Atheism, theism and agnosticism
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
If you don't have any personal knowledge of God then you would still be considered Agnostic, I think.
I suppose that depends on what one thinks life is for, and on whether one is happy with the life one currently lives (or at least not miserable enough with it to make dramatic changes to it).
No. When they first saw something like this
they had no name for it yet, they didn't know what it was - they didn't know what to call it (and knew very little what it was like- how fast it can move, what it eats etc.). At most, they were able to categorize it as an "animal".
Many animal names still carry in them less or more of the thought processes that people had upon first meeting the animal. For example, "hippopotamus" literally means 'river horse'; in some languages, the word for a "shark" literally means 'sea dog'.
Some of the formulations in the OP suggest that seeking evidence of God would be or should be a meaningful endeavor or that evidence plays a crucial part in matter of belief in God:
2. You believe that God exists, but you don't know (because your faith is not justified by evidence): you are a theist.
4. You believe that God exists, and you believe there are strong evidentiary grounds for your belief: you are an agnostic theist.
5. You think that it is possible that they may be a God, but you're withholding judgment until appropriate evidence is in: you're an agnostic atheist.*
6. You think it is doubtful that God exists, but you're open to the possibility that evidence of God may come to light: you're an agnostic atheist.
7. You don't believe that God exists, but you're open to the possibility should evidence come to light: you're an agnostic atheist.
8. You believe that God most probably doesn't exist, but you're open to evidence: you're an agnostic atheist.
Sure. But we are talking here about the GOD of the theists; not the GOD of the philosophers or the scientists.
I'm not simply giving supremacy to the traditional theistic ideas of God; the theistic ones simply seem the relevant ones, since theists are the ones who believe in God and from whom notions of God originate.
That depends on what criteria you posit for "knowledge."
If that criteria are both 1. Knowing that P, and 2. Knowing that P has been arrived at the right way, then that is a criterion that may be meaningfully applied within the context of, say, elementary and highschool math, chemistry or physics tests (where there is a very strict idea of what it means to arrive at a result the right way).
Other fields of knowledge and inquiry, or beyond basic school levels, function as open systems, and there, it cannot be undisputably posited what the right way for arriving at a result is.
Knowing without being able to prove happens in ordinary scenarios:
For example, you can know someone's phone number, but if you call that person and nobody answers the phone, you're not able to prove it.
Children, simply by repeating after others, may know things, but they are not able to prove them.
Many important aspects of human relationships are based on knowing without being able to prove to someone outside of the relationship (A loves B and knows it, but A can't prove that to C).
Then there is the issue of whom one is trying to prove something:
If two people have the same standards of proof, they can prove or disprove things to each other.
If they don't, they can't.
It's the standard Christian mainstream story with Satan and the demons: they know that God exists, but they refuse to consider God their Lord.
So in that context, Satan and the demons are atheists.
I just have the general impression that these two concepts are often mixed up.
I'd go in the other direction and note that terms like "theist" and "to believe in God" are completely context-dependent, in that they make sense only when used when talking about a particular theistic religion, or even about a particular individual theist.
This is not to suggest that, say Christians are the only true theists and all others (Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc.) are atheists.
The simple fact of the matter is that the more we try to use and define the word "theist" and "to believe in God" in some supra-theistic, supra-religious, neutral sense (as the OP attempts to), the more we end up with meanings and definitions that no actual theist ever uses.
And if those meanings and definitions are not used by actual theists, then they are just misleading and shouldn't be used.
But how meaningful is it to claim you know or believe that something exists, if you don't know what that something is?
(For this reason, I think that the essence-existence dichotomy is a false one, no matter how culturally approved it may be.)
Absolutely.
Naturalistic reductionism appears like a strange kind of idealism, as it works on the assumption that things can be adequately reduced (Quine called that a dogma of empiricism).
And given this characteristic lack of clarity in these things, what hope can be had that a set of simple definitions like the OP attempts would settle the matter?
Sure. But it's not clear how you living your life and deeming yourself to be your own person would be mutually exclusive with God being in charge of it all.
Do plants grow because they have appropriate sunlight, soil, water, etc., or do they grow because God makes it possible for them to grow? Some people will say these two are mutually exclusive, although I don't see why.
Perhaps theism is simply all about what theistic religions have always claimed it is about: bringing people closer to God, declaring God's glory.
Sure, but I think this is where being a member of a theistic religion comes in as vital.
Typically, people who are born into a theistic family learn to think of God as someone or something that is actively part of their lives; and they learn this before they are even old enough to spell their names.
Meaning that theism becomes a part of their cognition in ways that are (next to) impossible for an older person to develop.
It seems to be something like an average older person (say, at age 30) beginning to learn ballet, in comparison to a person of the same age but who has began learning ballet at the usual very early age. Those starting out as older are bound to be clumsy and no amount of training can make up for that. For someone who has started ballet early, trained a lot and developed a measure of expertise in it, it will somehow come naturally; while for people who started out older, it will usually feel artificial.
Who knows how people who grew up believing in God experience all this.
I tend to agree.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm with Sarkus on that one.
That's why I think that there's a continuum between 'weak agnosticism' and 'strong agnosticism'. The weakest agnosticism would be something like 'I don't have any personal knowledge of transcendent matters, but maybe other people do'. The strongest agnosticism would be 'I don't think that any finite sentient being can ever have any knowledge of transcendent matters'.
The possibility that Enmos suggested would seem to be a weak agnosticism. As for me, I think that I lean more towards the strong end on that.
What are your criteria for something to count as "knowledge"?
Yes, an atheist can think God exists, but decide not to believe in Him.
Atheism simply means one doesn't believe in God. Period.
jan.
Just like I could think that the Statue of Liberty exists but not believe in it, I suppose.
Yeah... that sure makes a whole lot of sense.
Just because you say "period" doesn't make it so.
To "believe in" God means to believe it exists. If an atheist does not believe in a God, then he doesn't believe one exists. So, no, an atheism cannot think a god exists.
or a rabbit with horns, or an invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster ... but not, say, a married bachelor or square circle.
Are we getting warm yet?
Do you believe in, say, Barack Obama?
Surely there are people in your life whom you believe in, and others whom you don't believe in.
wynn:
You think Jan Ardena was talking about "believing in" as some kind of ultra-devout belief, as opposed to just believing that God exists?
It seems to me that you and lightgigantic are going to great lengths to try to redefine Jan Ardena out of his sillyness. But the only effect you're having is that you're defining yourselves into it. Do you really want to go there with Jan?
You think Jan Ardena was talking about "believing in" as some kind of ultra-devout belief, as opposed to just believing that God exists?
It seems to me that you and lightgigantic are going to great lengths to try to redefine Jan Ardena out of his sillyness. But the only effect you're having is that you're defining yourselves into it. Do you really want to go there with Jan?
Yes. And it's not "ultra-devout." It's just simple appreciation, reliance on, trust, loyalty, fidelity, with varying intensity.
The same kind of feeling that people sometimes have for eachother.
I guess neither I, nor LG, nor JA want to take the position of strong atheism, and that is all.
I'm afraid there's no way of knowing, at all, if God does not exists.
So not believing in God because you think He doesn't exist is kind of foolish.
Your position is based on personal choice.
Speaking of ''existence'' merely justifie,s and give reason for your atheist position, you're not atheist because of it.
How many atheists have you heard or read saying they wouldn't believe in God even if they thought He did exist.
That is where you're at.
jan.