Actually, I don't think that is true. If the agnostic begins with a definition of 'supernatural' that decrees that the supernatural is beyond our ken (and logically, I can't see how it can be otherwise), then it necessarily follows that 'anything' supernatural must be unknowable. So agnosticism does not need to start with an inductive premise, it can begin with a deductive premise. Deductive premises do not require inductive validation, and such statements can be universally true. (or false).

True, but this does not make agnosticism self contradictory.
Actually, it's the very opposite of self contradictory, it's necessarily true that if something is beyond nature that we cannot say anything natural about it. Negative theologians have no problem admitting that the 'object' of their belief is beyond their ken.

This is precisely whey theologians like Kierkegaard insist that god claims must be taken upon a leap of faith. And in a sense, I agree... you can't believe in god rationally.

No. This is a common error. If 'something' is defined as beyond our understanding, then it only follows from this definition that we cannot know anything about "it'. All we are saying is that we cannot know anything about it. This is negative information, not positive information. It does not provide you with any positive information about the 'entity'.

Another common misunderstanding. Actually, it must lead to non cognitivism. Which means that we cannot know if there is a god, nor can we know anything about a god. Our inability to know something does not lead to strong atheism, it leads us only to an epistemological statement: we cannot know anything about 'entities' that we define from the get go as 'beyond nature.'

But this pertains to natural entities. The theologian tells us that his 'god' is beyond nature. A a negative theologian would agree with you that we cannot speak about a 'god'... but still hold to his belief on faith.

I agree, but the negative theologians holds that his 'god' is beyond reality and beyond attributes.

As we understand anything, yes. As a natural entity, yes. But the negative theologian already agrees from the outset that his 'god' is beyond existence itself.

Negative theologians need to answer this question. And I agree with you here.

When people say that they are 'agnostics' they mean that they are weak atheists. That's all. So in one sense, they are a 'middle ground' in that they do not hold to strong atheism.

That's cool. Despite all the apparent disagreement, I believe that we will actually end up agreeing with each other concerning the key points you wish to make.

To hold that a supernatural claim is ultimately unknowable is rational, as it logically flows from the proper definition of supernatural - beyond nature.

Agnosticism is properly understood as an epistemological position, and not a position on belief. To use the term properly is to hold that one cannot have knowledge of anything beyond nature.

"Agnosticism' as commonly misunderstood by laymen refers to weak atheism.... i.e. a lack of belief in theism.

I agree with you. But so do many theologians, who continue to hold to god beliefs:

"One should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor should we say that God is nonexistent.We can only say that neither existence nor nonexistence applies to God, or that God is beyond existing or not existing."

And this leads us to non cognitivism... i.e., god claims are necessarily meaningless. But this fact that 'god' claims are meaningless does not provide a basis for strong atheism.

Agnosticism is not a contradictory position. There is no contradiction in holding that one cannot know about something that is defined as beyond knowledge!

And again, negative theologians have been speaking of 'god' in this fashion for 2 thousand years.

"God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents, which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living - it is not dead; ...it is the first - its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will - it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One - there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself - and not of His actions - the negation of the opposite." (Maimonides Guide to the Perplexed, 1:5)

St. Augustine wrote:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

Gregory of Nyssa wrote:
‘Since Moses was alone, by having been stripped as it were of the people’s fear, he boldly approached the very darkness itself and entered the invisible things where he was no longer seen by those watching. After he entered the inner sanctuary of the divine mystical doctrine, there, while not being seen, he was in company with the Invisible. He teaches, I think, by the things he did that the one who is going to associate intimately with God must go beyond all that is visible and—lifting up his own mind, as to a mountaintop, to the invisible and incomprehensible—believe that the divine is there where the understanding does not reach.’

—Gregory of Nyssa

Life of Moses, §46

I'm not speaking for everyone who calls themself agnostic. Essentially, I'm showing that a person who calls himself 'agnostic' actually is taking a weak atheist stance. So it's really a semantic point, that agnosticism, in the laymen sense, equates with weak atheism

Seriously, what else do you think they mean when they say that they 'don't know if there is a god'? How can you 'not know' and believe at the same time?

See the problem?

The only way to settle the confusion is to clarify agnosticism as an epistemological position, and not a 'belief' position. This means that 'agnosticism', as the term is used by laymen, actually equates with weak atheism. So this is not an attempt to straight jacket people, or 'speak for them', but instead, to demonstrate what a person actually implies when they say that they are 'agnostic'... it would seem to imply that they are actually weak atheists - i.e. they don't hold to god belief, yet they remain open, unsure, about the matter. This is weak atheism.

The reaction? Your error would be corrected. Most likely, without any snide, rude or obnoxious comments, or with the assumption that there is some negative intent.

Actually, it depends on what they mean then by 'not knowing'. There's two ways that the phrase 'not knowing' might be used/misued.

If they are saying that god knowledge is not possible, then they are making an epistemological statement, not a 'belief statement'. This sort of "not knowing" doesn't refer to whether they believe or not, after all, it is possible to be an agnostic theist.

But 'agnosticis' in the second sense are not claiming to be theists who believe despite accepting that evidence is impossible... right? I mean, you see that, right? They are in fact holding that they 'don't know' whether there is a god... i.e. they don't hold to a positive belief that there is a god..... They are not theists.

So, if they are holding to 'agnosticism' as if it were a position on belief - some sort of 'middle ground' between active acceptance of theism and active rejection of theism, then it's pretty clear that such a position jibes with weak atheism. Do you see it now?

No? Didn't think so.

Anyway, my points here are not an attempt to straight jacket people (as you maliciously insist), but instead, merely point out that logically the term 'agnosticsm', when used to refer to a lack of a positive belief or disbelief, equates with weak atheism. Afer all, one cannot 'not know' about 'god' and believe there is a god at the same time, unless agnosticism is in fact an epistemological position!

Do you see? Or will you just continue to frame it as some sort of attack on people, to advance some petty hatred on your part?

Actually, everyone is an agnostic. No one "knows" anything about god(s). Having a personal experience and or accecpting the word of some authority is not a valid form of "knowledge". There are many people that believe and have faith, but none of them "know" anything about god(s). Therefore a believer is actually a theistic agnostic.

Many people use the term "Agnostic" incorrectly to mean one of two things: they are uncertain or they are actually an atheist but don't want to think of themselves as one of those "immoral" or socially unaccecptable people.

Again, agreed, which is why those who claim to hold to a middle ground are actually weak atheists - the term 'agnostic' in this second sense refers to someone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist... they have 'doubts'... and they identify themselves first and foremost as doubters (not doubting theists). They are 'unsure' on the 'god' question'... and this is how they identify themselves... Which means that they are not theists.

But they are not strong atheists either...... so this leaves weak atheism.

This is not 'speaking for people' nor is it denying their status as 'doubters'... it is merely pointing out that the position of doubt already has a term - weak atheism. Nothing at all changes actually if we substitute one term for a more correct term..... the only resistance to using the term stems from ignorance of what weak atheism actually entails... people avoid the term simply because they are not sure what the term actually means.

To be "uncertain' is not to be a theist, ergo they are 'weak atheists'..... they may be theists tomorrow, but at the present, in their uncertain state, they are not actively theists..... One can hold to a belief with varying states of certainty, but once one declares that they are in 'doubt' about the belief, and uses this 'doubt' to describe their current status (as opposed to using their 'belief' (theism) and then attaching a wavering degree of acceptance to their belief) then they are functionally a weak atheist. To be a doubter on the question of religion, first and foremost, is not to be a theist.

And yes, the reason why this seems so contentuous is that the term 'atheist' appears to possess negative connotations in our society... people presume the term carries either a 'level of certainty' that they do not hold to (strong atheism) or that it entails some sort of negative moral connotation.....

Again, I write on this in more detail here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

Yes, and that is the only point I am making here... .these people want a middle ground between theism and strong atheism, so they call themselves 'agnostics' in order to identify themselves as doubters... but everything they intend to say when they identify themselves in this fashion actually fits under the rubric of weak atheism.

Precisely.

Well, if they identify themselves as a believer in a higher power, then yes, they are theists of some sort (if not pantheists). I think here what they wish to say is that while they are believers in a god, they are not believers in the strict tenets of christianity or judaism or islam.... so to them, the important factor is a rejection of standard religions and preference for a personal one of some sort....

Again, in most cases we can identify whether or not there is a belief.... or a current lack thereof... and therefore we can talk in terms of theism or weak atheism. What matters is how one wishes to identify themselves, and those who seek to identify as doubters are actually expressing a form of weak atheism... Again, it's not 'speaking for them' as one person claimed, it is simply using a more accurate term to denote their position as a doubter.

Yes, and of course, this belief can fluctuate over time.. but at any particular time, it's not all that difficult to be able to determine if you are an active theist or not... if you are unsure about your status, then you can hardly call yourself a theist.... and as it's a mistake to hold that 'atheism' represents the 'opposite' position, when in fact only strong atheism represents the opposing view, this leaves weak atheism as the middle position.

Well, the idea that you can 'not believe' and 'not disbelieve' at the same time is dubious.... to "not disbelieve' entails believing!

So this 'middle ground' would actually entail weak atheism.... all weak atheism implies is that you are not an active theist... that's all. People should think of it as a default position....

Yep... Logic seems to demand it....

Well, if he means to say "no one can actually know if there is a god, nor can they refute the existence of a subtle god" then I'd agree.... but any sane person can rule out the existence of allah or yaweh without much of a struggle... and billions of people around the world do so.

The agnostic does not present himself as a theist of any sort, nor does he present himself as a denier of theism. The agnostic typically holds that he is at some middle ground between theism and 'atheism'. So we have to then examine what the typical 'agnostic' means when he speaks of 'atheism', and often the case is that 'agnostics' tell us that 'atheism' implies an active rejection of theism - i.e. they equate atheism with strong atheism. A key complaint from agnostics is "I don't want to commit to either side." or "I don't want to accept or reject theism dogmatically, or on faith'.

Since the 'agnostic' puts himself forth first and foremost as a doubter, between two extremes, this leaves weak atheism. A lack of belief, without an outright rejection of the belief.

So by actually paying attention to what these 'agnostics' say, and avoiding putting words in their mouth, we see that your attempt to attempt to build an argument from symmetry fails. We have a trichotomy before us, and two of the positions cannot be any form of theism or strong atheism.

LOL, again you reveal that you have no problem putting words in peoples' mouths! Your term 'weak theism' would imply an acceptance of theism along with some doubt. A doubter does not tell us that he holds to theism with doubts, the doubter tells us that he or she does not hold to a theistic claim of any sort, BUT also chooses to steer clear of an outright rejection of theism.... This is what they actually say, so your attempt to rewrite their view as 'weak theism', in contrast to what they really say about themselves is precisely the same sort of arrogance that you initially came here to complain about!

'Agnostics' tell us that they they entertain the possibility of theism, but do not actively hold to it... so the middle position cannot be any form of theism, nor can it be any form of outright rejection of theism. It must be weak atheism. A position of doubt without outright denial. Uncertainty. A lack of theism, but an openness to its possibility.

I think what sets you off, along with many others, is the inclusion of the word 'atheism'. You read it as 'strong atheism'...

Sory for being in ahurry again but see what you think of this...

Criticism:

* "This position may be seen as a logical fallacy because the agnostic theist is holding a belief, even though he/she is in a state of doubt. In order to believe something, you give a conviction made on knowledge about something you find to be true; in which an agnostic does not do. Additionally, to be in a state of doubt, you make no conviction.

* "This position may also be seen as a paradox, in so far as one knows about a deity but does not believe in that deity, and yet one believes knowledge is unattainable of a deity that one has knowledge of, yet doesn't believe in the knowledge one has of that deity of which one knows."

George H. Smith's rebuttal
In Atheism: The Case Against God[2] George H. Smith argues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism (defined here as "lacking a belief in a deity"). His argument against agnostic theism is that it is contradictory to state that a being is inherently or currently unknowable, and yet positively assert a belief in its existence. His argument goes:

"One cannot possibly know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists."

If it is declared unknowable, the concept of "god" becomes meaningless. The agnostic theist's statement of belief therefore becomes equivalent to "a blark exists."

This unspecified belief ("I believe in 'something'") is equivalent to nonbelief ("I am not convinced by any particular religious claim"). Therefore the so-called agnostic theist is in fact an atheist (by being unable to assert a positive belief in any specific deity).
It ensues that all agnosticism is a form of atheism.

If the agnostic theist still wishes to believe, he must ascribe attributes of some sort to the belief. However, they would then be claiming some knowledge of their deity and are therefore no longer agnostics but are theists instead.
Smith concisely describes the paradox on pg 44:

To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions. [...] When one claims that something is unknowable, can one produce knowledge in support of this claim? If one cannot, one's assertion is arbitrary and utterly without merit. If one can, one has accomplished the impossible: one has knowledge of the unknowable. [...] The theist who is called upon to explain the content of his belief - and who then introduces the "unknowable" as a supposed characteristic of the concept itself - is saying, in effect: "I will explain the concept of god by pointing out that it cannot be explained."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism#Criticism

Recommended Reading: Clarence Darrow, Why I Am an Agnostic

The second half was a bit more complex so I'll leave that... either for someone else or atleast until I've had time to think it over a bit more!

Hence calling them 'weak theists' is putting words in their mouths, the sort of arrogance you initially complained about in your first post.

And this is precisely why 'weak atheism' describes their position - they do not accept theism, nor do they reject it outright.

Hey, let's see if your statement works to verify my point:

And this is precisely why 'weak theism' describes their position - they do not accept atheism, nor do they reject it outright.

Yup, sure does.

Nope, sure it doesn't, and your tendency to simply repeat what has already been refuted is tiresome.

As I already explained to you, your error is that you equate 'atheism' with strong atheism. Atheism is not necessarily strong atheism.

However any 'theistic' position involves accepting theism to some degree. Right?

Can you at least work that out?

If you can, then you can see that since 'agnostics' deny holding to theism, they cannot be 'weak theists'.

They also deny being 'atheists"... but what do they actually SAY about atheism?

They insist that they hold to a middle ground position between acceptance of theism, and outright rejection of theism.

This again, for the third, perhaps fourth time, is weak atheism.

That's because you seem to be dead set on being right instead of engaging the dialogue.

You are incorrect, I have already told you differently, I do not automatically equate atheism with strong atheism. You error seems to be in reading comprehension.

Not necessarily, weak theism would simply be the non-denial of God's existence. It wouldn't have to be a positive position.

I think so.

Apparently you fail to see the point I'm making. Weak theism is simply the non-denial of God's existence, it's simply an, "I'm not sure" position.

This again, for the third, perhaps fourth time, is weak theism.

Your describing the atheist position, tod, not the agnostic position.

The weak-theistic agnostic position would simply be, the non-denial of God's existence.

You are the one who continues to tell the agnostic that he's an atheist, and denying him any theistic tendencies. Get real, tod.

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

Trout: So you consider yourself an agnostic, eh?

Agnostic: Yep.

Trout: So do you believe God exists?

Agnostic: I'm not sure, maybe He does.

Trout: Are you denying God's existence?

Agnostic: No, I'm just not sure.

No, I'm saying that his stated position is equitable with weak atheism.

His position cannot be equitable to any form of theism.

You're the one arrogantly putting words in his mouth, by insisting that he holds to some form of theism, when he openy denies this. You've already been nailed on this, so let it go.

Greetings Shaun,

You are very perceptive, I am making a play on one of the definitions of atheism, however I'm not making an attempt at defining theism as a "negative". I'm saying in effect that agnosticism is a position wholly different from either theism or atheism, it's a position of, "I'm not sure".

When - as todangst has - someone claims that agnosticism is better defined as weak-atheism, that could very well be correct, it would fit that definition. But it would also fit the definition of weak-theism. I think that's one reason why we have a word defining a certain position, partially because other terms don't adequately explain the situation.

Agreed.

Agreed.

And if you simply aren't sure, you are agnostic. There are certainly varying 'degrees' of agnosticism, just as there are varying degrees of atheism, some would be closer to a positive affirmation of theism than they would be to a denial of the theistic position. To classify all agnostics as 'weak-atheists' could on one hand be accurate, but so could defining them all as weak-theists.

So IMO, agnosticism stands apart from theism or atheism.

What would you like to debate, Ophios?

Yes.

If they have not decided, then they do not have an actual active belief in God, then they also don't believe a god exists. Until they decide and say that they believe God exists, then they don't believe God exists.

Shaun

Right, they are not "strong atheists." But they also don't have an active belief, so they are not theists. They are "weak atheists."

So, if someone has never thought about the question or been even told about the god idea, they believe in God?

That makes no sense. I don't actively disbelieve in purple cats with spikes that live on the planet Hurlia, but that does not imply I do believe in them.

You can't merely turn it around that way. Atheism is the default position. THat is, lack of belief is the default position until the idea is at very least conceived of. And when it is conceived of (or at least talked about as if it were), then a person still must actively accept the idea or remain to lack said acceptance.

You are being obtuse here.

Shaun: do you believe in God?
agnostic: I am not sure
Shaun: but at this moment, you cannot truthfully say you actually believe in God, right?
Agnostic: No, but I'm considering the question. I'll get back to you later, when I've decided if I do or not.
Shaun: OK, so would you say that, at least for the moment, you currently lack belief in a God, even thought that may change?
Agnostic: Yes, but I also lack complete denial that a god exists.
Shaun: fine, as do I, but we're both still (weak) atheists.
Agnostic: Oh, is that what "atheism" means, to simply lack belief in gods?
Shaun: Yes, nothing more
Agnostic: Hmmm, I wasn't aware of that. I always thought it meant you denied God exists.
Shaun: I don't, and if I did, I would still be an atheist, I would simply tack on the "strong" qualifier to distinguish that denial from the lack of belief.
Agnostic: Well, I guess that makes sense, but I still don't like to think of myself as an "atheist," it seems so negative, nasty, evil or something. I feel like it makes me arrogant or something.
Shaun. That's what happens when people misunderstand what words mean. You don't have to call yourself an "atheist if you don't want to, but you need to recognize that your position concerning God belief right now, until you actually believe in God is what;s called "atheism, whether you like the term itself or not.
Agnostic: I still don't like it, and will still call myself agnostic.
Shaun: I'm an agnostic as well, an agnostic atheist; I don't know, but also don't believe, that gods exist.
Agnostic: I still prefer "agnostic."
Shaun: Very well, it's up to you.

But I suppose you'll try and turn that around as well.

"Theist": I don't actively disbelieve in God.
Shaun: Do you believe God exists?
"Theist":I said I don't dis-believe; I don't deny God's existing.
Shaun: But do you believe?
"Theist": I haven't decided
Shaun: But as of right this moment, you don't actually believe in a god, actively. I understand you are not sure and are either considering it or just don't care (or whatever), but you don't actually believe in any gods?
"Theist":...
Shaun: Do you?
"Theist": I don't want to answer.
Shaun: Why not?
"Theist": Because then I'd have to acknowledge that I'm one or the other. I simply haven't decided.
Shaun: It doesn't matter what you acknowledge. Unless you actually believe--and I don't care if you tell me or anyone else what you believe--you are an atheist. Granted, you are not a strong atheist (and neither am I), but nonetheless you are.
"Theist": But I don't want to be an atheist.
Shaun: Why not?
"Theist": Because...They are arrogant people who deny God. I don't want to be arrogant, I just want to be open and undecided. What can't you just let me be undecided.
Shaun: You can be undecided. But so long as you are undecided, you cannot also, at the same time, say that you also believe in God, right?
"Theist": Why not?
Shaun:...Because to be undecided means to not have decided if you believe or not.
"Theist": Right! Exactly, that's what an agnostic is.
Shaun: Perhaps, but it also falls under the definition of "atheist," because it is a lack of belief, whether for reason of being undecided, lacking evidence warranting belief, etc, that lack of belief is called "atheism." It does not mean you are not also an agnostic, it just means you don't believe.
"Theist": I don't want to be an atheist.
Shaun: Fine, then believe in God.
"Theist": I can't, I said I'm undecided.
Shaun:...

VERY frustrating...

Shaun

What is important to me is the truth. If a question comes up, I do what I can to resolve it. It may not be all that important, but t is somewhat important in terms of answering comments about atheists and why why do this or that.

If you look at the mail the RRS gets from people who say they don't believe in God but decry our audacity or arrogance at denying God, it's because they don't understand the terms. It's important that people understand that when many people say they are atheists, all they really mean is they lack belief in God. many people who dislike the term and who dislike atheism are actually atheists, and just don't realize how much they have in common with us. If they did realize, much of the negative feelings towards atheism would disappear.

It's important simply because people like you come in and say what you have said, and not understanding that if you don't believe in a God, you are also an atheist. I have friends who decry atheism, call themselves agnostics, and don't believe in God. The discussion is important because they need to understand that they are atheists just like the people they are having the issue with. Therefore, their distaste is misplaced.

Shaun

LOL.. Yes, I made the same point to him.

Only someone in a rush to argue, damn the reality, would fall to such an irrational conclusion.

Yes, that point has been made to him ad nasuseum.

In addition, its been pointed out that 'agnostics' themselves state, point blank that they neither accept the tenets of theism nor do they reject them a priori...

That's a very generous way to describe his posts. And Shaun, nothing he posted in infidelguy was any different.

Hey, you got one right, tod, good boy!

And if someone doesn't know, they are an agnostic.

I hope I haven't given that impression, Shaun. I would completely agree that the above quote properly defines an atheist.

But I'm not speaking of that particular individual, I'm thinking of someone who is wholly different than someone who outwardly denies the existence of a god.

Again, the description you've given of your aquaintances would put them firmly in the weak-atheist camp. But I hope that you'd agree that there are others not covered by your definition?

IMO, someone who "doesn't know" fits the category of agnosticism, perhaps many describe themselves as agnostic but really do belong in the weak-atheist camp. But not every agnostic would; that's all I'm getting at.

BTW, I'm enjoying our discussion, Shaun, you are a well spoken individual, thank you.

Trout.

I feel your pain.

I would agree with that, but that doesn't speak exhaustively to everyone who holds to agnosticism.

Then maybe everyone should be called an agnostic and we should abandon the term atheist?

Since in your opinion, no one "knows", then calling oneself an atheist would be a bit of a misnomer. Even though you don't believe God exists, you are ultimately uncertain in that regard. So in one sense you do hold to theism - because theism remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed - albeit in a round about way.

Nope.

Not being a believer - IMO - would make someone an atheist. Not knowing is the crux of the issue.

Let me ask you this; What term would you use for someone who doesn't know if a god exists although they think one probably does but they just don't know. Would that be a weak atheist?

In one respect you are without theism, yes. But in another respect you have left the door wide open for theism. If you say to yourself, "There's a good possibility that God exists" you aren't without theism.

I would agree, but the agnostic I speak of wouldn't answer the question that way. They would say, maybe.