Agnosticism

[Politesse]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

A conviction can be held with or without the support of evidence. The latter is called 'faith.'

And agnostics are, by definition, not keen on belief without evidence,

Which is in part what makes 'agnostic theism' an odd term.

though I would question your definition of "faith".

How so?

Faith has a range of senses, always has. All are used at least occasionally in philosophy and society, and its worth your time to think about what you fundamentally put your trust in and why. If you can answer that, your faith is thus defined.

I'm not sure I like this term "agnostic theism" either, I can't imagine many people describing themselves with it. It seems more like something a disgruntled atheist would come up with to describe someone who identifies as agnostic but seems "too friendly" toward theism or "too open" to the possibility of theistic claims. "Atheist agnostic" makes no more sense. Although the term agnostic has its roots in the argument over theism, it is fundamentally an epistemological perspective and more like a third way out of the debate tham a commitment to either side of it. If I wanted to commit to theism or atheism, I would say so. I have not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith has a range of senses, always has. All are used at least occasionally in philosophy and society, and its worth your time to think about what you fundamentally put your trust in and why. If you can answer that, your faith is thus defined.

Religious faith involves belief without evidence. Secular faith isn't the same thing, it's just using the word to mean hope, confidence, conviction, trust, etc. There's evidence that "faith" in this secular sense is warranted. Even though the odds of a given outcome may be slim, it's happened before, it's not blind trust. There's no evidence for gods, afterlives, souls, miracles, etc.

 

[bilby]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

A conviction can be held with or without the support of evidence. The latter is called 'faith.'

And agnostics are, by definition, not keen on belief without evidence,

Which is in part what makes 'agnostic theism' an odd term.

though I would question your definition of "faith".

How so?

Faith has a range of senses, always has. All are used at least occasionally in philosophy and society, and its worth your time to think about what you fundamentally put your trust in and why. If you can answer that, your faith is thus defined.

I'm not sure I like this term "agnostic theism" either, I can't imagine many people describing themselves with it. It seems more like something a disgruntled atheist would come up with to describe someone who identifies as agnostic but seems "too friendly" toward theism or "too open" to the possibility of theistic claims. "Atheist agnostic" makes no more sense. Although the term agnostic has its roots in the argument over theism, it is fundamentally an epistemological perspective and more like a third way out of the debate tham a commitment to either side of it. If I wanted to commit to theism or atheism, I would say so. I have not.

1) Is it more likely that there is at least one god, than that there are no gods at all, in your opinion?

2) How confident are you that your answer to 1) is correct?

If you answered 1) with "at least one god", you are a theist. If you said "no gods at all", you are an atheist. If you honestly believe that the probabilities are exactly 50:50, you are neither.

If you answered 2) with "absolutely certain", you are a gnostic. Otherwise you are an agnostic.

Notice that insistence that you are agnostic tells people absolutely NOTHING about your answer to 1); and that even a small amount of doubt makes you agnostic, regardless of your answer to 1).

I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely certain that the probability of one or more gods is exactly equal to the probability of no gods. But in principle, such a person could exist.

 

[DBT]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

A conviction can be held with or without the support of evidence. The latter is called 'faith.'

And agnostics are, by definition, not keen on belief without evidence,

Which is in part what makes 'agnostic theism' an odd term.

though I would question your definition of "faith".

How so?

Faith has a range of senses, always has. All are used at least occasionally in philosophy and society, and its worth your time to think about what you fundamentally put your trust in and why. If you can answer that, your faith is thus defined.

I'm not sure I like this term "agnostic theism" either, I can't imagine many people describing themselves with it. It seems more like something a disgruntled atheist would come up with to describe someone who identifies as agnostic but seems "too friendly" toward theism or "too open" to the possibility of theistic claims. "Atheist agnostic" makes no more sense. Although the term agnostic has its roots in the argument over theism, it is fundamentally an epistemological perspective and more like a third way out of the debate tham a commitment to either side of it. If I wanted to commit to theism or atheism, I would say so. I have not.

The word faith is commonly used in a number of ways, where the context detemines the meaning. However when someone believes that something is true without the support of evidence, that is the definition of faith in that instance: their belief is held on the basis of faith - a belief held without the support of evidence.

 

[Politesse]

1) Is it more likely that there is at least one god, than that there are no gods at all, in your opinion?

On what rational basis could such a question even answered?

2) How confident are you that your answer to 1) is correct?

To say nothing of the obvious subjectivity of deciding truth on the basis of "confidence".

If you honestly believe that the probabilities are exactly 50:50, you are neither.

That would require me to have assigned probabilities in the first place. On what basis?

Notice that insistence that you are agnostic tells people absolutely NOTHING about your answer to 1); and that even a small amount of doubt makes you agnostic, regardless of your answer to 1).

True. But if you add the term "atheist" or "theist" to "agnostic", you are adding almost certainly incorrect information and assumptions into the mix. Note how quickly this became a discussion of "faith" once "theism" was invoked, as near as I can tell more because of semiotic association than any logical connection. To most people "theist" means "a person who believes in God", so the notion of a theist agnostic quite rightly sounds like a contradiction.

 

[bilby]

1) Is it more likely that there is at least one god, than that there are no gods at all, in your opinion?

On what rational basis could such a question even answered?

It's a question about your opinion. It need not have a rational basis for your response; That's entirely up to you.

Which is my whole point.

I want to know your opinion. I explicitly do NOT want to know how you arrived at it.

2) How confident are you that your answer to 1) is correct?

To say nothing of the obvious subjectivity of deciding truth on the basis of "confidence".

I explicitly DID say nothing about deciding truth on the basis of 'confidence', or indeed on any basis.

I want to know how confidently you hold the opinion expressed in answer to 1). I don't care one whit whether that confidence is justified, and I am certainly not implying that your level of confidence is somehow the basis for your opinion.

Again, it's a question of personal opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. Confidence is an attribute of any opinion, it's not a cause.

I am confident that the Moon exists. I don't think that the continuing existence of the Moon is predicated on my remaining confident about this.

If you honestly believe that the probabilities are exactly 50:50, you are neither.

That would require me to have assigned probabilities in the first place. On what basis?

Any basis you like. Or none. If you cannot assign a probability, then don't. It's your opinion; No answer can be wrong.

Notice that insistence that you are agnostic tells people absolutely NOTHING about your answer to 1); and that even a small amount of doubt makes you agnostic, regardless of your answer to 1).

True. But if you add the term "atheist" or "theist" to "agnostic", you are adding almost certainly incorrect information and assumptions into the mix.

No, you are just providing the responses to both 1) and 2), rather than only providing the answer to 2).

Note how quickly this became a discussion of "faith" once "theism" was invoked, as near as I can tell more because of semiotic association than any logical connection. To most people "theist" means "a person who believes in God", so the notion of a theist agnostic quite rightly sounds like a contradiction.

Not to me. I would imagine that theist agnostics are probably the vast majority of people who have ever lived.

A theist agnostic believes that at least one god exists, but cannot prove it, even to their own satisfaction, much less to anyone else's.

It's a very common position indeed.

 

[Politesse]

It's a question about your opinion. It need not have a rational basis for your response; That's entirely up to you.

Right. And being the agnostic that I am, I prefer not to form opinions on the basis of no evidence.

 

[bilby]

It's a question about your opinion. It need not have a rational basis for your response; That's entirely up to you.

Right. And being the agnostic that I am, I prefer not to form opinions on the basis of no evidence.

That's lovely.

But being a human, I strongly suspect that you have formed an opinion, no matter how weakly held, despite your preference not to.

Humans are nothing if not opinionated (though they frequently resile from admitting it).

 

[Politesse]

It's a question about your opinion. It need not have a rational basis for your response; That's entirely up to you.

Right. And being the agnostic that I am, I prefer not to form opinions on the basis of no evidence.

That's lovely.

But being a human, I strongly suspect that you have formed an opinion, no matter how weakly held, despite your preference not to.

Humans are nothing if not opinionated (though they frequently resile from admitting it).

Ah, the gnostic mindset in a nutshell. I must be lying (sorry, "not admitting") to either myself or to you, because we see the world differently.

But I still think it would be dumb to call someone an "atheist agnostic" because they are feeling somewhat uncovninced of God's existence at the moment, then a "theist". Making a term a part of someone's essential label implies a different level of conviction than an agnostic would be likely to feel about an undefined God.