The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[lemit]

It seems to me that there should be a separate term for someone who affirmatively denies the existence of any kind of deity from someone who isn't sure.

I'd just like to know which words mean which, so I can get my epithets right. After all, you always want to be sure people know why you hate them.

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

The matter is complex and it would be out of place to discuss the variety of meanings of atheist through history (it has been bent sometimes)

You've made a fair point, and I accept your argument that different people mean different things when they use the term atheist, so it's inappropriate of me to demand some semantic battle and call you flat out "wrong." Let me explain what is motivating my position, though.

As most of us in this thread have agreed, atheism is NOT a belief system. It is not a system of values or morals or commandments any more than a lack of belief in unicorns or the tooth fairy is.

What I have found in my own travels is that commonly (not universally, but commonly) when someone of a "theistic" persuasion calls someone else atheist, they are doing so to imply that this is a person who "believes" there is no god. This is not true with a great number of atheists, and I think it is often just a distraction technique to shift the argument and displace their burden of proof. Instead of requiring the believer in god to share any evidence for their position, the believer deflects and says, "Oh yeah, well you don't have any proof that god does NOT exist, and since you believe that god does not exist, then your position is no more tenable than my position where I do believe in god."

The idea is, the believer circumvents the request for evidence by suggesting that the atheist has no evidence for his/her "belief" that there is no god.

This is where semantics become important. My atheism is not a belief in no god, and I'm inclined to think that most atheists feel the same (I've got no data on this, and could be wrong. I stipulate that). It's just that I find the lack of evidence in favor of the god hypothesis to be blaring, and I go on about my day as if there is no god. I don't assert, "No! God does NOT exist!" That would be silly. I have no way of knowing that. It's just the most likely scenario. Just like I cannot say, "No, there is no teapot orbiting Neptune." I can just say that there is no evidence for me to think there is one there in orbit.

However, more to your point, there are some atheists who DO make such assertions, and sometimes an atheist really is someone who asserts certainty on this... that there "IS NO GOD!." I must say, though, that this is pretty rare. I engage in many communities of atheistic people, in many different arenas, and none that I know assert there is no god, just that there is no reason to think there is.

I'm not 50/50... I don't think the chances of existence are equal for and against. I'm pretty darned sure that there's not, but will never be certain. Since I am pretty confident I'm correct, I just call myself atheist (instead of agnostic) so as to avoid any confusion. This works well in most cases, since most atheists (at least, the ones I've known) view this issue in a similar way.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

First, it is not a matter of probability, that's the wrong concept; use of the term probably can only have a colloquial sense. Also, I've known many folks who are religious even though they recognize the lack of certainty, and would not assert a certainty that "God must exist", they simply believe to some degree.

What I struggle with is the "looseness" of your definition. By your terms, everyone everywhere is "agnostic," as if it's some homogeneous cloud. Would you at least agree with me that there are different types/degrees of agnosticism? That's really the point I was attempting to make, and I struggle to think that we could possibly disagree there.


Here is the basic idea I'm driving at... Not everyone is in the center, and I wonder if you agree with that assertion (even Richard Dawkins, the most well-known and "militant" of atheists considers himself agnostic in this sense, NOT at the far end of the scale):





I'm simply looking for more refinement and detail on the term "agnosticism." Since I'm not certain there is no god, I'm technically agnostic, but it's important to me to note that this does not mean I'm sitting on the fence undecided.

[Boerseun]

I think the problem lies in the following:

There's a hypothesis - There is a God.

Only after considering the hypothesis as a valid explanation for the things around us, can one be an "agnostic", in that you can't say there is a God, or not.

Atheists, however, don't cross the threshold of consideration. To them, the entire hypothesis is ludicrous, and they go on merrily with their lives without giving any credence to the concept.

This, by no means, binds "Atheists" together as a group save this one thing they have in common. Atheists can be serial killers, philanthropists, millionaires, beggars, monogamists, raving hedonistic polygamists, scientists, idiots, or god forbid - real estate salespeople. There is no other thing binding them together as a group. And by the same token, there is no way that "Atheism" can be considered a belief system. Atheism is a word for the rejection of the God hypothesis, and moving on to the next.

There is no common word for people who don't attach any value at all to claims for perpetual motion. Why is it that the dismissal of claims to perpetual motion isn't seen as a kind of a "belief system", and why is it that they don't have to continually defend and explain their positions regarding the matter?

It boils down to exactly the same thing.

[freeztar]

Imho, any dissection of atheism must include the study of agnosticism. It's a good way to "define the grey".

Originally Posted by wiki

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")

—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)

—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

* Agnostic atheism

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

* Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

* Ignosticism

—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosti...of_agnosticism

Though I have my qualms with the semantics above, I do feel that most atheists might find themselves agreeing more with the "strong agnostic" viewpoint rather than the "pure atheist" stance.

It's all semantics though.

[lawcat]

Any time a person posits good, bad, malicious, benign, evil, etc., as a reason for their belief, then the person is asserting theistic argument. For example, god is good, or god is not good, are both religious statements.

If the belief is merely a conclusion on evidence, then it is atheistic. In other words, atheistic beliefs are conlusions which are strictly procedural, and not normative. For example, if your doctor suggests ointment because it s good for your skin, then the doctor holds atheistic belief. Here "good" is not a normative statement, but merely suggests desired results based on evidence. But if your doctor suggests that you eat ointment regularly because it is good for your diet, then the doctor holds a religious belief.

Agnostic holds procedural and normative values in equal standards, or different normative values in equal standard; and where the two do not agree, then the agnostic reserves judgment, and holds both beliefs. For example, your gas tank has 1 gallon. Evidence suggests 20 miles, but you also believe that your car can go 30 miles to the destination. If I ask you: can you do it? You will say: I do not know. You withold judgment, but believe both procedural and normative evidence. You are an agnostic.

[Southtown]

His reputation is expanding ... faster than the universe.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Southtown

His reputation is expanding ... faster than the universe.

What, exactly, do you mean by this? And how, exactly, is this relevant to the matter under discussion? Please elaborate. Hit-and-run posts are certain infractions. But this is completely and utterly non-sensical, not to mention physically impossible. So I assume you posted this in jest. But I missed the joke. I don't "get" it. And always one for a good joke, I would love you to explain this post.

[Southtown]

His/her avatar is a screenshot from a popular line of advertisements involving a certain brand of alcoholic beverage. Plus, I thought it particularly relevant seeings as how I simultaneously repped him/her. Sorry you/others didn't get the joke.

YouTube - Dos Equis: The Most Interesting Man in...

[Qfwfq]

You do tend to be hit-and-run, South, and very often people don't get the joke. Then again how can they, if they would need to know about the rep you gave on that post?

For the rest, I think the semantic disagreements are due to the fact that most folks don't distinguish between "not believing" and "believing not" or, iow, between not believing and disbelieving.

For the correct use of the term agnostic, one should ask Thomas Henry Huxley who is also discussed directly after the wiki section Freeztar quoted. Whoever wrote those definitions of agnostic atheism and agnostic theism seems not to have read that following section. He also makes the distinction between being atheist and being atheist according to a specific doctrine. The definition of ignostic appears to overlook this distinction.

From Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays. pp. 237–239. ISBN 1-85506-922-9.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

At the same time, he was aware that Christians could consider him atheistic because he disbelieves the doctrine of God as "a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts".

I, for one, utterly disbelive the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am however agnostic, I am not "weakly atheistic" or anything of the sort.

[modest]

I am a strong atheist concerning theistic (personal) gods (e.g. Roman, Greek, Christian). Like Russell I think they are each disprovable in their own way. I am a weak atheist concerning deistic (impersonal) gods. I have no personal belief or disbelief.

I'm agnostic in the sense that Huxley used it in Q's quote. I do not believe in any kind of gnostic ability—no supernatural powers, spiritual gifts, or metaphysical insights... as cool as that would be

~modest