VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:53 am
VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:07 am
Atheism itself has no creed to speak of. It is simply a position which has the identifying statement "lacking belief in God(s)."
That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"
I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.
Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.
But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.
-- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.
I've found that agnostics generally know what they are, but Atheists don't always want to be known as Atheists.
And with good reason: Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism can at least be reasonable. The problem, though, for the Atheist, is that saying, "I'm agnostic" doesn't do much to convince anybody else, or even to assure oneself that one is right. So it makes the Atheist's position much weaker than many Atheists would like it to be.
As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods
still exist, but the speaker just "
lacks belief in them."
The way I am wording it comes from my experience with those calling themselves atheists as it is they who generally word it as such.
I agree that 'lacking belief in gods" allows for the possibility that gods exist, which is not how atheists I have engaged with present their philosophy - and since they do have philosophy, it cannot be simply a case of lacking belief in gods.
I'm not sure I see the logic of that last statement. How what does "have philosophy" mean? I know people who DO philosophy...and I have met those who have specific philosophies in mind. I've never met anybody who just "had philosophy," without further specification. It's a bit like saying somebody "has religion," without saying which one.
But I agree that the discourse of Atheism is very confusing. They sometimes talk as if they're only agnostics, and then other times, they want to self-present as Atheists. I think that's a function of the problem I've been pointing out: namely, that agnosticism is more intellectually honest but is weak as a statement, and Atheism is manifestly irrational and dishonest, but much more strong as a statement.
The problem for the Atheist, then, is how to get the strength of statement without exposing the irrationalism. And this is the way they tend to do it: they call themselves Atheists when they want to attack, but only defend as if they were only agnostics.
The truth is, they really need to sort themselves out. "Lacking belief" is only strong enough as a claim to warrant agnosticism. "I know there's no God" is the kind of attacking-claim the Atheists are keen to be able to make, though.
And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.
As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.
Okay. But then you're badly positioned to accuse somebody else of being, say, irrational, for believing in God. That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.
But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.
So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.
I would call that "turning a blind eye" but also note that this tactic is used by theists with strong unsupported beliefs, so wouldn't agree with any statement implying it is solely problematic for atheism.
I agree, actually: Theistic beliefs
can be held blindly. People sometimes do that. But Atheism
always is.
Can agnosticism be blind? Can we insist we don't know things, when we really do know them, or should know them, or have available all the good reasons to know them but refuse to know them? I suppose it can, too.
So maybe that's only a comment about the people, not the belief. I think agnosticism can be rational, just as Theism can be. I don't see how we can save Atheism, though.
Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.
I don't think the words themselves are weak re describing an actuality (such as you pointed out - it applies to Agnosticism) but it is inadequate as a stand alone definition of either Atheism and Agnosticism.
Yes, it needs more. And I think we can tell what it would be.
Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist." And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God." In both cases, it's the second clause that makes the ideological position clear; the first clause is identical, so doesn't tell us which we're dealing with.
I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.
We'd have to say it's the other way around, I would think. What seems clear from history and sociology is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt intuition about God; how else do we explain that 100% of societies, especially those that have never had contact with each other, have some sort of belief in God or gods? It's really the Atheism that is learned, not instinctive. We don't even find Atheism as a major ideology capable of influencing a whole society until pretty much the 18th Century, and even then, only in Europe.
Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess. But I think the general human pattern has been the opposite: intuitions, at least, of the existence of God occur very naturally and very early in many people; and it takes a later exercise of will for many of them to expunge such intuitions from their consciousness.
Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly. He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.
For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.
The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"? But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.