Agnosticism is not a logical stance

[Jameson]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

I don't know if you are talking semantics, or trying to describe how people feel. As far as I'm concerned, a person can be anywhere they are in terms of belief. All of us are trying to translate the current state of our certainty into words.

God, that is a tough one.

My current opinion is a feeling, not a mental state. I feel there is something more than physical processes. I have not had the privilege of being able to observe the details of what that is. I don't know what it is capable of. I am not fully certain of what its role is in creation.

Sometimes when people ask "do you believe in God," they are asking if you believe in some religion's model of God. But we aren't required to say yes or no to that. We can say we don't know about THAT concept of God, but that we feel there is something more (or not) than physical processes involved in creation.

Is that agnostic or atheistic? Does it matter if we have a word for where we are in terms of our sense of something more?

 

[Jameson]

You're right. We must define God into certain terms in order to ask the question "Do you believe in 'x'?". What I'm saying is that when a question is asked liked that, you cannot logically say "I don't know" and have that as an answer. If you don't know if you believe something, you do not believe it. Beliefs are a positive statement, while negating those beliefs do not have to be an affirmation, although they can be.

If I asked, "Do you believe that the Earth is flat?", unless you said "yes", logically is would be understood that you do not have that belief.

I haven't taken philosophy or anything, these are just my own thoughts.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What I'm saying is that when a question is asked liked that, you cannot logically say "I don't know" and have that as an answer. If you don't know if you believe something, you do not believe it. Beliefs are a positive statement, while negating those beliefs do not have to be an affirmation, although they can be.

I think you are correct. I didn't understand that you were asking a logic-semantic question. If you ask someone if they "believe" and they say I don't know, then they don't believe, just as you say.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist.

This is not how atheism is usually defined. Atheists *deny* the existence of God. Agnostics *do not deny* the existence of God.
If you asked an agnostic, "Do you deny the existence of God?" they would not answer, "Yes." Thus they are not atheists. Only a person who answers, "Yes" is an atheist. If you have any doubt, theists also would not answer, "Yes." and certainly theists are not atheists.
____
Actually, I think the problem is here:

There is no middle ground on a yes or no question.

True, either you are or are not a thiest, that is, a theist or a nontheist. This doesn't mean that all nontheists are identical.

An object is either a circle or noncircle, but the set of all noncircles can contain more than one object (squares, trees, people, etc.). This is logically permissible.
A object is either a theist or a nontheist, but the set of all nonthiests can contain more than one object (atheists, agnostics, chairs, etc.). This is also logically permissible.
A square can be neither a tree nor a circle since "tree" does not mean the same thing as "noncircle."
A person can be neither an atheist nor a thiest since "atheist" does not mean the same thing as "nonthiest."

Does that help?

 

[Royce]

If an agnostic is asked; "Do you believe in God?" then logically he cannot answer the question directly with a simple yes or no. In that you are correct. However, that does not make being an agnostic illogical. If he must answer then he can only say that his belief is that the question of God is not yet proven or disproved and he has not made up his mind one way or another. Remember that not deciding one way or another is also a valid decision. Not every question can be answered yes or no.

 

[harvey1]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

I can argue that all the positions are off base.

Atheism: It's not a specific enough position. Do you mean that only material stuff exists? If so, then you are a materialist and we have no need for the atheist title. If you are a non-materialist and still an atheist, then how do you know non-material things exist? In fact, how do you know anything of anything that is ontological-based?? It seems agnosticism is all anyone can be about anything. So, scratch atheism and call yourself an agnostic materialist.

Theism: Again, it's not specific enough position. Do you mean that material stuff is not the ultimate reality? Then you are an idealist or platonist. Which one? If you think only God exists, then you are an absolute idealist. And, like above, how do you know anything of anything? I think if you are the least bit humble you acknowledge that you can't prove the existence of anything (even yourself), and therefore you are either an agnostic idealist or an agnostic platonist.

Agnostics: Since everyone in the world has to profess some form of agnosticism, why not just admit that the description is utterly useless! Say what you think, and stop taking pride in the fact that you don't know - who the hell does?? If you don't even want to take a guess, then why the hell are you talking about ontology in the first place?? Just say to everyone "you are wasting your time" and go back to your calculator.

 

[physicskid]

I'm always very unsure about the defintition of agnosticism. If its definition is the belief that there's no proof for the existence of God, then agnostic theist can also exist too!

 

[honestrosewater]

I can argue that all the positions are off base.

Theism, atheism, and agnosticism deal strictly with the concept of god(s). An atheist can still believe in, for instance, duality of mind, and so not be a materialist.
There are also differences within these groups. Like pantheism, panentheism, etc. Agnostics can take several stances; we don't know, we can't know, we can't know if we can know, etc. The thing to remember is just that they deal strictly with the concept of god(s).

You do raise an important problem with our communication: Humanity has more concepts than words. This is especially bad for philosophy, where concepts become more nuanced, complex, and are often defined imprecisely and inconsistently. Even the concept of god doesn't have clearly established limits, like a minimum set of required properties.
If you can think of a way to solve the problem, let everyone know

 

[Aquamarine]

The assumption is that one must either believe in God or not. That is the common logical principle of bivalence, every statement is either absolutely true or absolutely false.

It is however possible to build other logical systems based on probability, like fuzzy logic.

Then an atheist is one who assigns 100% probability to God does not exist and 0% to God exist. A theist is the opposite. An agnostics is someone who assigns other values than 0% and 100%.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm always very unsure about the defintition of agnosticism. If its definition is the belief that there's no proof for the existence of God, then agnostic theist can also exist too!

See the post right above this one. Agnosticism can mean different things. Not all agnostics believe there is no proof for the existence of any god. What they all share is a suspension of belief. Theists believe in some kind of god. Yes, some theists believe in their god without needing proof, some even believe despite proof against their god.
Agnostics don't believe in god(s), theists do. Agnosticism and theism are logically incompatible. You can see previous posts in this thread for further clarification.
The designation of theist, atheist, or agnostic is only one part of the story. Like the designation of male or female is only one part of describing a human.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think most of what everyone has said about atheism, agnosticism, and theism makes sense. However, I don't know if anyone but Royce addressed what Jameson put forth.

I asked him if his was a logic-semantic question and he answered, "What I'm saying is that when a question is asked liked that, you cannot logically say "I don't know" and have that as an answer. If you don't know if you believe something, you do not believe it. Beliefs are a positive statement, while negating those beliefs do not have to be an affirmation, although they can be."

To me it seems clear that his is a logic-semantic challenge to those who respond to the question of belief with "I don't know." A proper logical answer for an agnostic might be, "I don't believe in God, and I don't disbelieve in God."

 

[honestrosewater]

Fuzzy logic, that's great

 

[Tigron-X]

The question itself, "Do you believe in God?" is not specifically defined, and thus it is left to the individual to define his/her understanding of the term.

Now, unless someone states otherwise, I think it's safe to claim that there are forces in life at work. In fact, one can define various forces. Anhow, these forces can be defined as powers in nature or powers in life. Nature and life being existence.

So, from the above, one can ask the following questions:
--Is there a hierarchy of power?
--Does said individual profess an awareness to these powers?
--Does said individual believe in a higher power other than oneslef?
--What is the highest power said individual can perceive?
--Is this perception an understanding of God if the term "God" was to be defined as a higher power?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Fuzzy logic, that's great

True, but I think that was Jameson's point; granted, it's not a very significant point. But he seems right that technically an ambiguous answer to the question of belief is not very logical since to believe or not believe implies certainty. It is the inclusion of the word "believe" that screws up the logic of the answer.

 

[honestrosewater]

True, but I think that was Jameson's point; granted, it's not a very significant point. But he seems right that technically an ambiguous answer to the question of belief is not very logical since to believe or not believe implies certainty.

Granted, and I didn't comment on that point because it had already been resolved. But I couldn't ignore the rest of it:

If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

In fact, I just noticed this, but I disagree with Royce here:

If an agnostic is asked; "Do you believe in God?" then logically he cannot answer the question directly with a simple yes or no. In that you are correct.

(Unless, by "directly", Royce means "fully.") Answering "No" to the above question is not the same as answering "Yes" to the question, "Does God exist?" This is the question an agnostic cannot answer with a yes or no, and claiming that "yes" and "no" are the only answers is a false dichotomy. Yes or no?

____
:yuck: To clarify: The claim that a person can only be decided either for or against something leaves out the other available option of undecided.

 

[Royce]

What I mean is that a true agnostic cannot answer the question; "Do you believe in God?" because he doesn't know. He does not truly believe in God and he does not truly not believe in God. He doesn't know. He has not yet made up his mind what to believe or what not to believe. The question of existence and of belief is still open, undecided. The question therefore has no answer or meaning to him. He is undecided in what he believes and, as I said, that too is a valid, logical choice but not a direct answer to the question.
Not all questioned can be answered yes or no. There are also valid answers of I don't know , maybe:uhh:, sometimes :tongue2: , duh and huh :yuck: :rofl: .

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm Agnostic and I can answer your question. Do I believe in God? I do not believe in God. I believe in the possibility of God existing. I do not hold it true that God exists but I do believe it is possible. I believe in possibilities. Agnostism is a much more logical faith than Atheism. Atheism is like a scientific theory that is held true - someone illogical denies the small possibility that a theory is wrong. There is not enough logic to discern whether or not God exists.

 

[honestrosewater]

Not all questioned can be answered yes or no. There are also valid answers of I don't know , maybe:uhh:, sometimes :tongue2: , duh and huh :yuck: :rofl: .

On this I agree with you, (it's called a false dilemma if anyone wants to google). And I would add another valid answer:

"I'm a nihilist, you're questions are futile! Bwahahhaa!"

But my point is that, "I do not believe in a god" is the correct description of an agnostic's beliefs. It seems:

Your view: I do not = I do the opposite of
My view: I do not = It is not true that I do

We agree that, "Agnostics believe in god" is not true, right?
I'm saying the same thing:

My view: "It is not true that agnostics believe in a god."

and, if an agnostic is speaking,

My view: "It is not true that I do believe in a god."

Is that clear? Have I misunderstood your view?

 

[honestrosewater]

There is not enough logic to discern whether or not God exists.

That depends on how you define god, but that discussion would need another thread.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Most things depend on definition. The arbitrary nature of God makes Agnostism even more logical.

 

[honestrosewater]

Most things depend on definition. The arbitrary nature of God makes Agnostism even more logical.

I'd love to agrue that point, if you want to start another thread. It is too off-topic here.

 

[AKG]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

That's misleading. With regards to the truth of some proposition, you either have a belief, or you don't. If you have a belief, you either believe that it is true, or you believe that it is not true. When people answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" with "I don't know," the mean to say that they don't have a belief about the truth of the proposition, "God exists," and not that they have a belief about the truth of that proposition, but don't know whether they believe it to be true or not. If you have a belief, you know your belief (otherwise, what would make it your belief?), but that doesn't mean you have beliefs about everything. If you have a belief about something, you know your belief about that thing. However, there are plenty of things you don't have beliefs about at all in the first place, and God can be one of them.

Agnostics can be divided into three groups, 1) people who believe that there can never be a good reason to hold any belief about the truth of the proposition "God exists", i.e. people who think "God exists" and/or its negation are fundamentally unprovable, 2) people who are still waiting for justification for a belief, e.g. someone who thinks it can be proven that God exists, but hasn't found the proof yet, and 3) people who don't care enough to formulate a belief.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But my point is that, "I do not believe in a god" is the correct description of an agnostic's beliefs.

In terms of the logic of your statement, you are correct. Good point.

 

[Royce]

But my point is that, "I do not believe in a god" is the correct description of an agnostic's beliefs. It seems:

Quote:
Your view: I do not = I do the opposite of
My view: I do not = It is not true that I do

I may be quibbling here but my view is not "I do not = I do the opposite."
My view is very simply "I do not." That's it period. The statement stands alone by itself with no caveats. He, the agnostic may got on to add; "But neither do I disbelief in God nor do I believe that God does not exist. I just don't know, so I reserve judgment and hold no firm belief about God either way."

Why is that so hard to understand. Read the words for what they say. No more. No less and don't add anything or take anything away.
I say that logically a true agnostic cannot answer the question yes or no because he does not believe nor know either answer to be true or logical.
Does not apply. Does not compute period

We agree that, "Agnostics believe in god" is not true, right?
I'm saying the same thing:

Quote:
My view: "It is not true that agnostics believe in a god."


and, if an agnostic is speaking,

Quote:
My view: "It is not true that I do believe in a god."

Yes this is true; however, I would also have to say that is is true if you and/or our agnostic said; "It is not true that I believe that God does not exist."

We could go on forever tying and untying this logical knot.

Yes we are saying the same thing different ways, only emphasizing different points.

 

[Jameson]

Sorry, let me clarify what I'm trying to say. One cannot simply ask "Do you believe in God?" because that is undefined. The word "believe" does kind of mess up the question. What I'm saying is, that for someone to say I'm agnostic does not mean "maybe there's a God". It means that we do not have proof one way or another on the subject and that we are incapable to conceive either way. You cannot "kinda believe" straightfoward things. I think my point is significant because I'm saying that people cannot just say "they don't know". One does not have to refute a belief in order to negate it. Unless I explicitly believe something, I technically do not believe because of negation. I can also refute something and make my negation stronger.

 

[loseyourname]

One can say "I don't know" if they genuinely waver back and forth, unless your question refers only to the exact belief that they either hold or do not hold at that exact moment in time. Granted, I doubt very many people do waver. Most likely either believe, disbelieve, or have no belief. But, of course, these are three categories of people, which is why we use three words, instead of simply breaking atheists into "strong" atheists and "weak" atheists, even though doing so would be more in line with the strict translation of the word "atheist" from the latin.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry, let me clarify what I'm trying to say. One cannot simply ask "Do you believe in God?" because that is undefined. The word "believe" does kind of mess up the question. What I'm saying is, that for someone to say I'm agnostic does not mean "maybe there's a God". It means that we do not have proof one way or another on the subject and that we are incapable to conceive either way. You cannot "kinda believe" straightfoward things. I think my point is significant because I'm saying that people cannot just say "they don't know". One does not have to refute a belief in order to negate it. Unless I explicitly believe something, I technically do not believe because of negation. I can also refute something and make my negation stronger.

A quick question here to help me understand your position. Are you more concerned about how someone makes a statement, or more about what they mean? So far the only "significant point" I've been able to get from you is a logic-semantic one.

If we were talking, and I wanted to know what you believe about the possibility of God, then I'd ask you questions until I ferreted out your meaning. I would not consider it significant if your statement wasn't logically perfect because we are trying to understand each other, I have the opportunity to figure out what you mean, and nitpicking about how words and ideas are put together isn't conducive to that.

However, if you were writing an article about agnosticism and belief, and I were your editor, then I would be more concerned about statements you make.

 

[Jameson]

Ok. Sorry for getting tied up in the semantics of the statements. This isn't about that. I'm after the truth in the philosophy of agnosticism pertaining to logic.

Would you agree that we are born without beliefs? (I understand that people would argue this by saying we have natural instincts) What I mean by that is that we have not made up our mind on any issue as of being born. So we do not believe anything in our minds more than the fact that we are hungry and want to get warm.

I guess what this debate comes down to is: on a given issue do you start in the middle and waiver to each side accordingly? or do you start something not believing in the issue and then decide to believe in it or not?

Let's take a look at Christianity as an example (I am not preaching). According to that doctrine, one must accept Jesus into one's heart in order to be saved. If you do not accept him, you are not saved. (I understand people's beliefs waiver on this issue; this is just used as an example). So, could one say we are all born without acceptance in Jesus and then we decide later whether to accept him or not?

I'm sorry if I'm going in circles. I really think it comes down to the issue I listed earlier.

Jameson

 

[Les Sleeth]

I guess what this debate comes down to is: on a given issue do you start in the middle and waiver to each side accordingly? or do you start something not believing in the issue and then decide to believe in it or not?

It seems to me it has to be the latter choice.

Let's take a look at Christianity as an example (I am not preaching). According to that doctrine, one must accept Jesus into one's heart in order to be saved. If you do not accept him, you are not saved. (I understand people's beliefs waiver on this issue; this is just used as an example). So, could one say we are all born without acceptance in Jesus and then we decide later whether to accept him or not?

I don't see how it can be any other way than we choose what we believe (although some would argue that conditioning steals some degree of choice from us). But I can't help but return to the issue of meaning.

We all currently decide what we believe, and each of us has our own standards for what we accept as true. When you ask someone if they believe something, every time you are going to hear an answer that's been determined by their standards. Now, whether or not their standards make any sense is an entirely different issue. Why did all those people believe the rantings of Jim Jones and follow him to the grave? Why is there a debunking forum here at PF peopled by individuals who wouldn't give Jim Jones the time of day? Different standards of trust and belief.

 

[honestrosewater]

Change all "Do you believe in god(s)?" to "Do you deny the existence of god(s)?"
Atheist answers yes, agnostic answers no.
In other words, everything said toward separating theists from agnostics can be applied in the same way to separate atheists from agnostics. There are at least three separate options.

Have we now covered all the bases?

 

[Royce]

Change all "Do you believe in god(s)?" to "Do you deny the existence of god(s)?"
Atheist answers yes, agnostic answers no.
In other words, everything said toward separating theists from agnostics can be applied in the same way to separate atheists from agnostics. There are at least three separate options.

Have we now covered all the bases?

God, I hope so; and, I think that you and I are finally on the same page.
The problem now at hand is not the logic and semantics according to Jameson's last post. It is more a matter of belief, what to believe or not believe and what to we call that set of beliefs.

When I was a young man I considered myself an agnostic. As far as the Old Testament and organized Christian religion was concerned ,I thought of myself as a definite non-believer, an atheist, but as far as a God/Creator was concerned, I didn't know and withheld judgment; so, I, therefore, was an agnostic at least in my mind. I didn't believe in God and I didn't belief that God did not exist. I didn't know and I didn't have any firm belief one way or the other. To me that position of no position is agnostic.

A theist believe in God. An agnostic doesn't believe either way and an atheist believes that there is no God. This is how I see and understand it. It of course is a continuum as different people hold different degrees of belief or disbelief. My believe will waver from one extreme to another throughout any given period depending on how I feel or what I am thinking about at the moment.

 

[Zlex]

I am a devout non-aligned secular agnostic theist. It means my faith without certainty or knowledge is restricted to believing in the existence of a God whose existence, nature, wants or desires I do not believe can be known in this life, which also means I have absolutely no faith in any merely man-made religion or man-made church.

It means that any attempts by any man, no matter if he is wearing a chess uniform or not, or how cute he may look in that chess uniform, to claim to insert himself into the personal futile attempt at understanding any of us might or might not be groping for on the concept of God, is an unrecognized and unwelcome projection of a baseless authority.

It means I see man-made religion and man-made churches as residue of dark age mystic politics, unrelated in a fundamental way to the concept of God.

Tammy Faye Baker, Elmer Gantry, the latest Pope in his gilded castle and bullet-proof Popemobile. It's all the same leg-lifting political shtick. The Bible is ancient manmade literature. I mean read it, it literally says, at most, "Some man said that God said..." It is proof, mostly, that The Big Question has festered for thousands of years.


Of course there can be no proof that God does not exist. If you believe that, you believe it without proof. To say, you won't believe it until you see it, like a unicorn or whatever, exposes a shallow understanding of the concept of God.

My understanding of the concept of God takes my devout agnosticism one step further; there can be no 'proof' in this life that God exists, even in the face of a candidate God. I challenge any mere human to devise a test that a candidate God must pass to prove to us that he is God, and not just some massively more capable life form in this universe.

Any test we can imagine, Steven Spielberg has probably already imagined and put on film. My point is, some merely 100 year more advanced life form with 'much better film' could spin us any tale we could imagine, and thus 'pass' out test. Would God need to fly? Go to the Moon? Bring the dead back to life? Transplant a heart? Come back from the dead? SHow us pictures from the beginning of time? Blow up a mountain? Destroy Saturn? Fly us to the next village? The next country? The next solar system? The next galaxy?

And, what of it? Suppose God fails to jump over the ant hurdle or through the ant hoop; does that prove that God is not God?

To ants in an ant hill, we must appear as Gods. Does that mean we are? Do we even ask ants about their God beliefs, and if we could, would we jump over their ant hurdles to prove that we were Gods? This argument is recursive and moot; how would we ants ever get a candidate God to jump over our ant hurdles, to prove to us that God is God?

A fools errand.


If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.

Such a creator would know the punch line to every cosmic joke in this universe; how does such a creator, if He is to create 'surprise' in the Universe, do that? Impossible? Hardly. He could do what any schizo on Earth does; he could divide his conciousness.

Is there conciousness in the universe? Sure. Is there divided conciousness in the Universe? Well, is there 'surprise?' Is any of that proof of anything? No, it is by illustration a demonstration that the whole concept of 'proof' of God is ridiculous and unanswerable. Either way, a matter of pure faith.

Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isnlt is by definition forever above our pay grade.

Agnostics do not know. Agnostic theists believe that it is probably our job not to know; that is our function in the Universe. To not know, and to live here anyway, to create surprise in the Universe.

 

[Jameson]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

How would you change the statement "All laws of physics apply at all instances" to make it true for god? Which "all" would you change, and what would you change it to (some, no)?

Royce,
Yes, we're on the same page I actually said the same thing in my first response in this thread (#5), but the point was lost in the discussion.