Just to clear this up: every intelligent atheist is an agnostic atheist. [Spirituality & Religion]
And anyone who calls themselves agnostic is actually also an agnostic atheist.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
room101 · 51-55, M
You've basically put forward a somewhat subjective opinion and presented it in a way which would appeal to any egotistical and/or narcissistic tendencies in agnostics (maybe in atheists as well) thereby guaranteeing agreement with your premise.
An agnostic is somebody who, by definition, does not know. Whilst probably the most celebrated philosopher (ie Socrates) is renowned for saying:
"I know one thing; that I know nothing",
it doesn't always follow that not knowing is a sign of intelligence.
You said to CopperCicada:
“Is a child raised in the woods by wolves making a truth claim about the existence of god? No, they simply lack belief.”
According to Richard Dawkins, we developed religion because we lacked the knowledge and sophistication to answer questions about nature and life in general. Bearing in mind that the child in your scenario is a human child and therefore has the same basic cognitive abilities that we all have, it must follow that he or she would be plagued with the same questions that our ancient ancestors were plagued with. Every single culture in human history developed belief systems to answer those questions. It must then follow that your hypothetical child would also develop his own belief system. Ergo, NO he or she would not lack belief.
An agnostic is somebody who, by definition, does not know. Whilst probably the most celebrated philosopher (ie Socrates) is renowned for saying:
"I know one thing; that I know nothing",
it doesn't always follow that not knowing is a sign of intelligence.
You said to CopperCicada:
“Is a child raised in the woods by wolves making a truth claim about the existence of god? No, they simply lack belief.”
According to Richard Dawkins, we developed religion because we lacked the knowledge and sophistication to answer questions about nature and life in general. Bearing in mind that the child in your scenario is a human child and therefore has the same basic cognitive abilities that we all have, it must follow that he or she would be plagued with the same questions that our ancient ancestors were plagued with. Every single culture in human history developed belief systems to answer those questions. It must then follow that your hypothetical child would also develop his own belief system. Ergo, NO he or she would not lack belief.
1-25 of 51
CopperCicada · M
@room101 Well, there is a turn in contemporary religious life to try to ground faith in science, which then pits religious narrative against science. So one gets into these endless grinds about natural selection and so on.
I'm a scientist and a contemplative, and have spent a lot of time pondering the interface of science and spirituality. Personally I find people who try to ground religion in science to be materialists.
I go back to the early Church fathers who very clearly state that one believes because it is absurd/impossible. That's code for it's trans-rational.
I'd rather see our pit-bull Celine debate the theists on these grounds. Your faith is grounded in the trans-rational-- so why are you making it rational with all your might?
I'm a scientist and a contemplative, and have spent a lot of time pondering the interface of science and spirituality. Personally I find people who try to ground religion in science to be materialists.
I go back to the early Church fathers who very clearly state that one believes because it is absurd/impossible. That's code for it's trans-rational.
I'd rather see our pit-bull Celine debate the theists on these grounds. Your faith is grounded in the trans-rational-- so why are you making it rational with all your might?
room101 · 51-55, M
@CopperCicada Isn’t this attempt to meld religion and science a rather American phenomenon?
I’m Greek. I live in the UK. I have extended family members who are Italian, the majority of whom live in Rome. I have friends and acquaintances from all over the world. I have lived and worked in various parts of Europe. I have lived and worked in Israel and other parts of the Middle East. I have lived and worked in Egypt and other parts of North Africa. I have travelled extensively. And, unless I’m talking to fundamentalists (be they theists or atheists), the one thing that I’ve heard over, and over, and over again is:
Science deals with the how. Faith deals with the why.
Although I am by no means an expert, I’ve yet to come across any scripture, from any of the more recognised religions, that purports to be scientific. So why this attempt to ground faith in science. That’s a rhetorical question by the way.
I’m afraid that I can’t agree with Tertullian’s assertion:
“credo quia absurdum est (I believe because it is absurd).”
To me, faith [b]IS[/b] rational. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy, if not then have a look. I think that you may find it interesting. It’s more commonly used in the argument for Intelligent Design (aka Teleological Arguments) which is more in-line with my views on reason and faith.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
I’m Greek. I live in the UK. I have extended family members who are Italian, the majority of whom live in Rome. I have friends and acquaintances from all over the world. I have lived and worked in various parts of Europe. I have lived and worked in Israel and other parts of the Middle East. I have lived and worked in Egypt and other parts of North Africa. I have travelled extensively. And, unless I’m talking to fundamentalists (be they theists or atheists), the one thing that I’ve heard over, and over, and over again is:
Science deals with the how. Faith deals with the why.
Although I am by no means an expert, I’ve yet to come across any scripture, from any of the more recognised religions, that purports to be scientific. So why this attempt to ground faith in science. That’s a rhetorical question by the way.
I’m afraid that I can’t agree with Tertullian’s assertion:
“credo quia absurdum est (I believe because it is absurd).”
To me, faith [b]IS[/b] rational. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy, if not then have a look. I think that you may find it interesting. It’s more commonly used in the argument for Intelligent Design (aka Teleological Arguments) which is more in-line with my views on reason and faith.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CopperCicada · M
@Celine Just not understanding why you are making this a binary logical problem.
Example.
I give you a list of animals. You can go through the list and ascertain if they exist or not. Horse-- yes. Rabbit-- yes. Unicorn-- no.
That is like the theist and atheist. They have taken the ontological truth statement "God exists" and have evaluated as true or false.
So now I tell you to go to a parallel universe with the same list of animals. But fuck. You can't go through the list. You can't get to the parallel universe to answer.
IMHO that's the true agnostic. They assert the statement "God exists" can neither be answered in the affirmative or negative.
Example.
I give you a list of animals. You can go through the list and ascertain if they exist or not. Horse-- yes. Rabbit-- yes. Unicorn-- no.
That is like the theist and atheist. They have taken the ontological truth statement "God exists" and have evaluated as true or false.
So now I tell you to go to a parallel universe with the same list of animals. But fuck. You can't go through the list. You can't get to the parallel universe to answer.
IMHO that's the true agnostic. They assert the statement "God exists" can neither be answered in the affirmative or negative.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
room101 · 51-55, M
@Celine Why are you asking a question which is not relevant to your original premise? Furthermore, why are you demanding a yes or no answer to a question whose inevitable answer is:
"It depends."
An atheist cannot possibly [b]know[/b] whether God exists or not. But he (or she) believes that God does not exist.
A theist cannot possibly [b]know[/b] whether God exists or not. But he (or she) believes that God does exist.
An agnostic cannot possibly [b]know[/b] whether God exists or not. But he (or she) may believe that it's [b]possible[/b] that God does exist. He (or she) may equally believe that it's [b]possible[/b] that God does not exist.
And those are just some of the more obvious permutations available.
"It depends."
An atheist cannot possibly [b]know[/b] whether God exists or not. But he (or she) believes that God does not exist.
A theist cannot possibly [b]know[/b] whether God exists or not. But he (or she) believes that God does exist.
An agnostic cannot possibly [b]know[/b] whether God exists or not. But he (or she) may believe that it's [b]possible[/b] that God does exist. He (or she) may equally believe that it's [b]possible[/b] that God does not exist.
And those are just some of the more obvious permutations available.
room101 · 51-55, M
@CopperCicada it isn't just bad science and/or fuzzy logic. It's non-logic!
CopperCicada · M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CopperCicada · M
@Celine You are making a category error.
Yes. In terms of hard definitions, there is no indeterminate state.
But we are not talking about definitions. We are talking about human subjective experience. That always has an indeterminate state.
As an example. Suppose we're talking about citrus fruit. We could make a definition that lemons are yellow and limes are green.
A few weeks ago my wife brought me this thing she picked off a tree. It was green. About as big as a lime. Cut it open. Tasted it. Didn't taste like a lime or a lemon. We were both left with: I dunno what that is.
It's the same with the existence of a deity. We're talking about a subjective experience, so there is a affirmative, a negative, and an indeterminate state-- which is agnosticism, which is not a negative state as it has not ascertained anything either way.
Yes. In terms of hard definitions, there is no indeterminate state.
But we are not talking about definitions. We are talking about human subjective experience. That always has an indeterminate state.
As an example. Suppose we're talking about citrus fruit. We could make a definition that lemons are yellow and limes are green.
A few weeks ago my wife brought me this thing she picked off a tree. It was green. About as big as a lime. Cut it open. Tasted it. Didn't taste like a lime or a lemon. We were both left with: I dunno what that is.
It's the same with the existence of a deity. We're talking about a subjective experience, so there is a affirmative, a negative, and an indeterminate state-- which is agnosticism, which is not a negative state as it has not ascertained anything either way.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CopperCicada · M
@Celine Well you said:
[quote]And anyone who calls themselves...[/quote]
I'm gonna stop you right there ma'am.
As soon as we're talking about individual subjects and how they identify themselves (i.e. calling themselves) then we're talking about subjective experiences.
[quote]And anyone who calls themselves...[/quote]
I'm gonna stop you right there ma'am.
As soon as we're talking about individual subjects and how they identify themselves (i.e. calling themselves) then we're talking about subjective experiences.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CopperCicada · M
@Celine Sure. If that suits you, go for it. I'm more into the epistemology so I go with the other definition.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CopperCicada · M
@Celine i'm more a "why" person.
room101 · 51-55, M
@Celine Before I tackle your reply to my questions and my assertion that your question, to me, cannot have a binary answer etc., let’s look at definitions. Because you want to talk in terms of definitions. Right?
[i]Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning 'knowledge')
Atheist (from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s))
[/i]
The Ancient Greeks, as with the Romans, put prefixes to certain words in order to give them a different meaning. For example, in Latin; [b]com[/b] meaning [b]with[/b], [b]passion[/b] meaning [b]to suffer[/b]. Put together, we have [b]compassion[/b] whose literal meaning is, [b]to suffer with[/b].
Similarly with atheos, we have without god. But does that mean someone who has turned his back on god? Does it mean someone on whom god has turned his back? No, it does not. Ancient Greek culture is littered with such characters, none of whom (not a single one) were called atheists. So what does the word mean? It means what everybody knows it means:
[i]someone who believes that God does not exist[/i]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
As for agnostic, the word means:
[i]someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists[/i]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agnostic
So, why is your question irrelevant to your original premise? Because your original statement ascribes a value judgement as to the intelligence of atheists, agnostics and agnostic atheists. It also has an inherent implication that theists are somehow less intelligent. That’s your premise. How is having a belief that god/gods exist relevant to that premise? You’re talking about relative levels of intelligence are you not? This is why I said, in my very first reply to you, that you are putting forward a subjective opinion.
As to the rest of your reply to me, with all due respect, I see no “bingo” in your reasoning. What I actually see is a contradiction. You seem to accept the permutations that I put forward (which are all congruent with the accepted definitions of the words atheist and agnostic) and then go to………….quite frankly, I’m not clear on where you go to from there.
Time and time again I hear atheists proclaim that they are not making any positive claims about the existence of God and that theirs is a lack of belief.
Balderdash!
Empirical methodology, which is what all atheists rely on, cannot examine (never mind determine) the existence of a metaphysical being. And yet atheists insist that this type of methodology is the be all and end all of all of life’s questions. Bottom line, they are making a “positive” claim that God does not exists. Without any empirical evidence that supports their claim. This is a belief. It’s not a lack of belief, it’s a belief that God does not exists.
Agnostics, simply put, are sitting on the fence of the theistic debate i.e. they can be swayed in either direction.
Which finally brings us to the agnostic atheist. On the face of it, this seems to be a more rational approach (is this why you consider it to be more intelligent?). However, what we actually have is a claim which is preceded by an “admission” of a lack of knowledge. Is that really what you consider to be a sign of intelligence?
[i]Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning 'knowledge')
Atheist (from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s))
[/i]
The Ancient Greeks, as with the Romans, put prefixes to certain words in order to give them a different meaning. For example, in Latin; [b]com[/b] meaning [b]with[/b], [b]passion[/b] meaning [b]to suffer[/b]. Put together, we have [b]compassion[/b] whose literal meaning is, [b]to suffer with[/b].
Similarly with atheos, we have without god. But does that mean someone who has turned his back on god? Does it mean someone on whom god has turned his back? No, it does not. Ancient Greek culture is littered with such characters, none of whom (not a single one) were called atheists. So what does the word mean? It means what everybody knows it means:
[i]someone who believes that God does not exist[/i]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
As for agnostic, the word means:
[i]someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists[/i]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agnostic
So, why is your question irrelevant to your original premise? Because your original statement ascribes a value judgement as to the intelligence of atheists, agnostics and agnostic atheists. It also has an inherent implication that theists are somehow less intelligent. That’s your premise. How is having a belief that god/gods exist relevant to that premise? You’re talking about relative levels of intelligence are you not? This is why I said, in my very first reply to you, that you are putting forward a subjective opinion.
As to the rest of your reply to me, with all due respect, I see no “bingo” in your reasoning. What I actually see is a contradiction. You seem to accept the permutations that I put forward (which are all congruent with the accepted definitions of the words atheist and agnostic) and then go to………….quite frankly, I’m not clear on where you go to from there.
Time and time again I hear atheists proclaim that they are not making any positive claims about the existence of God and that theirs is a lack of belief.
Balderdash!
Empirical methodology, which is what all atheists rely on, cannot examine (never mind determine) the existence of a metaphysical being. And yet atheists insist that this type of methodology is the be all and end all of all of life’s questions. Bottom line, they are making a “positive” claim that God does not exists. Without any empirical evidence that supports their claim. This is a belief. It’s not a lack of belief, it’s a belief that God does not exists.
Agnostics, simply put, are sitting on the fence of the theistic debate i.e. they can be swayed in either direction.
Which finally brings us to the agnostic atheist. On the face of it, this seems to be a more rational approach (is this why you consider it to be more intelligent?). However, what we actually have is a claim which is preceded by an “admission” of a lack of knowledge. Is that really what you consider to be a sign of intelligence?
1-25 of 51