- #1
Niels Bohr
- 14
- 0
Originally posted by Canute
Hmm. I think you mean agnosticism.
Atheism is not neutral.
I would argue that all three views can be based either on faith or logic. In other words the personal choice is how to apply faith and logic.
I suspect that there are as many atheists who depend on faith as there are theists who do.
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, "agnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" (which means "knowledge") along with the disclaimer "a". Ergo, the putting of the word "a" before the word "gnosis" indicates a lack of any certain knowledge. An agnostic doesn't believe anything.
Actually, it is. If theism is the belief in a deity, then "anti-theism" would be the belief that there certainly is no such deity, and "atheism" (again with the disclaimer "a" before the Greek word "Theos" (which means "God")) is simply the lack of the definite belief in a creator. IOW, they don't take for granted that the deity exists, but don't take for granted that it doesn't exist either, since that would be "anti-theism".
There are many anti-theists that depend on faith, and even more that depend on credulity (there is a difference, btw), and the same is true of theists. Atheists, OTOH, have faith in only one thing: that they haven't made up their minds on this issue yet.
I'd also like to add that, from all that's been said in this post, it can be deduced that an agnostic, if presented with the issue of whether there is a deity or not, would take the atheistic stance, would s/he not?
Ok, if a persons belief system can be an issue of faith, then why aim to pursue wisdom? What is wisdom? What is a fact? And why are facts more important than arbitrarily believing in whatever you please? Why not have faith that the Earth sits on a turtle? Surely, faith can not be criticised?Neils,
On the subject of logic, you might be interested in Tom's more in-depth study of it, in the thread called "Logic". As to the arguments toward atheism or theism, I think PF has abandoned discussion of such things. To believe in some form of theism, or to remain neutral (atheism) is a personal choice, and needn't be based on logic; it can be based on faith.
I'd also like to add that, from all that's been said in this post, it can be deduced that an agnostic, if presented with the issue of whether there is a deity or not, would take the atheistic stance, would s/he not?
Originally posted by Canute
We must have different dictionaries. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy gives:
Atheism: The view that there is no divine being, no God.
Agnosticism: a theory according to which things within a specified realm are unknowable. Especially the view that we cannot know whether or not God exists.
There is always some ambiguity with words, their meanings change over time for one thing. However I'm sure that current usage is as per the dictionary definitions I gave. Agnosticism is sitting on the fence, while atheism (and theism) is making your mind up. I take your point about the roots of the words (ammoral vs immoral for instance) but this seems to be what they have come to mean for most people, and how they're generally used.Originally posted by radagast
But is that the only definition associated to atheism, by Penguin?
Most dictionaries will list that as one of it's meanings, given that it's a common usage. Most also list 'A disbelief in god or gods.' with disbelief meaning 'not having or holding a specific belief' or 'refusal or reluctance to believe'. Both definitions of disbelief say nothing about holding the opposite belief. [/B]
I think it's just that words are quite often inadequate to their task. Like you I used to consider myself to be an agnostic because I didn't know, not because I thought I couldn't know. I'm sure lots of people do the same. Normally this doesn't cause problems. However in metaphysical discussions a bit more care is needed to avoid misunderstandings, it actually matters to the discussion precisely what you mean. (For what it's worth I gave up agnosticism for atheism).Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It's futile to argue with a dictionary but the Collins definition of agnostic bugs me. I called myself an agnostic for many years but I never held that knowledge of a deity was impossible, just that there was no evidence for it currently available. The Collins definition, like atheism, like theism, is making a large assertion about reality without any evidence.
Originally posted by Canute
Agnostic: A person who holds that knowledge of a supreme being is impossible.
Atheism: A rejection of belief in God or Gods. (from Greek 'atheos'- godless)
Originally posted by russ_watters
-One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
We seem to agree.Originally posted by radagast
Canute,
Read your own definitions: Agnostic is one that holds knowledge of a supreme being is impossible - this says nothing about their beliefs as to the existence of said being, only that certainty, via knowledge is impossible.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.Belief is acceptance with little or no evidence,
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes people just use it to mean indirect scientific knowledge and so forth.knowledge is certainty based on direct evidence.
Atheists believe that God does not exist. Full stop, end of story, and all dictionaries agree. What are you trying to say?Atheist may reject a belief, but that is hardly the holding of an opposite belief.
You shouldn't reject a belief on the basis of an assumption. It's bad philosophical practice. You don't reject the belief, you just don't hold it.I reject the belief that you wear womens underwear (because I'm assuming you're male and probably well adjusted).
You'll never make a tabloid journalist thinking like that.But I don't hold that you don't wear it, as a belief (for all I know you could be female). I don't hold either because I have little evidence to accept either position.
Theism, atheism and agnosticism make three. Belief in, belief in not and uncertainty. There's some muddle but this is the usual and most convenient way of using the words.As far as atheism and beliefs you're taking a tri-state condition (belief in, belief in not, and no belief) and trying to fit it into two states (belief in, belief in not). [/B]
But this is blatantly false. All dictionaries incorporate the idea of disbelief - or the LACK of belief.Atheists believe that God does not exist. Full stop, end of story, and all dictionaries agree. What are you trying to say?
Originally posted by Canute
Are you telling me that atheists claim that God might exist after all? I don't think many atheists here would agree. On the whole they claim he doesn't exist.
What is your term for someone who claims God does not exist?
Originally posted by radagast
But is that the only definition associated to atheism, by Penguin?
Most dictionaries will list that as one of it's meanings, given that it's a common usage. Most also list 'A disbelief in god or gods.' with disbelief meaning 'not having or holding a specific belief' or 'refusal or reluctance to believe'. Both definitions of disbelief say nothing about holding the opposite belief.
Firstly, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal
Secondly, logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals.
Im not sure that's completely right. In an everyday sense it seems to be what we find. But it's possible that the structure of reality slightly exceeds the logical bounds of any formally logical system used to think about it. This is what Goedel's incompleteness theorems suggest to some people.Originally posted by Sikz
Logical reasoning IS an absolute law which governs the universe- logicaly achieved conclusions that prove false are that way because of faulty axioms. We have no reason to assume logic itself is not an absolute law.
Rationalism is the belief that reason and logic should be the primary sources of knowledge and understanding. Atheism, on the other hand, is the lack of belief in a higher power or deity. While rationalism focuses on using reason to understand the world, atheism is a stance on the existence of a higher power.
Niels Bohr, a prominent scientist, viewed rationalism and atheism as two separate concepts. He believed in the power of reason and logic to understand the world, but also acknowledged the existence of a higher power that was beyond human comprehension.
Yes, it is possible for someone to hold both rationalist and atheist beliefs. Rationalism does not necessarily contradict the belief in a higher power, as it focuses on using reason and logic to understand the world rather than relying on faith or belief.
While Niels Bohr's scientific discoveries, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics, may have influenced his perspective on the world, there is no evidence to suggest that they directly influenced his views on rationalism and atheism. These were separate concepts that he held throughout his life.
Rationalism and atheism can impact scientific research by promoting a reliance on reason and logic rather than faith or belief. This can help to ensure that scientific findings are based on evidence and critical thinking, rather than personal biases or beliefs. Additionally, the lack of belief in a higher power may also lead to a more open-minded and objective approach to scientific research.