- Rachel, the initiator of the discussion, wrote:
I used to make a distinction between atheists who "did not
believe in a god"" vs. atheists who "believed there was not a
god."
Many atheists said it was the same thing. Some rejected the semantic
difference. I was very thankful to an atheist who pointed out
"Agnostic Atheism" vs. "Gnostic Atheism" to get at
the difference I had been trying to explain.
For me, the "gnosis"" part is way more important
than the "theism" part.
For me, a Gnostic Atheist is as unreasonable as a Gnostic Theist.
Both are wrong. You cannot prove that any god exists. Neither can you
prove a negative.
An Agnostic Atheist is as reasonable as an Agnostic Theist.
Both accept the possibility that they are wrong.
Each has a different reaction to the unknown.
The existence of god is a Schrodinger's Cat.
The Agnostic Atheist says, "We don't know. I'll wait until there
is conclusive evidence one way or the other, and go about my life as if
the cat is dead."
The Agnostic Theist says, "We don't know. I'll
leave the possibility open that the cat may be alive."
- Stephen commented:
I hear what you're saying (I think!). Not sure if the terminology
is the best since we usually distinguish between agnostics and atheists.
Maybe, however, there really is a continuum between agnosticism proper
and what you are calling gnostic atheism. I tend to differentiate between
a kind of tolerant, pluralistic atheism and a rigid, fundamentalist kind.
This is analogous in my mind at least to the difference between liberal
Christians and fundamentalist ones. My own position, for want of a better
term, I call post-theism.
- My comment:
Hello Stephen: interesting denomination "post-theism".
What do you mean with this? How would you describe it?
- Stephen:
It started from my not wanting to define myself by a negative
and also from recognizing that I come from a religious background that
has some aspects I still value. "Post" suggests to me that I'm
now at the stage of what comes next. I'm not rejecting everything about
my past but moving on from it.
- Rachel wrote:
To Stephen: You say "we usually distinguish between agnostics
and atheists"
When you say "we" who are you referring to?
I know many theists, especially Christians and Muslims, use the
following definitions:
Agnostic -- one who doesn't follow any particular religion
Atheism -- one who doesn't believe in God.
In other words, they think an "Agnostic" might say,
"Sure, maybe there's a god, but I don't care and won't worship it,"
while an atheist will say, "I'm positive there are exactly zero gods."
It sounds like these are the definitions you're using, and, as I said,
many Christians and Muslims seem to use these definitions.
I have been corrected. These are not the correct uses of the words.
Agnostic -- "a" (non or no) + "gnosis"
meaning knowledge. Literally, someone who lacks knowledge about something.
Atheist -- "a" (non or no) + "theist"
meaning "god," no god. Someone who has no god.
An agnostic atheist says, "It's impossible to know whether there is
a god or not. Lacking evidence, I will not believe in any".
An agnostic theist says, "It's impossible to know whether there is a
god or not. I choose to believe there is."
A gnostic atheist says "I am 100% certain there are exactly zero
gods."
A gnostic theist says "I am 100% certain of the existence of my
god(s)."
- Answer of Stephen to Rachel:
To Rachel: my understanding of the terms is as follows.
An agnostic claims they have no knowledge of whether there is a god or not.
Implicit is the idea that they could be persuaded either way.
An atheist denies there is a god at all. So it's not they "have"
no god as you put it; it's that they say there is no god.
I think that is quite a different statement.
To say "I have no god" could mean that you think there are
gods but just don't choose to follow one. My understanding of atheism is that
they deny there are any gods and that people who follow them might be well
meaning but are deluded.
This of course begs the question of what a god is.
- Contribution from Rosemarie:
You can't be "certain" of anything, really.......
I say, that without credible / valid proof, I am "content" that
there are no "gods" .
Imho, "gods" are a result of ancient ignorance, where primitive
folk assumed anything like thunder, earthquakes, etc , had to be caused by an
entity of some sort, since they knew next to nothing about science, geology,
vulcanology, etc., etc.... it's amazing that such nonsense still exists.....
I say I am content there are no "gods", and you must prove there
are, if you say that's what you believe !
The Romans and Greeks used to have many "gods" .... that all
faded into, and is accepted as, myth, now , so why not also the current
superstitious nonsense ?!
- Reply of Rachel to Rosemarie:
You are entitled to your humble opinion. This is reasonable and fair.
- My comment to Rachel:
Dear Rachel, I do agree with what you wrote, but I would like to add
a difference between an "agnostic Atheist" and an "agnostic Theist".
The latter accept that he/she can be wrong, but in the meantime he/she
accept to follow some religion (or do you think that he will just be by
himself with some sort of belief in some "private" God?).
Thus this person accept the instructions and the rules dictated by his belief.
In doing this, he renounce to discuss this matter. In fact, if he would accept
to discuss rules and beliefs he will be soon excluded from his religious group.
This kind of people (agnostic theist) may be (not necessarily, but prone to)
very extreme and intolerant (they will say: till somebody prove it wrong to me,
I stick to my belief). Thus I do not trust them that much.
An "agnostic atheist" knows that he cannot fulfil a complete
proof that shows that there is nothing outside the realm of our physical world, because it is too easy to build up some abstruse theory (which cannot be
proved).
But, and this is the important point, he know that the probability
of being correct is quite high, and thus organise his life correspondently.
Hopefully he will arrive to the conclusion that it is better to collaborate
with other people and not fight against them, in order to build a peaceful world.
- Reply of Rachel to the above:
<< The latter accept that he/she can be wrong, but in the meantime
he/she accept to follow some religion (or do you think that he will just
be by himself with some sort of belief in some "private" God?). >>
Some agnostic theists may follow some religions. Some will not.
I think it's as hard to categorize agnostic theists as it is to
categorize agnostic atheists.
<< Thus this person accept the instructions and the rules dictated by
his belief. In doing this, he renounce to discuss this matter. In fact, if he
would accept to discuss rules and beliefs he will be soon excluded from his
religious group. >>
Absolutely not.
First of all, very few faiths have "do not discuss the matter"
as one of their rules. On the contrary, many world religions encourage
discussing and even challenging your own religion. Judaism comes to mind as
one where followers are encouraged to question.
Secondly, an agnostic theist who is a member of a religion that may not
"encourage " this (i.e. Christianity or Islam) is not going to
follow that particular tenet. Take me, for example. While I am
a Christian, I have no problem discussing atheism with open-minded
atheists such as yourself.
Now, I know I'm pretty open-minded for a Christian, but I also know a
majority of Christians are not as closed-minded as I think you are assuming.
In fact, a MAJORITY of Christians, world-wide, belong to one of the hundreds
of denominations that, among other things, teach that the Bible is NOT intended
to be taken literally. A smaller percentage, but still a pretty large chunk,
belong to denominations that accept that Christianity is not the only path to
salvation. Obviously these Christians are not going to "renounce to
discuss the matter."
In the US, if you look at the adult education offered by one of the
following churches, you will find classes that regularly discuss these issues:
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Roman Catholic Church
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
The combined memberships of these denominations is in the hundreds of millions in the US.
<< This kind of people (agnostic theist) may be (not necessarily, but
prone to) very extreme and intolerant (they say: till somebody prove it wrong
to me, I stick to my belief). >>
Not among agnostic theists. I can't think of anyone who would say
i"There might not be a god" who would also be extreme and intolerant.
Once you allow for the possibility of being wrong, you can't be fundamentalist.
<< An "agnostic atheist" knows that he cannot fulfil a complete
proof .... >>
An agnostic theist knows that, too. That's exactly my point.
Now, we differ about the probability, but that's just a matter of degree,
not kind.
- My comment to Rachel:
You are right in saying << Once you allow for the possibility of being wrong,
you can't be fundamentalist >>. What is interesting is the discussion about the
probability of the existence of a God or not. I think I already wrote what I
will write now, but I have to repeat here in order to make this discussion
"complete".
Before I even discuss the probability, I am thinking that if a God would
exists, he (or "she"?? should we follow the patriarchal pattern?)
cannot interfere with our life. Because if "he" would do it, then
"he" would be hold responsible for the consequences.
Can you ever imagine to put a "God" in front of a judge because
of crimes against humanity? :-) Thus is "he" cannot interfere, why
should we bother and go to war to "defend" "him" from
other Gods? My relatives always said that they will pray for me, and I say
that they should not, because I want to be free from any interference.
The discussion about the probability is quite more complex. I started to
try to write it down, but I soon discovered that I have little time left for
this job, because, as you see, I spend too much time on FB.
But the incomplete work is here to be viewed:
http://www.ballisti.ch/ray/personal_ideas/my_book/my_book.html
(not yet corrected, no grammar, just a draft), and it would be too long
for a comment on FB.
|