Uh, I don't think that's a true agnostic agreeing that gods don't exist. More true (to the interpretation I've observed):
Kid: "Are you certain there is no god?"
Agnostic: "There's not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that there is a god, so no. My life is full of uncertainties that I appear to accept for pragmatic reasons."
Atheist: "There's not enough evidence to reject the (simpler) null hypothesis that there is no god, and I can use argumentum ad ignorantiam to conclude that null hypothesis must be true! So yes."
A fairer characterisation of the atheist view (the weak view, which I hear more atheists espousing) would go:
Kid: "Are you certain there is no god?"
Atheist: "No. It's not possible to be certain that gods don't exist, just like it's not possible to be certain that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist. But I don't believe that those things exist because of the lack of evidence for them. I will live my life as though they don't exist, until evidence for them is forthcoming."
I used to think that atheists were certain there's no god, until I listened to some, and eventually became one.
In fairness, I have met exactly one atheist who claims to be certain there are no gods. I will probably end up asking her what her evidence is. That's not a view I'd espouse.
I enjoyed the strip, but I anticipated that someone like Dean would post with what he had to say.
I agree with your response, Daniel. It's always so tough to explain that disbelieve = "does not believe" or "lacks belief", not "believe there's not." Or maybe people get caught up on that…I mean, "I don't believe there are gods," or "I don't believe gods exist" is clearly different than saying "I believe there are no gods" or "I believe gods don't exist" (placement of modifiers is crucial: does "I nearly failed all my classes" mean the same thing as "I failed nearly all my classes"?).
And the clincher…none of the former phrases is the same thing as, "I'm certain there is no god" or "I know there is no god." So even if someone is a strong atheist, that doesn't necessarily mean they are not agnostic. Beliefs do not require knowledge, and lacks of belief certainly do not.
It's true that there are different definitions of 'atheist' and 'agnostic' floating around. That's to be expected in a natural language, with all its imprecision. And I really do think it's futile to try and give one definition a 'nudge' — everyone will use language as they will.
But if there's more than one definition for a term that describes the beliefs of a group of people, shouldn't it count for something if one of the definitions matches the beliefs of the people themselves?
Yeah, can't help wading into this one. I would have thought "agnosticism" was the more common position amongst skeptics and doubters. But don't forget, the meaning of the word has changed over time, and it was coined in the Victorian era, significantly at a time when there was a major crisis of religious belief, that had erupted with the development of Victorian science, Darwinism and Lyell's ideas. Furthermore, the word “agnosticism” was coined by Huxley in 1869 originally as a name for a method in scientific discipline, that confined knowledge to the world of material phenomena: that there could be no compulsion to believe anything without adequate proof. You can see how this manner of approaching religious belief both reflected the crisis in Victorian England and also heralded an emerging focus on science and its limitations in the realm of religious belief. For the Victorians "agnosticism" later became a position midway between belief and disbelief; a statement of skepticism that establishes a context for religious doubt. This is the sense that has carried through to our times. I have no real concerns with it, as I frankly do not believe humanity will ever prove the existence of God by scientific means -which is not to say that God exists independently, or in spite of science. Phew, now I'll get off the soap box…..
My problem, JEV, is that the Victorian change doesn't make sense.
What is the middle position between belief and disbelief? What is the middle position between believe and does not believe? or belief and lack of belief? Between A and not-A?
I think people often try to compare two believes. They try to compare "believe there is" vs. "believe there's not"…and then they say they believe neither. That's ok, I can deal with that. I am not a positive/strong atheist either. But if you don't believe there is, then when someone asks you, say "no, I don't believe there is," and go on with life.
Andrew, yeah, I see your point. But the religious crisis in Victorian England was pretty intense if you read up on it. Religious crisis brought about by science = new term "agnosticism" putting religion to scientific proof for the first time = (inevitable) doubt through lack of scientific proof. Which is still pretty much the mainstream position today….
Doubt, yeah, I can totally understand that. Uncertainty? Lack of knowledge? These things are things I can recognize as deserving of the name "agnostic".
But these things don't answer the belief question. To that, we have atheism and theism. To Believe or not to believe.
Whatever people try to argue, particularly those with one-eyed dogmatic religious views, "Belief" comes from some part of the human brain (creative, right brain??) that has nothing to do with science or proof. The most interesting part of the God question for humans is how and why "Belief" in one form or another has persisted across time and cultures. And becomes a question for social anthropologists, really…
Maybe we mean something different by "belief," "science," and "proof," but I don't think that belief necessarily is completely disconnected from those things. After all, science has its own set of beliefs. Standards of proof are based on beliefs. Everything has an underlying belief framework. With more data (which we will filter through our own belief frameworks), we can construe the same information as being 'proof' for very different conclusions.
Now, as per the particular belief we call 'theism' or 'religious belief,' I agree that it would be interesting to see something more on how that has developed — and persisted — for so long. How does 'faith' truly work? Etc.,
Andrew, yeah I agree. I'm interested in these questions too, but don't have a proper understanding yet. I've read a little in social anthropology and a little in neuropsychology on belief. Plenty of time to consider these issues further…
Apple's dictionary (New Oxford American apparently) has atheism as "belief that God does not exist", and belief as "an acceptance that a statement is true". This would tend to support my interpretation that atheism = certainty no God exists. However, my 1979 OED would tend to support your semantics.
If you choose to call yourself a follower of something ending in –ism, don't have a hissy fit if someone looks it up in a dictionary and gets the wrong idea.
After all, I could start teaching foreign students that "atheism" means "a fervent belief in the certain existence of God". If it caught on enough, the whole debate is moot (presuming we follow Daniel in shunning linguistic prescriptivism).
It doesn't take long to find out where someone who labels themself as an atheist or agnostic stands (and in my experience most are moderate).
Good that Daniel surveyed the definitions. I think semantics are pretty important.
I can't access your dictionary, but usually when I get dictionary definitions, I find out very quickly the bias of an individual by the definitions they leave out.
From American Heritage, let's look at the two definitions:
1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Dictionary.com's Random House definitions?
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Always, two definitions…one with a belief or doctrine…and a second with a disbelief or denial.
What does it mean to disbelieve? From Random House:
1.to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings. –verb (used without object) 2.to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
Interesting. To have no belief in.
So, it seems first of all that atheism can be a lack of belief in deities (which makes sense…if you ask someone "Do you believe in deities?" and they say no, they should be considered an atheist. You should not have to ask the follow up question, "Do you believe there are no deities?" While this is good for determining positive/strong atheists as opposed to negative weak atheists, it does not determine atheist from theist as the former question does.
The second issue, however, is with certainty. Nowhere in your definitions or mine is certainty mentioned (I assume you're using certainty in the sense of knowledge or perception of knowledge.)
My issue is this…atheism has simple common sense uses. It makes SENSE that if you ask someone, "Do you believe in God" and they say "No, I don't" or if you ask someone, "Do you believe there is a god/there are gods?" and they say, "No, I don't," that they should be atheist. We don't go and ask, "Well, do you believe there are no gods?" Because this, while it provides additional details, is nonessential.
Belief vs. disbelief is an easy dichotomy that captures theism vs. atheism. "Believe there is" vs. "believe there isn't" misses the point and has a false third option (disbelieve) that already is captured by atheism quite nicely.
I have no problem with self-proclaimed agnostics who recognize that they disbelieve/do not believe. I put them in the atheist category and go on my way. but when people suggest that, somehow, they can neither believe NOR disbelieve, then I'm certain that something has gone terribly wrong. How can one neither A nor not-A?
I'm familiar with the various definitions floating around, but when it comes down to how regular folk pick their labels, my impression is that agnostics tend to be of the opinion that you cannot address the question of God's existence with the scientific method because it is not a scientific question (the whole non-overlapping magisteria bit) whereas atheists say that if God has some method of acting within the natural world, we should be able to have some kind of material way of observing and testing the evidence for God. So while both agnostics and atheists may believe we cannot be certain, agnostics say we cannot even address the question.
This debate is alot more complicated that we can sum up here – even though I like the semantic angle. For more on Huxley's coining of the term "agnosticism", start with this link even though there would be better sources. Huxley was a very smart man and to discuss his arguments on a blog is not easy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism
@Andrew: when you use an –ism, there are going to be multiple interpretations, none are intrinsically correct. I hope your comment that you "find out very quickly the bias of an individual by the definitions they leave out" wasn't suggesting you'd determined my biases in that manner, since I cited evidence for your definition, too (your additional references are redundant if you're trying to convince me that lots of people agree). FYI, the entry I gave for atheism is the only one in that dictionary. Daniel has a mac, ask him if you don't believe me.
What I did provide was a counterexample to your continued assertion that atheism only implies "no belief in existence of God" as opposed to the stronger "belief in the nonexistence of God". Some people (and dictionaries) might take it to mean the only the latter, so be aware of that.
In regards to 'certainty', I equate "certain" with "an acceptance that a statement is true", which was the definition I quoted. In regards to "proof", nothing I consider proveable relies on 'belief'. Same with what I "accept as true".
Ugh, semantics. So moot.
@JEV: wasn't referring to you at all (the person lookings things up in dictionaries was hypothetical), but it looks like you worked that out.
Notwithstanding semantic slipperiness, you guys at least need to fix your own meanings for the sake of your various arguments or your arguments will never get out of the starting gate….
What I did provide was a counterexample to your continued assertion that atheism only implies "no belief in existence of God" as opposed to the stronger "belief in the nonexistence of God". Some people (and dictionaries) might take it to mean the only the latter, so be aware of that.
It's possible that Apple is defective 😉 (just kidding). I see your point. However, what I'd argue is that the rigidity of one definition and of popular use can be argued against and contested. In my case, I can still raise a different dictionary and say that the common thread of both definitions — that captures every atheist — is the "no belief in the existence of god" part. It's easy to account for those who have a replacement belief — the "belief in the nonexistence of god" as being those who start with a lack of belief in the existence of gods, but who have a belief instead: belief in nonexistence of gods. Then, the only case is to find out whether one can be considered an atheist without such a belief.
I certainly am careful of people who take atheist to only mean the latter definition. I just try to point out our common questions don't really work with that. (We ask: Do you believe in god?/Do you believe god exists? A no answer is atheistic. We don't ask: Do you believe god doesn't exist, where only a yes answer is atheistic.)
In regards to 'certainty', I equate "certain" with "an acceptance that a statement is true", which was the definition I quoted.
Seems kinda strange. You can accept that a statement is true (e.g., "believe") while also having doubts about that belief. So it seems strange to use certainty with "an acceptance a statement as true," when many people can believe with doubt (which seems uncertain).
I agree with JEV on the semantic issue. So much for communication.
25 February 2010 at 8:02 am
Uh, I don't think that's a true agnostic agreeing that gods don't exist. More true (to the interpretation I've observed):
Kid: "Are you certain there is no god?"
Agnostic: "There's not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that there is a god, so no. My life is full of uncertainties that I appear to accept for pragmatic reasons."
Atheist: "There's not enough evidence to reject the (simpler) null hypothesis that there is no god, and I can use argumentum ad ignorantiam to conclude that null hypothesis must be true! So yes."
25 February 2010 at 11:15 am
A fairer characterisation of the atheist view (the weak view, which I hear more atheists espousing) would go:
Kid: "Are you certain there is no god?"
Atheist: "No. It's not possible to be certain that gods don't exist, just like it's not possible to be certain that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist. But I don't believe that those things exist because of the lack of evidence for them. I will live my life as though they don't exist, until evidence for them is forthcoming."
I used to think that atheists were certain there's no god, until I listened to some, and eventually became one.
In fairness, I have met exactly one atheist who claims to be certain there are no gods. I will probably end up asking her what her evidence is. That's not a view I'd espouse.
25 February 2010 at 12:46 pm
I enjoyed the strip, but I anticipated that someone like Dean would post with what he had to say.
I agree with your response, Daniel. It's always so tough to explain that disbelieve = "does not believe" or "lacks belief", not "believe there's not." Or maybe people get caught up on that…I mean, "I don't believe there are gods," or "I don't believe gods exist" is clearly different than saying "I believe there are no gods" or "I believe gods don't exist" (placement of modifiers is crucial: does "I nearly failed all my classes" mean the same thing as "I failed nearly all my classes"?).
And the clincher…none of the former phrases is the same thing as, "I'm certain there is no god" or "I know there is no god." So even if someone is a strong atheist, that doesn't necessarily mean they are not agnostic. Beliefs do not require knowledge, and lacks of belief certainly do not.
25 February 2010 at 1:09 pm
Well said.
It's true that there are different definitions of 'atheist' and 'agnostic' floating around. That's to be expected in a natural language, with all its imprecision. And I really do think it's futile to try and give one definition a 'nudge' — everyone will use language as they will.
But if there's more than one definition for a term that describes the beliefs of a group of people, shouldn't it count for something if one of the definitions matches the beliefs of the people themselves?
25 February 2010 at 1:21 pm
Yeah, can't help wading into this one. I would have thought "agnosticism" was the more common position amongst skeptics and doubters. But don't forget, the meaning of the word has changed over time, and it was coined in the Victorian era, significantly at a time when there was a major crisis of religious belief, that had erupted with the development of Victorian science, Darwinism and Lyell's ideas. Furthermore, the word “agnosticism” was coined by Huxley in 1869 originally as a name for a method in scientific discipline, that confined knowledge to the world of material phenomena: that there could be no compulsion to believe anything without adequate proof. You can see how this manner of approaching religious belief both reflected the crisis in Victorian England and also heralded an emerging focus on science and its limitations in the realm of religious belief. For the Victorians "agnosticism" later became a position midway between belief and disbelief; a statement of skepticism that establishes a context for religious doubt. This is the sense that has carried through to our times. I have no real concerns with it, as I frankly do not believe humanity will ever prove the existence of God by scientific means -which is not to say that God exists independently, or in spite of science. Phew, now I'll get off the soap box…..
25 February 2010 at 1:33 pm
My problem, JEV, is that the Victorian change doesn't make sense.
What is the middle position between belief and disbelief? What is the middle position between believe and does not believe? or belief and lack of belief? Between A and not-A?
I think people often try to compare two believes. They try to compare "believe there is" vs. "believe there's not"…and then they say they believe neither. That's ok, I can deal with that. I am not a positive/strong atheist either. But if you don't believe there is, then when someone asks you, say "no, I don't believe there is," and go on with life.
25 February 2010 at 1:55 pm
Andrew, yeah, I see your point. But the religious crisis in Victorian England was pretty intense if you read up on it. Religious crisis brought about by science = new term "agnosticism" putting religion to scientific proof for the first time = (inevitable) doubt through lack of scientific proof. Which is still pretty much the mainstream position today….
25 February 2010 at 1:57 pm
I just think it clouds things up.
Doubt, yeah, I can totally understand that. Uncertainty? Lack of knowledge? These things are things I can recognize as deserving of the name "agnostic".
But these things don't answer the belief question. To that, we have atheism and theism. To Believe or not to believe.
25 February 2010 at 2:10 pm
Whatever people try to argue, particularly those with one-eyed dogmatic religious views, "Belief" comes from some part of the human brain (creative, right brain??) that has nothing to do with science or proof. The most interesting part of the God question for humans is how and why "Belief" in one form or another has persisted across time and cultures. And becomes a question for social anthropologists, really…
25 February 2010 at 2:47 pm
Maybe we mean something different by "belief," "science," and "proof," but I don't think that belief necessarily is completely disconnected from those things. After all, science has its own set of beliefs. Standards of proof are based on beliefs. Everything has an underlying belief framework. With more data (which we will filter through our own belief frameworks), we can construe the same information as being 'proof' for very different conclusions.
Now, as per the particular belief we call 'theism' or 'religious belief,' I agree that it would be interesting to see something more on how that has developed — and persisted — for so long. How does 'faith' truly work? Etc.,
25 February 2010 at 3:16 pm
Andrew, yeah I agree. I'm interested in these questions too, but don't have a proper understanding yet. I've read a little in social anthropology and a little in neuropsychology on belief. Plenty of time to consider these issues further…
25 February 2010 at 3:43 pm
@Andrew: you're ultimately arguing semantics there. Daniel's surveyed the definitions before.
Apple's dictionary (New Oxford American apparently) has atheism as "belief that God does not exist", and belief as "an acceptance that a statement is true". This would tend to support my interpretation that atheism = certainty no God exists. However, my 1979 OED would tend to support your semantics.
If you choose to call yourself a follower of something ending in –ism, don't have a hissy fit if someone looks it up in a dictionary and gets the wrong idea.
After all, I could start teaching foreign students that "atheism" means "a fervent belief in the certain existence of God". If it caught on enough, the whole debate is moot (presuming we follow Daniel in shunning linguistic prescriptivism).
It doesn't take long to find out where someone who labels themself as an atheist or agnostic stands (and in my experience most are moderate).
25 February 2010 at 3:59 pm
Actually I didn't look it up in a dictionary; I studied it. There's no reason to get "hissy" in an open debate, Dean. Get a life … I'm out of here…
25 February 2010 at 4:33 pm
Dean,
Good that Daniel surveyed the definitions. I think semantics are pretty important.
I can't access your dictionary, but usually when I get dictionary definitions, I find out very quickly the bias of an individual by the definitions they leave out.
From American Heritage, let's look at the two definitions:
1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Dictionary.com's Random House definitions?
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Always, two definitions…one with a belief or doctrine…and a second with a disbelief or denial.
What does it mean to disbelieve? From Random House:
1.to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
–verb (used without object)
2.to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
Interesting. To have no belief in.
So, it seems first of all that atheism can be a lack of belief in deities (which makes sense…if you ask someone "Do you believe in deities?" and they say no, they should be considered an atheist. You should not have to ask the follow up question, "Do you believe there are no deities?" While this is good for determining positive/strong atheists as opposed to negative weak atheists, it does not determine atheist from theist as the former question does.
The second issue, however, is with certainty. Nowhere in your definitions or mine is certainty mentioned (I assume you're using certainty in the sense of knowledge or perception of knowledge.)
My issue is this…atheism has simple common sense uses. It makes SENSE that if you ask someone, "Do you believe in God" and they say "No, I don't" or if you ask someone, "Do you believe there is a god/there are gods?" and they say, "No, I don't," that they should be atheist. We don't go and ask, "Well, do you believe there are no gods?" Because this, while it provides additional details, is nonessential.
Belief vs. disbelief is an easy dichotomy that captures theism vs. atheism. "Believe there is" vs. "believe there isn't" misses the point and has a false third option (disbelieve) that already is captured by atheism quite nicely.
I have no problem with self-proclaimed agnostics who recognize that they disbelieve/do not believe. I put them in the atheist category and go on my way. but when people suggest that, somehow, they can neither believe NOR disbelieve, then I'm certain that something has gone terribly wrong. How can one neither A nor not-A?
26 February 2010 at 12:04 am
No (belief in X)
looks a lot like
belief in (no X)
to the untrained eye.
I think that's the difference between the two dictionary definitions we usually see. I find first justifiable, but not the second.
26 February 2010 at 12:16 am
I'm familiar with the various definitions floating around, but when it comes down to how regular folk pick their labels, my impression is that agnostics tend to be of the opinion that you cannot address the question of God's existence with the scientific method because it is not a scientific question (the whole non-overlapping magisteria bit) whereas atheists say that if God has some method of acting within the natural world, we should be able to have some kind of material way of observing and testing the evidence for God. So while both agnostics and atheists may believe we cannot be certain, agnostics say we cannot even address the question.
26 February 2010 at 1:45 am
Yeah sorry Dean, thought you were having a go at me (which you probably were), but then again, it was midnight here. Touche.
26 February 2010 at 2:43 am
This is truly my last comment…
This debate is alot more complicated that we can sum up here – even though I like the semantic angle. For more on Huxley's coining of the term "agnosticism", start with this link even though there would be better sources. Huxley was a very smart man and to discuss his arguments on a blog is not easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism
26 February 2010 at 4:27 am
@Andrew: when you use an –ism, there are going to be multiple interpretations, none are intrinsically correct. I hope your comment that you "find out very quickly the bias of an individual by the definitions they leave out" wasn't suggesting you'd determined my biases in that manner, since I cited evidence for your definition, too (your additional references are redundant if you're trying to convince me that lots of people agree). FYI, the entry I gave for atheism is the only one in that dictionary. Daniel has a mac, ask him if you don't believe me.
What I did provide was a counterexample to your continued assertion that atheism only implies "no belief in existence of God" as opposed to the stronger "belief in the nonexistence of God". Some people (and dictionaries) might take it to mean the only the latter, so be aware of that.
In regards to 'certainty', I equate "certain" with "an acceptance that a statement is true", which was the definition I quoted. In regards to "proof", nothing I consider proveable relies on 'belief'. Same with what I "accept as true".
Ugh, semantics. So moot.
@JEV: wasn't referring to you at all (the person lookings things up in dictionaries was hypothetical), but it looks like you worked that out.
26 February 2010 at 5:10 am
Notwithstanding semantic slipperiness, you guys at least need to fix your own meanings for the sake of your various arguments or your arguments will never get out of the starting gate….
26 February 2010 at 10:55 am
Dean,
What I did provide was a counterexample to your continued assertion that atheism only implies "no belief in existence of God" as opposed to the stronger "belief in the nonexistence of God". Some people (and dictionaries) might take it to mean the only the latter, so be aware of that.
It's possible that Apple is defective 😉 (just kidding). I see your point. However, what I'd argue is that the rigidity of one definition and of popular use can be argued against and contested. In my case, I can still raise a different dictionary and say that the common thread of both definitions — that captures every atheist — is the "no belief in the existence of god" part. It's easy to account for those who have a replacement belief — the "belief in the nonexistence of god" as being those who start with a lack of belief in the existence of gods, but who have a belief instead: belief in nonexistence of gods. Then, the only case is to find out whether one can be considered an atheist without such a belief.
I certainly am careful of people who take atheist to only mean the latter definition. I just try to point out our common questions don't really work with that. (We ask: Do you believe in god?/Do you believe god exists? A no answer is atheistic. We don't ask: Do you believe god doesn't exist, where only a yes answer is atheistic.)
In regards to 'certainty', I equate "certain" with "an acceptance that a statement is true", which was the definition I quoted.
Seems kinda strange. You can accept that a statement is true (e.g., "believe") while also having doubts about that belief. So it seems strange to use certainty with "an acceptance a statement as true," when many people can believe with doubt (which seems uncertain).
I agree with JEV on the semantic issue. So much for communication.
26 February 2010 at 4:28 pm
Gosh, aren't your commenters serious about stuff. Mine are just a bunch of light-hearted dafties
26 February 2010 at 11:49 pm
Um I posted a link to this post on reddit last night and it kinda went crazy. Hope that's ok…
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/
26 February 2010 at 11:55 pm
Geez Sarah, we simply cannot be friends anymore if you're going to show me up at reddit.
Now I have to kick myself for not thinking of linking to this first! 😀
27 February 2010 at 5:50 am
That explains the 6,000 hits. Thanks, Sarah!
Welcome to all the Reddit people. You can check out my other cartoons here if you want. Or just have a look around.
27 February 2010 at 7:44 pm
Andrew – a fluke not likely to happen again, except when I link to the original ideas of other people! 😉