Agnostic VS Atheist

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought that was ignosticism (which I suppose is a sub-branch of agnosticism).

As well as a sub-branch of atheism, since AFAIK it's impossible to assent to a claim whose premises are so ill-defined that it can't be evaluated.

 

[cottage]

Why all the hatin' against agnostics?

I don’t ‘hate’ or feel any animosity towards agnostics, but then I’m sure you didn’t mean for it to be taken that way. However it is quite true that I lampoon agnosticism, and the reason I do so is because, in my view, unlike theism it has nothing at all to contribute to the controversy.

What do you mean there is not something true corresponding with the definition? If we had a word that meant "unicorn believer", would it matter whether unicorns existed or not?

What I mean is what I wrote: Definitions are always necessarily true of themselves but that doesn’t mean there is something true corresponding to the definition. A square must have four equal sides, but that is not to say squares must exist anywhere. As to whether it matters, that depends upon how the belief is being presented. A private belief is nobody’s business but the believer’s, but if a claim is being made then the existence of the square (or the unicorn) needs to be established.

No. What would matter is whether the belief existed or not. The definition is pointing towards the existence of the belief, and is not making any claims as to the existence of unicorns. So why are you so hung up on the unicorns?

Unicornism: a belief that unicorns exist. The statement is propositional, and therefore it is the question of the unicorn’s existence that is being asserted, not the belief And likewise when theism is saying ‘God exists’ the prefix of belief is only the assent.
The day that theists concede or state that God’s existence is ‘only a belief’ will be the day that atheism becomes redundant. Theism is not the belief that God might or might not exist just as atheism is not the belief that God might or might not exist. Theism asserts a positive claim for God’s existence. If a person says God might not exist then that person doesn’t meet the definition of a theist. I am not saying it is impossible for those who believes in God to have doubts, for I’m sure that they do, but I am saying a theist is one who assents or commits to the proposition that God exists.

EDIT: This just struck me. Maybe you aren't hung up on the unicorns. Maybe your point is that you don't believe that the belief actually exists?

I'm not sure that even make sense.

All you just said was "Unicorns don't exist so words describing someone who does or doesn't believe in unicorns are irrelevant."

Agnosticism and gnosticism are useful terms regardless of whether humans are capable of obtaining knowledge or not because it tells us something about people, and how their minds work, and how confident they are regarding their beliefs. It really is more psychological than philosophical.

I’m sorry but all you’ve come up with here are platitudes, rather than answering my question. So it seems we are to understand that agnosticism has superior powers of reason or arbitration denied to poor old theists and religious sceptics?

 

[Willamena]

Unicornism: a belief that unicorns exist. The statement is propositional, and therefore it is the question of the unicorn’s existence that is being asserted, not the belief And likewise when theism is saying ‘God exists’ the prefix of belief is only the assent.

Why do you accept that definition is propositional, but belief is not?

 

[cottage]

Why do you accept that definition is propositional, but belief is not?

If someone says ‘I believe’, why should we question that? It is the statement or assertion that follows that is open to doubt and not the act of cognition.

PS. Are you stalking me? You religiously follow me around the forum. I’ll take it as a compliment.

 

[Willamena]

If someone says ‘I believe’, why should we question that? It is the statement or assertion that follows that is open to doubt and not the act of cognition.

What is belief? There has been some talk recently about Ludwig Wittgenstein, so I read a bit about him. He says, a thought is a proposition that makes sense. As we know the world through thought, the world is composed of all these propositions arranged into pictures or "states of affairs," and logic is the structure of its sense. Reality is the totality of states of affairs. If we believe in reality, we are investing in these propositions.

(Well, that last sentence wasn't Wittgenstein, that was me. It would seem to follow, though.)

PS. Are you stalking me? You religiously follow me around the forum. I’ll take it as a compliment.

It's not my doing, that you hang out in all the cool threads.

 

[cottage]

What is belief? There has been some talk recently about Ludwig Wittgenstein, so I read a bit about him. He says, a thought is a proposition that makes sense. As we know the world through thought, the world is composed of all these propositions arranged into pictures or "states of affairs," and logic is the structure of its sense. Reality is the totality of states of affairs. If we believe in reality, we are investing in these propositions.

(Well, that last sentence wasn't Wittgenstein, that was me. It would seem to follow, though.)

Yes, I broadly agree with all of that. However have a look back at the discussion because it appears you’ve missed the point of contention. A thought is a proposition that makes sense, and indeed we cannot think what cannot be thought. But if someone simply says ‘I believe’ then that statement on its own is saying nothing, other than ‘I have a cognitive ability’; whereas in this case the belief is giving assent to the proposition that unicorns and/or gods exist. So the emphasis isn’t merely upon the mental state of believing but upon the existence of the thing proposed. Think of it in the terms that you expressed in your last sentence: ‘we are investing in these propositions.’ I think that quite perfectly sums up theism.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I broadly agree with all of that. However have a look back at the discussion because it appears you’ve missed the point of contention. A thought is a proposition that makes sense, and indeed we cannot think what cannot be thought. But if someone simply says ‘I believe’ then that statement on its own is saying nothing, other than ‘I have a cognitive ability’; whereas in this case the belief is giving assent to the proposition that unicorns and/or gods exist. So the emphasis isn’t merely upon the mental state of believing but upon the existence of the thing proposed. Think of it in the terms that you expressed in your last sentence: ‘we are investing in these propositions.’ I think that quite perfectly sums up theism.

My response was in particular addressing 'belief' as 'propositional'.

This is all true, and it all skirts around what Falvlun is saying, rather than addressing it. The theist says, "I spy with my little eye, I see something true" (the assent); and the athiest says, "I doubt it." The agnostic in the OP doesn't say that, it says something like, "I've examined the arguments about thinking and believing (epistemology), and come to some conclusions about what it's possible to assert as true."

 

[cottage]

My response was in particular addressing 'belief' as 'propositional'.

This is all true, and it all skirts around what Falvlun is saying, rather than addressing it. The theist says, "I spy with my little eye, I see something true" (the assent); and the athiest says, "I doubt it." The agnostic in the OP doesn't say that, it says something like, "I've examined the arguments about thinking and believing (epistemology), and come to some conclusions about what it's possible to assert as true."

With respect you are not keeping up with the argument. The point we've got to in the debate, and where you interjected, was to do with what the theist is saying, not the atheist or the agnostic! And you are actually agreeing with me that theism asserts that something is true (the aforementioned point of contention). So I'm sorry but I really don't know what it is you want to say.

And look at your last sentence. That's my view exactly (atheism).

 

[Willamena]

With respect you are not keeping up with the argument. The point we've got to in the debate, and where you interjected, was to do with what the theist is saying, not the atheist or the agnostic! And you are actually agreeing with me that theism asserts that something is true (the aforementioned point of contention). So I'm sorry but I really don't know what it is you want to say.

And look at your last sentence. That's my view exactly (atheism).

Yes, I know where I jumped in, at a point where the discussion about truth evolved into one about certainty. The discussion began back in post #250 where you said you couldn't tell a difference between atheist and agnostic. Discussion since, no matter how much it has deviated from the course, has been an attempt to explain and defend that difference. Or bits thereof.

The last sentence isn't atheism. That you think it is is a point of contention that I'm arguing.

 

[cottage]

Yes, I know where I jumped in, at a point where the discussion about truth evolved into one about certainty. The discussion began back in post #250 where you said you couldn't tell a difference between atheist and agnostic. Discussion since, no matter how much it has deviated from the course, has been an attempt to explain and defend that difference. Or bits thereof.

The last sentence isn't atheism. That you think it is is a point of contention that I'm arguing.

Forgive me but you are all over the place with your criticism, and it’s as if you follow me round the forum just looking to make picky points. You misconceived the argument that was being made and then, when your misunderstanding was pointed out, you changed tack and skipped back to pick up on the main element of the debate. That is a lousy way to contribute to a discussion.

Now then, if we’ve reverted to the main question, please give me your argument and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Willamena]

Now then, if we’ve reverted to the main question,

That does all of Falvlun's argumentation a disservice.

please give me your argument and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

Sure.

The attainment of atheism is the rejection of theism. The attainment of agnosticism is a conclusion made about the truth value of ontological claims (i.e. "knowledge"). The latter may well support the former, but they are not the same thing.

 

[Falvlun]

The attainment of atheism is the rejection of theism. The attainment of agnosticism is a conclusion made about the truth value of ontological claims (i.e. "knowledge"). The latter may well support the former, but they are not the same thing.

I think this sums it up well.

Cottage, what do you think the main question is?

 

[Willamena]

Atheism and theism are (often) defined in terms of whether or not the claim "god exists" has validity. To do that, they look at the truth value of the claim. Agnosticism looks at truth value itself, as a claim ("things/propositions have truth value"), and assesses whether that has validity. To do that, it affirms the uncertainty of all things.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Agnosticism is worth [re]reading ...

 

[Falvlun]

My understanding of cottage's argument is that he believes that theists are (and must be) making a gnostic claim, and that atheists are (and must be) making an agnostic claim.

Because of this, he finds the gnostic/agnostic distinction to be irrelevant since (according to him) it is already encoded in the theist/atheist definition.

This has been the crux of our disagreement. I believe that the theist belief can be either agnostic or gnostic, and the atheist belief can be either gnostic or agnostic.

 

[Protester]

My understanding of cottage's argument is that he believes that theists are (and must be) making a gnostic claim, and that atheists are (and must be) making an agnostic claim.

Because of this, he finds the gnostic/agnostic distinction to be irrelevant since (according to him) it is already encoded in the theist/atheist definition.

This has been the crux of our disagreement. I believe that the theist belief can be either agnostic or gnostic, and the atheist belief can be either gnostic or agnostic.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph

Nothing is certain anymore.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Dawkins has never claimed to be a 7 on the Dawkins scale, only a very strong 6.9 lol; I have heard that quoted since he invented the scale. To be a 7 is equally as illogical as to be a 1

 

[cottage]

That does all of Falvlun's argumentation a disservice.

Ridiculous statement!

Sure.

The attainment of atheism is the rejection of theism. The attainment of agnosticism is a conclusion made about the truth value of ontological claims (i.e. "knowledge"). The latter may well support the former, but they are not the same thing.

Atheism and theism are (often) defined in terms of whether or not the claim "god exists" has validity. To do that, they look at the truth value of the claim. Agnosticism looks at truth value itself, as a claim ("things/propositions have truth value"), and assesses whether that has validity. To do that, it affirms the uncertainty of all things.

That statement is the perfect exemplar; it shows the inanity that is agnosticism (if in fact it is the claim that agnosticism actually makes?). Just read your own words then analyse them in terms of their meaning and significance. According to you it seems that only agnosticism is able pronounce on ‘validity’ and ‘the truth-value’ [sic] of propositions. Oh really! And if that were not grand enough we then have a sweeping assertion that ‘all things are uncertain’; so presumably it follows that all those propositions examined by high-minded agnostics for their ‘truth-value’ are unsound! If agnosticism purports to be the arbiter of knowledge in the way you describe then it sets itself up as an object of ridicule and derision.

Reason isn’t a concept lost on atheism or theism, and discourse between those two camps has historically called upon science, metaphysics and philosophy without the need for intervention by a self-appointed referee. And if agnosticism thinks it is expounding the revelatory discovery that knowledge is limited to what we can experience, then thank you, but atheists were already aware of that fact.

 

[Falvlun]

Agnosticism is worth [re]reading ...

So I read the entire thing last night while watching the Exorcist. It was interesting, but a bit of a ramble, and more of defense of agnosticism against the charge of infidel than anything else. Which point did you find to be relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

[Falvlun]

That statement is the perfect exemplar; it shows the inanity that is agnosticism (if in fact it is the claim that agnosticism actually makes?). Just read your own words then analyse them in terms of their meaning and significance. According to you it seems that only agnosticism is able pronounce on ‘validity’ and ‘the truth-value’ [sic] of propositions. Oh really! And if that were not grand enough we then have a sweeping assertion that ‘all things are uncertain’; so presumably it follows that all those propositions examined by high-minded agnostics for their ‘truth-value’ are unsound! If agnosticism purports to be the arbiter of knowledge in the way you describe then it sets itself up as an object of ridicule and derision.

It seems that you still do not have a grasp of what agnosticism is, and your distaste for the concept is the big fat elephant standing in your way.

Reason isn’t a concept lost on atheism or theism, and discourse between those two camps has historically called upon science, metaphysics and philosophy without the need for intervention by a self-appointed referee. And if agnosticism thinks it is expounding the revelatory discovery that knowledge is limited to what we can experience, then thank you, but atheists were already aware of that fact.

Agnosticism is not saying that knowledge is limited to what we can experience. It is saying that knowledge is unobtainable (either at this particular moment, for that particular person, for this particular subject, or-- in contrast-- it is universally unobtainable.)

You also act as if agnosticism is the default, like duh, of course that's what people believe. But I hardly find this to be a mainstream concept. People like to be sure, and it often never crosses their minds that they really don't have enough evidence to be sure. It is probably quite common among this sort of community, in which philosophical arguments are known and actively debated, but I assure you, we are a minority.

And, really, we have already went over this: Atheists can be just as irrational as the unicornists. There is nothing inherent in atheism that says "Thou must be rational and only make claims that you can back up."