Agnosticism!

[Jessica M]

O.K so this post is essentially a bit of a rant. There's you're warning

I find it really irritating when people say they're agnostic or when people talk about agnosticism as a spirituality. It's just a phrase as far as I can tell.
Agnosticism is defined as not knowing if there is a god or deity or higher power etc. etc. The problem I have is that this is essentially Atheism.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, from a scientific viewpoint they are identical.
The default position in scientific logic is that if something is not known it can't be assumed to be true, it must be proved in theory or experimentally to be considered true. Since god has not been proven to exist it can't be assumed that it does, however it has not been proved that it doesn't so we can't assume that either. Therefore logically he may or may not exist, and I couldn't possibly put my faith in a being that cannot be said to exist with any certainty.
I dont believe in God, but if solid logical evidence were given to support it's existance then I would concede it's existance. This 'not  knowing' is agnosticism but this 'not believing' is atheism.
Thats why I consider them to be the same thing.
If you have any views on this at all or if you feel I have made no sense whatsoever feel free to post and let me know.

Thanks for struggling through my poor explanationand moaning 
Claire xoxo   

[tekla]

You'd be wrong.  There is a huge difference between saying there IS NO, and saying I DON'T KNOW (or can't know, or don't care to know).  The first become almost a belief in and of itself, the second, is a state of knowing/not knowing, rather than a belief system.

[Jessica M]

Personally I don't see atheism as a strictly THERE IS NO, thing, for me it is the belief that you can't say for certain without proof, and without proof I can't buy into it. So I don't believe in god, which by definition makes me an atheist, but at the same time if it were to beproved that there is a god I would believe. Agnosticism to me seems like a cop out, people who don't believe in god but don't want to be labled an atheist are agnostic. Maybe it is just that most people I know that call themselves agnostic display no spirituality or questioning of the whole concept, they only use the term to avoid conflict with pushy preachy people, (who annoy me so much more).

Claire xoxo

[spacial]

I make these points with respect.

Agnosticism is defined as not knowing if there is a god

No, Agnosticism is refusing to commit to one notion or another.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity,

No, atheism is the denial of a deity. Atheism is a belief in itself, though most athiests will try to deny that as well.

The default position in scientific logic is that if something is not known it can't be assumed to be true,

Possibly, but it also can't be assumed to be untrue.

Since god has not been proven to exist it can't be assumed that it does, however it has not been proved that it doesn't so we can't assume that either.

With respect, you are falling into the same trap as many so called scientists do, of attempting to use science on a subjective issue.

Science cannot prove, nor disprove the existance of love. Most of us have experienced it. Science can detect a number of phisical effects on people who claim to be experiencing love. But all of these can equally be explained by other means.

Love, like God, is subjective.

I dont believe in God, but if solid logical evidence were given to support it's existance then I would concede it's existance.

That is your choice. But all subjective issues are experienced. There can never be proof. I believe my wife loves me. I can cite many examples and reasons but each of these could be explained in other ways. At the end of the day, it is my belief and my experience of her love that exists.

[Jessica M]

With all due respect Spacial,

I do accept that interpretations of these beliefs or lack there of are all subjective and mine differs from yours in this instance.

"Possibly, but it also can't be assumed to be untrue." this statement was implied in my next sentance, sorry if that was unclear.

The existance of a god is not subjective, there either is or is not a god, that is an objective fact.
The belief in god however is entirely subjective, and in many ways the belief in a god is far more important than the existance of one. Whether or not people will be rewarded eternally for following certain rules or thinking a certain way is irrelavent if they believe that they will. As long as people believe these rules will condem or save them then they will follow those rules.

I think personally that atheism is a somewhat "taboo" topic to a lot of people, due in part to people like Richard Dawkins who are a kind of fanatic. I also find it completely inapropriate for creationists (which I'm not saying you are Spacial, I'm simply tieing it into my rant  ) to claim that they are concerned about the teaching of science, creationism is not in any way a scientific hypothesis therefor it is not a rival theory to that of evolution, it is just a story!
That last bit was completely off point but I felt the need to say it, anyway I will concede that my interpratation of the belief spectrum is different to others and that maybe it is not the most common view.

Claire xoxo

[tekla]

agnostic is directly from the Greek, where Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known.  Specifically, as first used by Huxley it's: not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Obviously, if you could demonstrate the proof of the conclusions, then the term no longer applies.

In that sense, it's hard to be a militant agnostic.  Atheist - a certain belief that there is no deity(s), and that comes from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without gods."

That is two very different deals going down, one a caution against belief in which no proof exists, the other a certain belief, a belief just as certain as those that do believe.

I guess you can define words to mean what ever you want in an Alice in Wonderland kind of way, but in the real world, definitions are pretty fixed in fact.  (And, in the real, real world of English, definitions are fixed in the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.)

That there is, or is not, some sort of diety is not objective, objectivity can only be seen in light of the proof that can be objective or not.  And, objectivity can take many forms.

Say we were having a debate about who was the world's greatest rock band.  I'm going to say, the Grateful Dead, my friend #1 says The Beatles, and friend #2 says Pink Floyd.  All of us can offer objective proof for our claim.  The Dead played more concerts and sold more tickets than any other band.  The Beatles sold more records overall (1.3 billion and counting), and Pink Floyd sold the most copies of a single record.  OK, so the Pink Floyd guy is out, as two records have sold more than DSofM, now we could argue that Thriller is not strictly a rock record (and I'd agree) but that still leaves AC/DC Back in Black having sold a few million more copies then DSotM.^*  Now you come along and say, I think it's really Smashing Pumpkins.  Based on what exactly?  Oh, because you think they are the best, but there is no objective way to measure that, they never performed as much, or sold as many tickets as the Dead, never outsold the Beatles, nor did they have a single release that outsold Back in Black.  So Smashing Pumpkins can only win on a subjective, and not an objective basis.

So while an objective basis can not settle the debate, it at least can frame it.  Subjective debate is never framed any further than the person's own thoughts.



* you can almost always win a free drink in a bar with this one, for some reason everyone assumes that DSotM is the largest, but the RIAA does not agree giving AC/DC the edge at 49 vs. 45 million. Thriller has done 110 million, (more that DSotM and Back in Black combined) and it's going to be mighty hard to top that.

[Jessica M]

I was using the term objective in the sense that a god must either exist or not exist, there is no other alternative or half measure. Whether or not we can prove this existance does not change the fact that the only two options are existant vs non-existant. Whereas subjective is more fluid, my clearest example would be in terms of exams. A maths question is objective, it is either correct or incorrect (method notwithstanding), there is 1 correct answer and all others are incorrect. However a question about shakespearean drama is subjective, it depends on the opinion of the person who is reading it, this makes subjective things much harder to quantify.
And the initially intended meaning of a word in the Oxford English Dictionary is very often not the same as the vernacular becomes over time. Terrorism/Terrorist being a prime example, terrorism is a military tactic used to instil fear or chaos in an enemy force or population, the London blitz or bombing of Dresden in the 2nd world war was as much an act of terrorism as the sept.11 attacks on the united states, in that the target of all of these was primarily a non military/civilian target and was chosen to demoralize and scare an enemy nation. Whereas the most common meaning of terrorism today is an act of aggression performed by an illicet organization for the purpose of idealogical or political intimidation and hatred. The end result of both is the same but the contexts are reffered to as if they are something seperate entirely.
My complaint was more about what I think the word has become than the Oxford definition.

Claire xoxo 

[Kay]

Hi Claire,
.
On Agnosticism and Spirituality:
Agnosticism is  admitting to yourself that the existence of a deity can neither be 100% proven, or 100% disproven.  Tekla said it pretty well with "do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
.
Spirituality,  however, does not have to concern itself with deities.  It can have to do with the self, with spirits, nature, or many other things.   It's kind of like being annoyed by vegetarians who drink milk and eat eggs.  Or with vegetarians who eat plants as well as "anything without knees" (fish, seafood...also called pesce-vegetarians).   There's a range involved..it's not so simple as is or is not.  Just as all vegetarians arent Vegans, all agnostics don't take their philosophy regarding dieties into all aspects of their life.
= = = = =
.
On Athiesm vs Agnosticism:
.
Athiesm is "a disbelief in the existence of a deity,"  (per Webster, sorry Tekla, I've never been much for Oxford.    )
Or more simply:  "I do not believe."  "It does not exist."  It's a statement of certainty.  It is the antithesis of religion and such beliefs.  Some athiests choose scientific theory as their new belief system.  Some with nearly religious fervor, and others with a healthy dose of skepticism.  Some athiests take  this to the nth degree.  Other's, like yourself, border more toward agnosticism....but aren't quite there...you're still an athiest...just not a "Vegan" athiest. 
.
Agnosticism is looking less for a winner of the argument, and more at the process itself.  Can it be known?  No.  It cannot be.  Unlike athiesm which is "I do not believe X"....agnosticsm is "I choose not to believe either X or Y."  "The continued argument is pointless, as it is unproveable."  A rabid agnostic would hold firm to the belief that the existence of a diety will never be proven, no matter the evidence.  Again, there is a range...from that extreme end...toward people who would readily examine new evidence. 
.
In short, there is great difference between agnosticism and athiesm: 
.
Athiests will say: "I know it is not so, because there is no proof."  "I will show you how the 'proof' presented is spurious."
.
Agnostics like myself will say:  "I know that we can not know, because neither side can prove their claims conclusively."  "I will show you  (in terms of our limitations, the foundational aspects of the argument, etc) why neither side can prove their claim."
.
= = =
.
Frankly, I've found that most religious people...while they don't like athiests...they have far more respect for them than they do for agnostics.  They often appear to think that agnostics are wishy-washy people who can't take a stand.  What they don't understand is that agnostics do take a stand...they take a 3rd option.  Generally those who are passionate about a belief (or dis-belief) of one extreme or the other (whether fanatical religious, or rabid athiesm), find it difficult to consider other options...especially if that option considers proof of the object of their passion to be an exercise in utter futility.


= = = = = = =

[tekla]

Not my quote, that's Huxley, who coined the term.  And I don't think anyone said anything about spirituality, its god/no god as far as this debate.  As as far as ODEL, that's standard grad school stuff, if you quote from that, no one can really argue - well, at least no one who knows better.

[Kay]

In regards to spirituality, I was just trying to address a comment from the original post:
.
"I find it really irritating when people say they're agnostic or when people talk about agnosticism as a spirituality. It's just a phrase as far as I can tell."
.
Though perhaps I was reading more subtlety into the comment than was intended.  *shrug*

[Cindy]

I'm not sure if my contribution is valid or not; but it has never stopped me in the past .
Definitions of belief are semantic and do not always aid in understanding problems. Dawkins argues that evolution, can and is totally provable; in which case there is no requirement for deities.  He also argues that religon and belief in deities is illogical and that the "holy" books are full of contradictions leading to the definition of deities that cannot exist under the logic that humans have used to create them.
I have to admit from a personal level that I think that Dawkins' logic is correct and can be worked with. However I do not feel any compulsion to "convert" religous people to my opinions, although they seem to have the desire to try to do that to me.

BTW I met and talked to Dawkins during the week, he is in Adealide for Writer's week as part of our Festival of Arts. I found him a very nice, thoughtful, polite and interesting man. He did not comment on my deep voice, he did not treat me as "odd" he appears to be a very intelligent and respectful person. He did tell me that his next book will be for children, explaining 'events' from a science point of view and how religon explains them. Sound interesting.

Cindy

[Jessica M]

Thanks everyone for your input, I will say that Kay probably summed it up the best with regards to the agnosticism/atheism. I know all the points were made previously but Kay's were to my mind the most concise.
I also want to say the OP was a rant spurred on by someone IRL who agreed with various peoples opposing ideologies on the subjects just to avoid confrontation, which irks me.
And to Cindy, I agree that Dawkins views on evolution are what I too believe but it is his attitude towards "preaching" these views in his books and television shows that I find counter-productive. I find that by entertaining creationist views in a scientific debate only serves to validate the view that it is a credible scientific theory, but on the other hand this debate about teaching it in American schools was never about education in the first place. It is too late now to dismiss it though because it has become a purely political issue, but that is another topic entirely and probably covered in many other posts.


Claire xoxo

[spacial]

Clair.

I understand your points. It's interesting to read another perspective.

To continue your offpoint in #4 however, I suggest to you that creationists are a political movement attempting specious biblical justifications.

I say this because they seem to spend most of their time pursuing a distinctly political agenda which is both very conservative and militaristic. The biblical justifications they cite are highly selective, rejecting numerous others which don't suit their agenda.

The Eden story was recognised as alegory as far back as the 1st century. While we must acknowledge that the reasoning wasn't scientific, it never-the-less demonstrates that Creationist have other agenda   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

It is sad that, for so many, these questionable people are seen as representing Christianity.

But then, no more sad that Dawkins, for all his supposed charm, is seen as representing aethism.

[Nathan.]

No, atheism is the denial of a deity. Atheism is a belief in itself, though most athiests will try to deny that as well.

Sorry but this is wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

I identify as an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god(s) but I accept that there is no way of knowing for sure.

[Celia]

I see myself as a nonatheistic theological noncognitivist or a nonatheistic ignostic.  Theological noncognitivists and ignostics are often seen (or sometimes identify) as atheists or agnostics.  I don't really fit into that.

I'm profoundly spiritual, with some arguably affirmative (and sometimes peculiarly zealous) views on God.  In an extremely broad sense, I suppose it could be argued that I'm monotheistic.  I don't think of assertions regarding the existence (or otherwise) of God as having meaning in any conventional sense, though, since I don't thing of God as an object with which we can properly associate a word (though we obviously do so improperly).

As far as I can see, agnosticism doesn't by any means preclude spirituality.

[spacial]

Sorry but this is wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

I understand that different dictionaries define it differently.

A lack of a belief will include those that have taken the conscious decision to abandon the notion and those that have never had it.

For the second group, such a label is irrelevant.

Take a hypothetical group, divided into two sub-sets. The first set believes in fairies, the second set doesn't. The set that does is called A the set that doesn't is called B

Someone who is not a member of that group might never have heard of fairies. They clearly lack a belief but only because they have never had the notion presented. Are they A or B?

If they are B, then that presupposes that, if they ever do hear of fairies, they won't believe in them. That presupposition is clearly a nonsense.

An atheist must be someone who has taken the position that they don't believe.  To include those that have never heard of a god, is the same presupposition.

Atheism, therefore, is a belief. A belief that there is no supreme being.