, even when presented with unassailable evidence.
I agree that people’s belief systems, their personal framework, helps them live their lives. No question about that; they don’t even have to be ‘true’ beliefs, that is, their beliefs don’t have to be founded in reality. Of course, the further away from reality, the more likely one is to be in the realm of mental illness. Come to think of it, an awful lot of people would be categorized as insane if reality-based beliefs were the benchmark
An open mind is too often an empty vessel ready to receive any garbage on offer. Open-mindedness is vaunted as superior than someone with a mind less easily swayed.
I wouldn’t say that religion has been a waste of time, modern history, for better or worse, has been built on it. It grows less and less relevant though, much in the way that walking on all fours wouldn’t be very useful for modern man. God is an all too convenient dumping ground for human projections, which would be harmless if god wasn’t used as a justification for human horrors, arrogance, spite and vanity. God, and therefore religion, are tools to infantilize grown-ups, tools to negate contemplation, thought, decisions. Religion is the opium of the people, as Marx maintained. He got that one right. As with Marx, one can still remain sympathetic to and recognise that need.
So, I never said belief and knowledge were fungible (and I heartily agree that they aren't); you never said that they were incompatible (and you heartily agree that they aren't). I'd go so far as to be extremely surprised to find anyone who would claim and then seriously argue that belief and knowledge are fungible, but in any case - we were never out of agreement that they're not. Oddly enough, many do set up an incompatibility, a false dichotomy, between belief and knowledge - thankfully, that is neither of us!
I'd certainly not want to rob Socrates, but it was not he who introduced the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living into this conversation. You've characterized the view that the unexamined life is not worth living as dismissive and grossly unfair, so it doesn't seem either of us would really back him up. Personally I'd cut him a break, on a rather bold statement that he no doubt made under considerable stress. Plus, philosophers - all the best ones - do have a weakness for inflating the importance of philosophy. Just some natural bias towards one's own field - always hard to root out. Plato's "Philosopher King" idea always cracks me up! Sure, dude! Of course.
Dogma: those in ignorance do often fear to be wrong! But at the heart of the embrace of dogma is usually laziness, far more than fear. Dogma - secular or religious - offers an excuse to trust an authoritative pronouncement rather than do the work of examining and threshing out a tricky issue for one's self. Easy belief in authority substitutes for achieving a thorough understanding.
Now certainly, much dogma is well-founded (of course I mean only in terms of proceeding logically from first principles - I make no pronouncement as to the validity of those first principles!), but the problem we have with dogma is that the credulous believer does not trouble to distinguish between well-founded and ill-founded. They simply defer to the authority.
Acceptance of dogma is why most people who believe in evolution aren't comfortable discussing evolution. They accept the authoritative pronouncements, having not troubled to work it out for themselves in a thorough manner the hows and whys that make evolution factual, and not just theoretical. A little hard work and they'd be much more at ease with it! But such laziness is not necessarily a knock, here. It's a practical matter.
The message of dogma is: "you don't have to bother with this, because we've already hashed out the issue to within an inch of its life and here is the conclusion." To those who are busy with the real business of life, the needful hierarchies you allude to, it's a relief to be able to take such answers for granted. Because to most people, the issues addressed by dogma are more 'potentially nagging trivia question' than anything crucial to their lives.
Yes of course it's lazy. Secular or religious, reliance on dogma is always a substitute for doing the hard work yourself, usually on a trivial, trivial matter.
The problem with dogma is also a problem with open-mindedness. One needs to have a strong working process for how the truth value of a proposition can be evaluated. Only if one has this, can open-mindedness be a virtue - to thoroughly vet incoming propositions prior to adoption or rejection. Only if one has this, can one investigate the troubling loose threads that most well-worn dogmas exhibit - and determine whether it's still a fundamentally good sweater or one whose time has come to retire.
Marxism is the opiate of the proletariat! :-D
I imagine Marx is still the opiate for some academics and the occasional well-to-do lefty. They’re the only groups remaining who have the time to indulge romantic socialist or revolutionary notions, and the only ones left who are inexcusably blind to the inherent failings of socialism and communism. Ivory towers and comfortable lives can do that to people.
Have to vigorously agree with you about “doing the hard work yourself”. That would be one of my biggest gripes, the thing that makes me cringe or rage: when people hold forceful views, appropriated, whether from an authoritative or non-authoritative source, yet they can’t back it up. Mindless, thoughtless parroting.
All too often I’ll hear people repeat something they’ve read in a newspaper, or some sound-bite from the evening news, or maybe something they overheard in a supermarket queue – they regurgitate with vigor, with conviction, regardless of how stupid the thought might be. Five minutes on the Internet might dispel what they read or heard, but that little bit of personal effort, a modicum of research, doesn’t even occur to them. Why think, when someone else has done it for you? Jeeeeez. Makes me crazy!!! :-D
Automatic deference to authority is definitely an easy path, and yes, lazy.
Wasn’t Socrates, by implication, and almost explicitly, saying that the unexamined life was, well, at least a bit wasted, if nothing else? Within context, everything he said was valuable, had truth. I doubt that he would wish to or intended to denigrate anyone.
Philosophy is not fashionable anymore, mores the pity. Even science (bless science!) has to take some blame for that, I think. I wish we valued it more, simply for the provocation. How many philosophers bring philosophy to the masses now? Peter Singer? I wish more of them would talk up their little space a bit, push a few medical scientists or climate experts out of the way for a while. Indeed, in those two areas alone, a dozen or two commentating philosophers are sorely needed!
In the modern era it’s harder and harder and harder for people to find time, find mental space, to think, to mull, to contemplate the passing time. Crowed, busy lives, filled with nothing much at all, makes for a ridiculously passive political body, a passive society. Mind you, less developed and less liberal societies have their own means of creating meek, malleable societies, all without a shopping mall or Xbox in sight. Not unique to Western developed countries. Socrates knew all about the force with which thought, ideas, are beaten to a pulp. Perhaps the best we can hope for is a personal foundation; not any insight into the meaning of life, or anything grand, just insight, deep of knowledge and appreciation, a radiance, in relation to our own existence. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for, and it's no small thing.
Is it just a temporary glitch or what? I don't imagine you'd delete them, even if you had there's usually a 'stub' left.
Hm. Maybe it's just my browser. Hopefully it fixes itself!
Re "Mindless, thoughtless parroting" - hey, and how about those people who cite names and jargon like the buzzword automatically wins! Next to zero understanding of what they're referring to, but an ironclad belief that it makes them smarter that they know the magic words. And then you ask, "but how does that apply here?" and they act like you're the one who doesn't understand ("well, if you don't know what that means I'm not going to explain it to you..."). Until you pinion them with specifics. I hate to see it happen, it's a squirmy moment.
Well Socrates, sure. He definitely meant to denigrate. Like I said, I'm not knocking him for saying it. He was describing his own highest good. He was making a case. I'm not necessarily against denigration of other people's views and attitudes (many attitudes and views deserve to be excoriated, mind you, not the people! Many people hold the views they do by default. I don't blame them - such is the chief peril of living unexamined) depending on the principle at stake, I just disagree that the unexamined life is therefore not worth living. Not because I believe any less in the value of self-examination, but because I belief so much in the intrinsic value of life itself. So I would put more that living an examined life has an immeasurable upside, and ultimately a negligible downside, but it can be hard work mostly in the early going.
Much less snappy a saying! Socrates's is better, as a saying, even if I don't endorse it as a judgment.
I agree it's hard for people to find time, but it's because they deliberately push off any opportunity to mull, and fill time with mass-market manufactured distractions. Like I said: I do most of my thinking drifting off to sleep at night! I bore myself to sleep with questions, and wake up bristling with answers!!
OK, I'm not THAT hard core. I wake up rested, and keep chipping away. But the chipping away works. When a problem bugs me, I keep at it and I do get clarity on it. But it's the type of problem you work on that matters! It's got to be about what you do, what you think, is it valid. People waste all their thought on why Bruce hates me or why Sharon said that. They spend all their thought wishing they could change others. They spend no thought on how and why they direct their own life as they do.
If they spent just a small amount of their thought on that - on taking apart their modes and beliefs, on working through and working on the way they act - wow! The change is amazing. It does take work, and it can be painful realizing that "wow, the reason I'm never comfortable talking about this deeply-held belief is because deep-down it is BULL SHIT." Some of what you thought was you will fall by the wayside. But it gets better. After several years of directed (but not intensive) effort, one finds one has become a dynamo of focus and meaning - I mean, compared to where one was before. And because you've switched from blind allegiance to your "convictions" to a real courage of convictions that seeks to improve what you belief - to serve truth over conviction, even over self.
All of that is the "indefinite you" - I get the sense you're already there for the most part and hardly need the pep talk!
I think the best we can hope for is the best that we can imagine. There's no harm working towards it, by walking your own best walk in the thousand little things done each day. By talking the best truth you have, when asked. What else is there to do in life?
As do you! And I thank you for them.