Strong atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive

[varkam]

At least, I don't think that they are. I'm sure that there is room for disagreement among reasonable people on this, but I think that one can both be an atheist and an agnostic. Of course, that really depends on how one views the term agnostic.

For my part, agnosticism means that one does not have knowledge of whether or not there is a god (additionally, it can also mean that one does not believe that one can ever know whether or not there is a god - though that's really sort of a meta-belief; a belief about a belief).

At any rate, agnosticism deals with knowledge. If you go back to the Greek, gnostic translates into knowledge or knowing, and the prefix a means to be without. That's how I view agnosticism - simply to be without knowledge. There are a great many things on which I am agnostic. God is one of those things. I simply do not know whether or not there is a god. I am, however, a strong atheist with respect to the Judeocrislamic flavor of God. I have an active belief that this god is a fiction. How can one actively believe that something does not exist, and yet not know one way or another? It comes down to the difference between knowledge and belief.

If you say that you know something, you set the epistemological bar rather high. Knowledge entails truth. You simply cannot "know" a falsehood. You cannot know that 2+2=5. You may think that you know 2+2=5, but you are just mistaken, not wise. 2+2=5 is a rather silly example, but the point is that in the honest sense of the word knowledge, you can't know things to be truth that are incorrect. It is not a sound statement.

Belief, however, does not set the bar so high. You can believe things to be true that are not actually true. You can believe that, in fact, two plus two does equal five - though you are mistaken in your belief. The difference, though, is that belief does not entail truth whereas knowledge does.

I know that the difference between knowledge and belief is a relatively minor one, and I hope that I've made it clear enough to be understandable. The point of all that, though, is to say that you can simultaneously believe something without knowledge.

All that being said, I believe that the god of Judeocrislam is fiction. That god does not exist just as married bachelors or spherical cubes do not exist. However, I do not know whether or not the god of Judeocrislam exists. I am both a strong atheist, and an agnostic. Further, if there is any kind of creator god, I believe that one cannot ever have knowledge of such a being (remember the alternative definition of agnosticism) - but that's another post entirely.

In the end, I think we're all agnostic whether we want to admit it or not. That, however, doesn't communicate anything about what we believe - only what we know (or, in this case, what we do not know).

[Hydra]

1. Did you have fun piecing that together?

You could have just said you think that YHVH is a fiction in your mind, but that you think other things could exist.

That's not really uncommon, you know.

[varkam]

3. What's not really uncommon?

And the point is that god is a fiction in my mind, but the possibility exists that I am mistaken (and that I am open to such a possibility) - IOW, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

[Hydra]

5. Real atheism is indeed the denial of "God" or anything resembling Him

You're an agnostic- congratulations. There are lots of us.

That means if something happened to allowed you to have evidence of YHVH or any other large spirit, you wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The Atheist would say, "You are an illusion" much as a fundie would say "There MUST be a God" when presented with evidence otherwise.

[varkam]

6. What is "real atheism"?

I would consider myself a "real atheist", just as I would consider myself a "real agnostic" - which was the entire point of my post.

Also, I take issue with the definition of atheism to include the word "denial" as denial implies that the subject of such denial is actually in existence. It's a small point, I know, but an important one.

That means if something happened to allowed you to have evidence of YHVH or any other large spirit, you wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. The Atheist would say, "You are an illusion" much as a fundie would say "There MUST be a God" when presented with evidence otherwise.

I think that you are incorrect. If say, Jesus came back and gave an interview to Larry King, I think you'd find a lot of atheists coming over to the other side. The reason many of us are atheists is precisely because there is a lack of evidence supporting the claims of major religions (not to mention internal contradiction).

[greyl]

7. I don't think that's small but important point, it's a huge and immensely important one. nt

re: the definition of atheism including the word "denial"

[Hydra]

8. That's where you are incorrect

If Jesus showed up on Larry King, most pure atheists would watch for a few minutes, decide that it's not him, and change the channel.

I personally would say, look, the dead magician is back- nice job cheating death! Why is he on Larry King?

Most other Agnostics would have various reactions- open minded doesn't mean that they would automatically fall on their knees before the lamb of god.

Pure atheists are happy without an old pervert looking over their shoulder. Some people like you seem to be looking for an answer, and perhaps a savior. People like me question why anything of such power and ability would bother with us as a species or individuals.

You can disbelieve in YHVH without being an atheist- you're doing it right now. Given that fact, don't think that you speak from their perspective. Many are quite happy knowing that everything in the universe can be discerned from a mathematical equation- because it can be.

--------------------

On Edit:

Regarding the "denial"- in my hypothetical, the atheist was presented with evidence contrary to his beliefs. In that case, he would be denying what is.

Regarding generally speaking, since no evidence for YHVH exists, the onus is on the believers to prove it, so no denial present there.

[uberllama42]

9. How do you know how people would react to evidence?

I consider myself a "real atheist," but if Jesus showed up I would, if he could produce sufficient evidence of his identity, believe that he was Jesus. I think most of the "atheists" I know would react the same way. I lack belief in gods in general because there is not sufficient evidence for them, and like varkam is disbelieve in the "Judeocrislamic" God because I find the concept as presented in the Old Testament to be incoherent. I doubt that, if reliable evidence for a god was presented to me, I would persist in denying his/her/its existence.

[Hydra]

11. Because I study psych as a hobby

And when people find their preferred method of dealing with the world, they tend to keep it, regardless of what happens to shake that mindset.

Ok, let me play devil's advocate- Jesus shows up on Larry King, then he stops by your house. He shows you in no uncertain terms that he is the son of God, and demands your worship or you will be consigned to the flames. What do you do?

[patriotvoice]

13. Personally, I question him: I assert that God must be benevolent.

I would believe him to be powerful, but I would deny him as God. I would specifically point to James 1:19-20:
"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry, For man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires."

[Hydra]

14. Ah, but he is not man

He is God, and the wrath of god is reserved for him alone.

Besides, God himself says:

Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

We aren't talking about a benevolent force here- we are talking about a being that desires the worship and OBEDIENCE of man and will punish those who do not give it.

So, you dare to question God's will, and further, you attempt to hold him to your own view of what his behavior should be.

This first divine visitation is not going well so far :evilgrin:

[patriotvoice]

15. Indeed, the Exodus spur.

I will clarify my point, Mr. Advocate. Jesus was, from all accounts, benevolent and taught only benevolence and salvation, despite the fact that his father was vengeful. If this being claimed to be Jesus, but also claimed to harm me, I would deny: while I could believe God the Father would condemn me to Hell, I could not believe Jesus would.

I was born after the Fall; am I not divinely engineered to question? :evilfrown:

[Hydra]

16. That's where things get murky

See, Jesus and YHVH are the same being(and that's where I'm working from). Beyond that, Jesus' mercy was only supposed to extend until his return. Here he is- last chance to get on the "right" side.

I love your point about being engineered to question, though- the believers feel that eating the apple was an offense against god, so logically, continuing to use the knowledge of good and evil continues that offense(sin).

Personally, I was born a smart ass, will die a smart ass, and will probably continue to be a smart ass afterward.

So Jesus shows up, says final judgment is here, choose a side. Now what?

[patriotvoice]

19. And, for many, faith is the light that cuts through murk.

Indeed, how can Jesus (the son) teach benevolence when God (the father) is so vengeful? To use a phrase I've always been told: the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Perhaps God was mischaracterised in the Old Testament, or perhaps Jesus in the new, or perhaps there shouldn't be construed a hierarchical relationship between the two, but a Siamese: Jesus is the benevolent side of God.

I cannot hope to undo, or repent, for the sins of my father. I can only be the best me I can be. Let God adjudicate accordingly.

And, to your question, my position doesn't waver: Jesus -- the benevolent -- would not condemn me to Hell, so this must not be Jesus.

2 Peter 3:8–14
"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. . . . Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace".

[Hydra]

20. Either I'm too much of a devil

Or this is too easy with their book. You said it yourself:

"Not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

So Jesus says "Time's up- repent or face the flames" as he says in hie mustard seed parable. What do you do?

[patriotvoice]

25. My position doesn't change...

Jesus, as I understand his character from the Bible, would not say that, thus I conclude that being is not Jesus. At that point, any "proof" would likely not sway me: I simply cannot believe that bullying would be Jesus' begin-game.

As it seems to be our nature, any behavior that is contrary to what we know of someone will always trump the words he speaks. So, if my husband frequently drinks, and frequently beats me during, I tend to morph the "frequently" into "always" and so assume that if he drinks, then I will be beaten. When he says "I've entered AA," I am naturally skeptical as that runs against his demonstrated behavior.

Now, if you changed your scenario making the approach more subtly "Jesus' style" -- perhaps by the presumed Jesus saying "rapture is at hand, and while your works have been good on Earth, no man may save his soul but by accepting me as Lord" -- that would be a tougher call for me. I'm not one to bend to authority for authority's sake, so the best I would probably say is "my heart is where I can do the most good; put me where I may be of service."

[varkam]

27. To be skeptical is to be prudent.

Many atheists are skeptics by nature, which is how we arrived at atheism. If there were new evidence, undoubtedly many of us would be skeptical of this evidence and examine alternative explanations such as forgery. I'm merely saying though, that if there could be some piece of evidence that was somehow irrefutable, then you would find a lot of "pure atheists" crossing over".

And of course you can disbelieve in the judeocrislamic god without being an atheist - so long as you believe in some other god. For my part, though, I believe that there is no such thing as the JCL god, and I have no belief with respect to any other supernatural entity (strong/weak atheism).

[trotsky]

18. Not true.

Not true at all. You have bought into the Sunday Morning Preacher definition of atheist - it's a lie and totally wrong.

[Hydra]

21. Ok, as an agnostic

Educate me. I didn't want to put it as broadly as "Atheism is the denial of supernatural forces in their entirety", but perhaps I should have.

[trotsky]

23. Here's a couple of well-written links.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html

They state it far better than I could in a single post.

[patriotvoice]

26. Those are very good links, indeed.

My understanding is that the OP has been using the colloquial sense of "agnostic" and "atheist":
agnostic = agnostic atheist = "I believe there is no God, but I do not know for certain."
atheist = gnostic atheist = "I believe there is no God, and I know this for certain."

[varkam]

28. What I was trying to point out...

is that there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism in that one deals with knowledge claims whereas the other deals with belief - and that there is a difference between knowledge and belief. In addition, it is possible to believe something that you do not know (are agnostic on).

And, as I explained in the OP, I would think that gnostic atheists are mistaken in the same sense that gnostic theists are - there is simply no way of knowing one way or the other.

[skidoo]

41. I think you may be conflating

evangelical atheism with philosophical atheism. It is as if one looked in an empty box and said, There may be something in there, but right now I do not see anything. Philosophical atheism is not the belief that God does not exist, it is the absence of the belief itself.
Evangelical atheism-a very minor belief-seeks to convince and convert actively.

An agnostic must believe that the existence of God at least makes sense, and only professes skepticism, but ultimately believes something, or else there would be nothing to express doubt about.

[skepticscott]

39. You don't need to be an atheist

to deny that "supernatural" forces exist. The entire concept of the "supernatural" is just a made up notion, with no empirical or logical basis, and you can be religious and still recognize that.

[GodlessBiker]

2. Could Hitler's children "know" him to be a kind man?

You use mathematics as an example of how we cannot "know" a falsehood, but most of experience does not involve mathematics. We often "know" something while, simultaneously, other's "know" something quite the opposite.

Believers "know" that there is a god just as surely as they know the sun will rise tomorrow. Isn't "knowledge" or "knowing" a certain kind of consciousness? You define knowledge by going out into the world, but couldn't one just as easily define it in psychological terms? As a state of consciousness? Like anxiety or happiness or fear or, even, belief?

And if you can, wouldn't your hypothesis be like saying you can be in two psychological states at the same time? If someone has the knowledge that there is no god, something which I claim I have (as a psychological state of consciousness when I ponder that question), how can I also say that no one can know whether or not there is a god?

Anyway, your post was interesting. Thanks.

[varkam]

4. I agree that most of our experience doesn't involve mathematics.

Math, however, was just a convenient way of illustrating my point.

We often "know" something while, simultaneously, other's "know" something quite the opposite.

In that case, someone is wrong. Two mutually exclusive things cannot be simultaneously true. Hitler cannot both be a kind man and an unkind man. As stated, that is a philosophical impossibility.

Believers "know" that there is a god just as surely as they know the sun will rise tomorrow. Isn't "knowledge" or "knowing" a certain kind of consciousness? You define knowledge by going out into the world, but couldn't one just as easily define it in psychological terms? As a state of consciousness? Like anxiety or happiness or fear or, even, belief?

I think that there might be a psychological state of certainty, but I don't think that it translates into knowledge. I do not know, for example, whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow (using the strictest definition of knowledge), but I am rather certain that it will.

And if you can, wouldn't your hypothesis be like saying you can be in two psychological states at the same time? If someone has the knowledge that there is no god, something which I claim I have (as a psychological state of consciousness when I ponder that question), how can I also say that no one can know whether or not there is a god?

Well, I disagree with the premise that knowledge is a psychological state. However, granting that for the sake of discussion, then I would say that you are correct. If knowledge is just a psychological state, then I suppose one can know all sorts of things.

[patriotvoice]

12. "In that case, someone is wrong." Not necessarily.

> Two mutually exclusive things cannot be simultaneously true. Hitler cannot both be a kind man and an unkind man. As stated, that is a philosophical impossibility.

Mutual exclusivity presumes the compared Universes have mutually exclusive axioms. In mathematics, that is relatively straightforward to establish, as we have notation for expressing axioms and rules for comparing them. Consider Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. A parallel line in one Universe does not imply a parallel line in the other, so for two instances of these Universes, two lines may be both parallel and non-parallel. That seeming violation of exclusivity occurs precisely because the foundation -- the very definition of parallel -- differs.

The vague, muddy waters of Natural Language are much more difficult to navigate. So long as we assert we have a common definition of "kind", and so long as we have only the evidence we have today, then yes, Hitler can only be unkind. But if suddenly we were presented with vast quantities of evidence, from multiple reliable historians, that secretly Hitler sheltered puppies and made ice cream for all die Jungen every Sunday, we /might/ be inclined to alter our belief of his unkindness, possibly leading to a revised definition of kind.

[varkam]

29. Well, kindness is kind of a bad example.

As people can be kind in one aspect of their lives, but unkind in other aspects. In that case, then you are correct - they could both be right. However, the total story wouldn't be that two (apparently) mutually exclusive claims would be true, but rather two completely compatible claims would be true (e.g. Hitler is unkind with respect to the Jews and Hitler is kind with respect to his family).

[patriotvoice]

10. Understandable, but I would like to cut a finer line.

Knowledge requires reason. Reason requires logic. Logic requires axioms. Axioms define the bedrock of a particular universe. That particular universe doesn't have to be absolutely true (that is, simply put, exist physically), but within that universe, truisms and fallacies (collectively a body of "knowledge") may be deduced that form a relative truth. (Note this is a necessary consequence of Goedel's incompleteness theorems.)

The agnostic asserts the axiom: God may exist. An atheist asserts the axiom: God does not exist. The agnostic, then, may make deductions that both include and exclude God, but neither can be proven true or false, as the axiom needed to establish that fact does not exist within his Universe. The atheist, on the other hand, may deduce in all cases that God does not exist, because no axiom exists that supposes God.

Thus, I do not see how one can simultaneously assert that God may exist and God doesn't exist. The atheistic trumps the agnostic, as atheism provides the missing axiom to establish knowledge of God.

However, ask a man what axioms he holds, and from that, you can deduce his viewpoint. If a man asserts God exists, then regardless of the absolute truth, all knowledge within his universe is either true, or false, relative to that axiom. He believes it to be true, and he has knowledge of that truth, because he begins asserting the existence of God. That man could also believe that God doesn't exist, but he would have knowledge asserting the truth of God, and thus the man would have to reconcile his axioms against his beliefs. So, while axioms dictate beliefs, beliefs may incite us to alter our axioms.

That you do not believe God exists, while holding the axiom that God may exist, is perfectly understandable. The question, then, becomes: at what point does your atheistic belief override your agnostic axiom?

Some suggest that mental discomfort, and sometimes emotional unhappiness, derive from incompatibilities between beliefs and knowledge and that one must seek to align the two. Thoughts?

On edit:
Since we are talking significantly about epistemic justification, these links are probably helpful:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence

[varkam]

32. Hmm..

The agnostic asserts the axiom: God may exist. An atheist asserts the axiom: God does not exist. The agnostic, then, may make deductions that both include and exclude God, but neither can be proven true or false, as the axiom needed to establish that fact does not exist within his Universe. The atheist, on the other hand, may deduce in all cases that God does not exist, because no axiom exists that supposes God.


Then what say you of people who assert "I do not believe that God exists, but he may"?

Thus, I do not see how one can simultaneously assert that God may exist and God doesn't exist. The atheistic trumps the agnostic, as atheism provides the missing axiom to establish knowledge of God.

That's just it, though. I think that we're all agnostics whether or not we want to admit as such, but that doesn't really tell anyone what you believe. I don't think that the atheistic assertion is "God does not exist", as that entails gnostic atheism - the position that one knows that god does not exist - which I think is mistaken.

That you do not believe God exists, while holding the axiom that God may exist, is perfectly understandable. The question, then, becomes: at what point does your atheistic belief override your agnostic axiom?

I don't think that it ever will. I mean my atheism is pretty much complete when it comes to the JCL god, just as my disbelief in married bachelors is pretty much complete. Of course that belief rests upon a set of premises that define such a being. I recognize, though, that I could be mistaken. I really don't think that I am, but I remain open to the possibility.

Some suggest that mental discomfort, and sometimes emotional unhappiness, derive from incompatibilities between beliefs and knowledge and that one must seek to align the two. Thoughts?

Sure, Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance theory lays that out. Personally, though, I don't see what is dissonant about being a strong atheist and an agnostic.

[patriotvoice]

35. Flowers bloom without knowledge or belief.

> Then what say you of people who assert "I do not believe that God exists, but he may"?

I say they are agnostic atheists: they do not believe God exists, but have no knowledge to support that position. And to use the colloquial, I would call them "agnostics."


> That's just it, though. I think that we're all agnostics whether or not we want to admit as such...

I disagree that we *are* all agnostics, but I agree that we *should* be agnostic. I simply believe it is impossible to know anything about God. The implication for me -- and others like me -- is that I can never be a gnostic, and that I, therefore, must rely solely upon faith and instinct to place me in the spectrum between theist and atheist. But as a scientist, I find it difficult to use faith as compass. Like many, I have internal dissonance.

[varkam]

37. It's a long story, but...

basically my position on agnosticism refers to a creator god, and ties back into ancient greek philosophy. In a nutshell, if a god created the universe then it must exist solely outside of the universe or else it would be subject to infinite regress (e.g. what created god). If there is a creator god that exists outside of the universe, then that is a god that exists outside of knowledge. That's the short end of it, anyway.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I think that by the most commonly used definitions they are mutually exclusive.

The issue is clouded by the fact that different people use the terms to use mean different things, but I think that the most common, and the most correct uses, are

:-Agnosticism - uncertainty as to whether or not a God exists.
:-Strong Atheism - the belief that it is possible to prove, or to be certain, that no God exists.

Also

:-Weak Atheism - the belief that a God doesn't exist, but that it is not possible to prove this.

So I think that agnosticism overlaps with weak atheism, but is incompatible with strong atheism.

[varkam]

30. I'm not sure I agree with those definitions of strong and weak atheism.

To me, strong atheism is simply active belief and, consequently, the assumption of the burden of proof. All I take that to mean is that there is an argument to be had there, not necessarily an evaluation of how good that argument is. Weak atheism, on the other hand, is simple disbelief. IOW, it is not "the belief that a God..." at all, as it is not an active belief.

And, as I try to lay out in the OP, agnosticism is not a matter of certainty. As discussed above, I think that certainity is a psychological state (as one can be certain in their beliefs), but not an epistemological one. You can be quite certain that you know things that are actually very, very wrong (e.g. Heaven's Gate cult).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. If you use the words that way, you're probably right, but I don't think those usages are standard.

It's purely a matter of semantics, but I think that most dictionaries disagree with your usage.

[varkam]

34. I disagree.

The definitions of strong and weak atheism are the ones that are most commonly used by atheists, or at least the ones that I have most commonly seen. It is also the view that provides the most distinction between strong and weak atheism.

[skepticscott]

40. I would put it a little differently

I would define weak atheism as the position of being unconvinced of the existence of any god, i.e. finding no good reason to believe in one, while not asserting that no god can or does exist. Such an assertion (the strong atheist position) really has to be taken one god at a time. IMO, a blanket assertion that it is certain that no gods exist at all, anywhere, simply isn't supportable. It also begs the question of exactly what qualifies someone/something as a "god", but that's a slightly different issue (though one I've never seen discussed seriously on this board).

[Jim__]

22. I think your definition of knowledge is too strong.

Given your description of knowledge: Knowledge entails truth. You simply cannot "know" a falsehood , I am curious as to exactly what you think you know. When Descartes searched for certain knowledge, he concluded that the only thing he could know for certain is that he existed (Hume doubted even that).

Do you know that you are not a just a brain floating in a vat; a vat that exists in a universe totally different from the one we "know"?

If we define knowledge in such a way that we all wind up knowing nothing, but rather only believing things to different degrees of certainty, I think all we've managed to do is throw away a perfectly good word.

[varkam]

31. I think we can know very little.

The ancient skeptics thought likewise, in that even our perceptions can deceive us. I do think that there are certain things that we can know, and know unequivocally, but I don't think that the term "knowledge" applies to quite as many things as people would guess...at least not in an epistemological sense.

Do I know that I am not a brain floating in a vat? No, I don't. I don't suspect that I am, and I would be quite surprised if I were given the evidence that is available to me.

I think people use the term knowledge in multiple ways, but for the purposes of discussing theology, I think taking the strict epistemological sense of the word is probably the best way to go about things.

[ZombieHorde]

24. It is easy for me to forget that semantics do not dictate reality...

On one hand, it is important that we agree on the definition of words, on the other hand, definitions are unable to fully describe human thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

[skidoo]

36. No one should have to be told what they believe about God.

Agnostics, in my opinion, just haven't thought out the issue very thoroughly.

[knitter4democracy]

38. This makes sense to me. What can we know and prove?

Can we really know and prove something scientifically and beyond all doubt and replicate the results with something like God? My church teaches that we cannot define God, that our brains cannot fully grasp what He really is and so our words fall woefully short. All we can define God with is by what He isn't. That's more in the realm of belief and not knowledge, though.