Advertisement
For a while now, when someone asks what religion I am, I've been telling them that I am Agnostic in theory and Atheist in practice. In principle, I keep an open mind, and am willing to accept either idea, provided that sufficient evidence is presented, but that we can't really be totally sure one way or the other until compelling evidence is shown either for or against. However, since I have not seen evidence in favor of a god, and am not very confident that such evidence will ever be produced, and the universe seems to tick along happily with no obvious divine intervention, I am comfortable saying "there is no god", and operating on that assumption in my day to day life.
Weak Atheism is usually defined as a lack of belief in a god, and Strong Atheism is defined as a belief in a lack of gods, which seems like a pretty fine distinction to me, and Agnosticism is defined as not knowing whether or not a god exists. It seems to me that there is considerable overlap between Weak Atheism and Agnosticism. An Agnostic, if they believed that god does exist, could no longer hold the position that god's existance is unknown. A Weak Atheist, by not believing that any gods exist, but without coming out and saying "god does not exist", effectively takes the agnostic standpoint that god's existance is unknown. Strong Atheism falls into the trap of making a statement that is not based on evidence ("there is no god"), which is the same problem many Strong Atheists have with Theism. Then there's a lot of epistimology talk and 'a priori' this and that, and a good deal of confusion, but just between Weak Atheism and Agnosticism, what do people here see as the difference?
The only one I can immediately see is the "default" position; Atheism generally defaults to there being no god unless there's evidence for one, and Agnosticism defaults to god being, in effect, "undefined" unless there is evidence one way or the other. However, by taking a default view of no god, Atheism by that definition is Strong Atheism, leaving the question of Weak Atheism vs. Agnosticism unanswered. Comments anyone? My brain is going in circles...
Weak Atheism is usually defined as a lack of belief in a god, and Strong Atheism is defined as a belief in a lack of gods, which seems like a pretty fine distinction to me, and Agnosticism is defined as not knowing whether or not a god exists. It seems to me that there is considerable overlap between Weak Atheism and Agnosticism. An Agnostic, if they believed that god does exist, could no longer hold the position that god's existance is unknown. A Weak Atheist, by not believing that any gods exist, but without coming out and saying "god does not exist", effectively takes the agnostic standpoint that god's existance is unknown. Strong Atheism falls into the trap of making a statement that is not based on evidence ("there is no god"), which is the same problem many Strong Atheists have with Theism. Then there's a lot of epistimology talk and 'a priori' this and that, and a good deal of confusion, but just between Weak Atheism and Agnosticism, what do people here see as the difference?
The only one I can immediately see is the "default" position; Atheism generally defaults to there being no god unless there's evidence for one, and Agnosticism defaults to god being, in effect, "undefined" unless there is evidence one way or the other. However, by taking a default view of no god, Atheism by that definition is Strong Atheism, leaving the question of Weak Atheism vs. Agnosticism unanswered. Comments anyone? My brain is going in circles...
posted by:
|
Portland
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Sun, September 19, 2004 - 1:02 PM>Agnosticism is defined as not knowing whether or not a god exists
I think of Agnosticism not as not knowing but not having enough facts to make a decision. It may be semantics, but there is a difference in the philosophy. I have seen no real evidence of there being gods, and non for there not being gods. I simply have chosen to reserve judgment until a time when I will know for certain.
"Weak Atheism" from what you describe it differs in that they have taken the lack of evidence of god to be the truth. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Sun, September 19, 2004 - 5:06 PMHere's how I explain being an "agnostic" to other people when they ask me (since my husband goes to church and I don't, I do get asked occasionally). I tell them I'm afraid to say I'm an atheist in case I'm wrong and god smites me with a lightning bolt when I say it. (sure it's stupid, but they usually laugh and get off my case)
I guess I'm a weak agnostic, too . . . -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Mon, September 20, 2004 - 10:32 PMWhy do we still use the term (most likely created by Christians) "weak" athiest? Christian apologists love to use this to their advantage. Lets use the more proper term, implicit atheism.
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Mon, September 20, 2004 - 11:27 PM<<"Weak Atheism" from what you describe it differs in that they have taken the lack of evidence of god to be the truth.>>
But, if a Weak Atheist takes the position that there must not be a god since all the evidence they have seen for a god is incorrect or insufficient, aren't they de facto taking the position of a Strong Athiest who says there is no god?
I agree that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", so a person would be logically incorrect in stating that there is no god simply because no evidence has been presented that shows that god exists. But then it gets back to epistimology; which is the position that bears the burden of proof: that there is a god, or that there is not one? Agnostics are on safe ground here, but it seems that Atheists of any stripe may be on thin ice...
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Tue, September 21, 2004 - 2:47 AMThis is from www.godlesshouston.com/
I like the terms "Active" and "Passive" Atheism better than "strong" and "weak" Atheism.
"Active" as opposed to "Passive" Atheism
There are actually two ways in which the term 'Atheism' can be used, and the differentiation can be frustrating.
'Passive' Atheists are those who have no god-belief but feel no need to say so out loud or to hold any particular views on the subject. While they are undoubtedly Atheists, many (if not most) reject the term out of fear of public reprisal or a simple lack of need for it. In areas where Atheism is the norm and religious fundamentalism is a minor issue, the word may be unheard-of as it simply needs not be used to differentiate non-believers from their neighbors.
'Active' Atheists are those who openly acknowledge their lack of religion and may even be actively 'anti-religious.' They hold definite views on religion and their reasons for rejecting it, and may participate in Atheist organizations or campaigns. These Atheists generally feel a great need to differentiate themselves from their religious neighbors out of frustration at being badly outnumbered, thus the need for the word itself.
'Active' Atheists can go so far as to hold their lack of belief to be a belief itself, and some can be just as dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist. Atheists are often accused of this by the religious community, who fail to understand that the active Atheist's position is political, not religious.
"Agnostic"
The term 'Agnostic' is one of the most misused words in the area of religion and politics. Whereas 'Atheist' means not-believing, 'Agnostic' means not-knowing. (One can be a 'political Agnostic,' for example, or a 'sports trivia Agnostic.') Unfortunately, the word 'Agnostic' is most widely used by people who claim to have made no decision as to whether they are religious believers or not. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Wed, September 22, 2004 - 4:34 PMI think most people who are agnostic or implicit/weak atheists are better termed infidels to all worldly religions. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Thu, September 23, 2004 - 3:37 PMSo lets start an infidel tribe! -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Thu, September 23, 2004 - 4:52 PM -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Fri, October 29, 2004 - 12:40 PM"weak atheists" and to some extent, agnostics, are atheists who haven't thought enough about who bears the burden of proof on the issue of the existence of god (as defined by most religions).
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Fri, October 29, 2004 - 1:47 PM> "weak atheists" and to some extent, agnostics, are atheists who
> haven't thought enough about who bears the burden of proof on
> the issue of the existence of god (as defined by most religions).
hm. it seems to me that to raise the issue of 'burden of proof' is to place the dichotomy of the spiritual view vs. the scientific view within the context of the scientific, akin to a religious person calling a scientist's 'faith' into question.
that, to me, really highlights the difference between an atheist and an agnostic -- dogmatism vs. empiricism. to an agnostic, 'god' is just a word that has not been defined. the atheist, on the other hand, has internalized some concept of 'god', associated with patriarchy or authority or whatnot, and then rejected it in defiance.
as for 'weak' atheism? just sounds like semantics to me. shades of certainty, a bridge between broad and narrow mindedness. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Fri, October 29, 2004 - 1:55 PMCan you elaborate on the first paragraph? I don't understand it.
The word "God" is defined by people making religious claims. When a Christian or a religious Jew or a Muslim makes a religious claim, the burden of proof is on them to offer evidence.
In every other part of human life, we expect people to back up claims with some sort of evidence. I don't see why one has to make an exception for religious people.
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Fri, October 29, 2004 - 2:10 PM> The word "God" is defined by people making religious claims. When
> a Christian or a religious Jew or a Muslim makes a religious claim,
> the burden of proof is on them to offer evidence.
'proof' is something that scientists value, not mystics. an agnostic is ultimately neither scientific nor mystic, but empirical in their approach to determining truth. spirituality is subjective. by stating that anyone who is not an atheist is somehow falling short of their duty to consider objective evidence, you are placing your own personal values above the subjective experiences of others. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Fri, October 29, 2004 - 2:26 PMIt is not a "personal value" of mine to require evidence when people ask me to believe factual claims. If someone says to you: don't eat that, it will turn you into a cat you will either just dismiss the claim or will ask for some sort of proof. That doesn't make you a scientist of a mystic: it makes you a reasonable person.
By the way, you have no "duty" to ask for proof. I'm sure you can argue with someone about it, just not with me, since I agree. My point isn't that you are compelled, but that you are entitled, as a reasonable person, to ask for evidence when people ask you to believe factual claims.
As for the "subjective experiences of others": religious people don't look at their religious views as subjective. For the most part, Christians really believe that Christ was an incarnation of God on earth and rose from the dead, etc. That is a factual matter to them and they would like it go be a factual matter for you (at least if they are of the Evangelical variety of Christian).
To the extent someone makes claims about factual matters, you can reasonably ask for evidence. Not receiving such evidence, you can refuse to believe. You need not go the step further and tell the person their claim is false -- you just don't have to believe it. My guess is that some would call that an agnostic position. I think it is also fairly characterizeable as an atheist position. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Fri, October 29, 2004 - 2:56 PMin my view, a reasonable person is one who embraces all aspects of their life experience in an effort to understand it. i see two major aspects of this experience. the subjective (internal) and objective (external). science has all but proven that consciousness and reality are related and thus brought the very cornerstone of its own legitimacy, objectivity, into question. i do not believe in any 'fact' other than the evidence of my experience, which changes according to my perception of it.
science and religion are merely mutually exclusive worldviews which glorify the extreme manifestation of either knowledge quest (internal or external); they seek to impose their own particular perspective upon the world as the only 'reasonable' one.
i think youre right, religionists do not consider their views subjective, but neither do atheists. granted, the reasons are different, perhaps even opposite, but the application is the same, and that is why both are fundamentally flawed. only the agnostic recognizes the universal limitation of subjectivity.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Mon, November 1, 2004 - 9:40 AMAgnosticism is a position of uncertainty (I don't or can't know god exists.) and it can be futher broken down into those who are seekers and still care about the question and those who find the question of god's existence is not meaningful.
An athiest soft or hard as reached a certainty concerning the matter (There is no god.) and a hard athiest cares about the question as much as a theist does.
The soft atheist shares the disinterested agnostic's apathy concerning the question.
Like any human endevor most people bounce around these poles except for the occasional zealot who is bound and determined to convert the world.
Actually I find that if you really look at what they are saying, many atheists and theists agree on most major points on god. Its agnostics that are the loose cannons. ;)
Personally I feel that since no other being or non being has ever needed my belief or been adversely affected by my disbelief, existencial questions of this kind are just silly sophestry.
Still I must admit that its not too hard to notice there isn't any god locally because I'm sure if he was here he'd smack some sense into the religious right.
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Thu, November 11, 2004 - 1:32 PMThe argument I make in my book is that Atheism is structured more like a faith than a scientific conclusion. There is no such thing as "weak atheism" because Atheism is based on the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY there is no God. Of course, in order to have that certainty, you must therefore know what God WOULD BE - how He/She/It WOULD manifest - if God were to exist. Otherwise, how can you look around and say "see? There's no God here!"
The basic tenet of Atheism is "I know for a fact there is no God" - which is similar to saying "I have FAITH in the idea there is no God."
Catholicism condemns all other faiths. Atheism is structured this way - basically saying (like Catholics) "my way is the ONLY right way." But Atheism takes it a step further by then (with perfect hypocrisy) turning around and, in essence, saying: "I have faith that all those who have faith in the existence of God are wrong, and that all those who have faith in that-which-we-cannot-measure-by-our-imperfect-human-means are also wrong."
www.fallingskyhazard.com/catalog.htm
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Thu, November 11, 2004 - 2:40 PMI think the argument for absolute certainty is neither necessary nor will it hold under scrutiny.
Atheism merely requires sufficient certainty. More than that is the realm of the religous zealot be they theists or atheists.
Nor do I think atheists need worry about the details of composition or manifestation. The theist brings the details of god to the table and the atheist merely fails to find and representitive of the theist's claims. The atheist is not being unreasonable in not finding what the theist claims there is if it is in fact not present.
It is the further claim of the impossibility of god which is problamatic. What is funny is that many theists agree, they just draw the opposite conclution from it.
It is the agnostic who takes issue with sweeping statements of certain knowledge about beings which are not present. Creating a concept like god and then assigning it attributes and arguing willy nilly over its existence or non existence is sophestry at its worst.
If a real god(s) exists surely it well let you know in no uncertain terms if you really need to know, but creating and defending mere concepts of god is just silly.
-
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Thu, November 11, 2004 - 1:55 PMI'm a simple guy who enjoys simple pleasures, such as looking up "agnostic" in a typical US college kid dictionary such as m-w.com:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Other dictionaries I've read over the years have often eched the first part of this definition, the rebuking of the notion of an "absolute reality." This rebuking has often been attractive to me, but was probably most so between the ages of 12 and 15, when I first began to reject Roman Catholicism, the teachings of CCD classes, etc.
I finally have trouble accepting the notion that all things are explained or can be, with absolute certainty, explainable. Maybe this makes me an agnostic, or something stranger, I don't know. When people ask me about my religious beliefs I say agnostic because no other concept seems more fitting. I don't think I'm an "apathetic agnostic," as Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Tajiquan and Qigong remain interesting to me...the idea of a universe, the cosmos, different dimensions, all of that is interesting, but I don't feel like I can tell someone that I believe the world is totally one way or the other & expect to be taken seriously. -
-
Re: Agnosticism vs. Weak Atheism
Thu, November 11, 2004 - 5:04 PMWow, thanks for using my terminology. :)
The apathy in apathetic agnosic is soly concerning the question of god's existence and the importance people put around it.
Getting off that ride generally gives one more energy to put into more interesting pursuits, such as the one's you mention.
-
