THE OXYMORON OF AGNOSTIC A/THEISM: A PROPOSITION (modified due to post limit)
This post is inspired by a discussion spawned on an unrelated thread,
Give your thoughts on Agnostic.com feature priorities for 2018!
I will tidy up my position to make it as clear as possible. I will NOT try to address the opposing position in order to have as clean a slate as possible on this thread and allow them to summarize their points here (or not) as they choose.
The baseline proposition is as follows: agnostic a/theist is a self-contradictory position given that if one is agnostic on a subject one lacks knowledge of that subject yet if one is a/theist one is expressing an existential belief on that subject which, in order to be justified, must be based on some knowledge of that subject. But, I propose, if you are already agnostic and claim to not have knowledge of a subject, then you cannot then justify belief or disbelief in that subject.
What I shall try to show is how this self-contradiction manifests itself first in a secular context, using Category Theory, and then draw an analogy within a theological context
INTRODUCTION, where I define agnosticism and a/theism for this proposition.
As I see it, agnosticism is a position of epistemology. It refers to a mental process, a statement of what we know, what we can know, and what we can't know. There are shades of agnosticism such as strong, weak, pragmatic, and even ignosticism. I will lump all of these together under the common thread that they all claim that we have no knowledge of the subject... the shades mostly come into play depending on whether you claim knowledge can every be gained or not.
As I see it, a/theism (the forward slash meaning it applies to theism and atheism) is a position of ontology. Whether you define it as a belief or knowledge is irrelevant: you are making a claim on existence and that is the realm on ontology, not epistemology. If you believe or know a subject exists, then you are making a claim that, to the best of your knowledge, that subject has existence in our universe. Vice-versa, if you believe or know a subject does not exist, then you are making the claim that to the best of your knowledge. In both cases, in order for that belief to be more than guesswork, it needs to have some justification.
OXYMORON, where I define the central tenant of why agnosticism and atheism are self-contradictory.
Using the definitons about, if you claim to be agnostic on a subject, you are making an epistemological claim that you don't have any knowledge of that subject. This is NOT an ontological claim. You are NOT saying the subject does or doesn't exist, nor I say saying you believe or know that it does or doesn't exist. You are claiming no knowledge. In effect, ignorance is a good synonym for the agnostic: they would claim that having no knowledge of gods, they are ignorant of gods.
But if you claim to be a/theist, you are making a claim on the existence of the subject. You are claiming that you can justify, in one way or another, that that subject does or does not exist. However, justification woudl require some knowledge of that subject. If you say something exists, you would need to bring evidence to prove that it exists; vice-versa, if you claim something doesn't exist, you would need to bring some evidence to prove that it doesn't exist.
So, if you are agnostic on a subject, you claim no knowlege of it. But if you are a/theist, you claim you believe or know the ontological status of that subject, that it exists or doesn't. But if you first claimed no knowledge of said subject, how then can one turn around and justify their existential claim? Therin lay the oxymoron insofar as an agnostic atheist makes an ontological claim without any supporting epistemology to support it.
(CONTINUED AS REPLIES DUE TO POST LIMIT)
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.1a) I know for certain that the outcome of a lottery game will be even or odd (or zero, if possible!).
BUT I am agnostic about whether that number will be even or odd.
Just because I don’t “believe” it will be even, that doesn’t mean I believe it will be odd!
I am completely agnostic about whether that number will be even or odd... WITHOUT BELIEF in even or odd!
That would be AGNOSTIC A-ODD/EVENISM!
I do not believe in odd, I do not believe in even!!
1b) I know for certain (both theist and atheist agree/know) there is either a god/gods or there is not.
BUT if I am agnostic about which of these is true or can be shown to be true or false, that means I DON’T believe in a god/gods - ATHEIST!!
But just because I don’t believe in god that doesn’t mean I believe in there being NO god!
I simply have NO belief in god, but claim no knowledge of there being a god/gods or not!
I do not believe in god.
I do not believe in NO god!
That is AGNOSTIC ATHEISM!
You can NOT believe, because you have no knowledge of, or think that knowledge of a thing is impossible!
This is basic reasoning!
If all that matters is OPINION, reasonable discussion is just not possible!!
?
Ungod
Level 6
Jan 21, 2019
0
@TheMiddleWay
“1b) If you don't believe in something existing, that is the same as saying that that something doesn't exist.”
NO, believe it or not, you can say YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN BOTH THINGS!
???
“1b) If you don't believe in something existing, that is the same as saying that that something doesn't exist.”
NO, believe it or not, you can say YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN BOTH THINGS!
???
I don’t believe in god AND I don’t believe in no god!
Kindergarten simple!
???
I don’t believe in god AND I don’t believe in no god!
Kindergarten simple!
???
I don’t believe in god AND I don’t believe in no god!
Kindergarten simple!
???
I do agree that we should differentiate between an ontological and an empistemological position.
But of course one can believe that the gods proclaimed by certain organized religions do (most likely) not exist based on particular arguments fitting only to these cases, while staying agnostic about the likelihood of the existence of hidden supernatural (divine) things, beings, dimensions etc. in general.
I personally for example dismiss an ideological naturalism because of my special epistemological theory (in which I really believe at the moment).
johannesweg
Level 3
Apr 13, 2018
0
I came from that other thread and I see the others grew tired of this before you posted and never showed up. You are wrong, as they stated. You absolutely can claim you don't have a belief something exists while at the same time claiming you can't know for sure whether or not it does. All of your counterarguments seem to be based on the premise that any amount of knowledge about something eliminates the (a)gnostic component. All universal negatives cannot be proved, which means you can never know they don't exist. Does that mean we cannot claim we don't believe in them? Do you never profess to not believe in unicorns? Leprechauns? Pink flying elephants?
Also, you fail to recognize that you can have a belief or a lack of a belief without any evidence whatsoever. You box/penny question in no way proves that someone is unable to believe there is [or isn't] a penny in the box.
ChestRockfield
Level 8
Jan 14, 2018
1
@TheMiddleWay I see why the other people didn't show up. The fact that you think genetics can prove a universal negative tells me all I need to know.
@TheMiddleWay I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but how exactly can genetics prove unicorns don't exist anywhere?
@TheMiddleWay Oh, so what you meant to say was through semantics you can "prove" unicorns don't exist. Got it!
@TheMiddleWay I want you to read this short article about 10 animals scientists didn't believe were real, and then I want you to come back here and tell me that through a potential combination of cross-breeding and genetic mutations of the ANCESTORS of animals that we know of today it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to have been a large 4-legged animal with a single horn on its head.
@TheMiddleWay
Fallacy #1
This whole time you've been setting up a Straw Man. You've taken my statement differentiating what people mean when they say they are agnostic and you've defined it in a way that makes it easier to defeat. You say that if anyone has any knowledge or supporting evidence, that eliminates their ability to be agnostic about whether or not god exists. But those are two different things. If I find a bloody collar in the road with my dog's tag on it, I have evidence to suggest that he got hit by a car. Depending on the amount of blood, what the weather conditions are, how resilient and old/young it is, if there were foot pints leading anywhere, etc. I can make educated guesses on whether or not my dog is still alive. So by your definitions, because I know some information about the circumstances that could shape my belief, I can't say both "I don't know if my dog is alive" and "I believe my dog is alive". The only way one is unable to make the claim with intellectual honesty that they don't know whether or not the dog is alive is if they have incontrovertible proof regarding that claim, nothing else.
Fallacy #2
Your unnecessarily long explanation of hard and soft agnosticism was nothing but a Red Herring But if we look at your position on the Higgs. You say you are now "more in the belief camp". What does that mean? It means you have some evidence to suggest that it is true which caused you to limply say you believe, but you don't have proof, so you can't say you know. Your very counterargument, in essence, contains the language that you believe in the Higgs, but can't know for sure (yet). This directly contradicts your statement, "Thus I'm claiming that if you don't have facts, information, or a 'justified true belief' about gods, then you are agnostic and that any further claim that they do or do not exist is unjustified as it is not informed by knowledge." Furthermore, your statement is conflating the words believe and know. Beliefs are (or at least should be) based on evidence. Knowledge is based on proof (a true belief).
Fallacy #3
You initially claimed that you could prove that unicorns don't exist through genetics. You then Moved the Goalposts and claimed that the unicorn had to be terrestrial. Then claimed that the unicorn had to have horse DNA. Let's get one thing clear, if a unicorn exists, it would be its own species with its own DNA, and it would have been a descendant of the ancestors of some of the animals we know of today, but to claim that you know which ones or what DNA it would have despite the fact that it could be based on some pretty significant genetic mutations or cross breedings is exceptionally arrogant and completely fallacious. You took the definition "A mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead" and ignored the very important phrase 'typically represented as'. So as I stated, I wasn't genetics that you used to prove unicorns don't exist, it was semantics that you used to claim they don't.
For these reasons, I can no longer continue to waste my time trying to educate you. This should be enough to show you your position is wrong, and if it's not, I do not care enough about you spouting nonsensical claims to find out how much it would take. I hope you admit you've been wrong because that is actually what I would consider being something typical atheists and those who believe in science would do.
@TheMiddleWay
Do you even realize that in EACH CASEYOU MENTIONED, “the animals have two horns on their heads (TWO HORNS ON THEIR HEADS!), that fused into one”??
Even “the humble rhinoceros” has two horns!
???
“Two horns fused into one” is still two horns!
?????
“The humble rhinoceros” has TWO horns!
?????
How in HELL do you know rhinos are “humble”
?????
?????
But thank you for your unabashed STOOPIDNESS..
I see now why goddites call atheists just as shamelessly STOOPID as themselves!
?????
But thank you for your unabashed STOOPIDNESS..
I see now why goddites call atheists just as shamelessly STOOPID as themselves!
?????
I don’t believe in god AND I don’t believe in no god!
Kindergarten simple!
???
That is typical goddite STOOPIDNESS - “How do you know, where you there?”
???
I don’t believe in god AND I don’t believe in no god!
Kindergarten simple!
???
An atheist is one who does not believe in any god (or analogous supernatural entity).
An agnostic is one who is not certain about the existence of a god.
We can't know for sure. But we can be really confident that the probability of it is very, very low.
So I consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic. I'm very highly confident that there is no supernatural entity. Just not 100% certain.
ErikGunderson
Level 6
Jan 10, 2018
1
Somehow, I feel insulted now.
You realize a definition that starts with "as I see it" is clearly subjective to the person "seeing" it, right?
ShaneCorbett
Level 3
Jan 8, 2018
2
At that point discussion is impossible. “Opinion” can justify ANY position, right or wrong, supporting facts and evidence or not!
I don't know that there are no gods, so I guess I'm agnostic. I have no way of proving there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars, so I guess I'm agnostic about that too.
I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting Mars, nor do I believe there are any gods. Since I don't accept any claims I've heard about gods, I am an atheist. It seems simple to me.
I m not claiming to have absolute knowledge that there are no gods, since that would be impossible to prove, but I sure haven't seen anything that would make me think there might be a god or gods.
Eazyduzzit
Level 7
Jan 8, 2018
3
I won't go into the ridiculous notion that I would spend billions of dollars to try to justify being ateapottist. I do know there is lots of evidence already for the prevailing scientific theory for the beginnings of earth, and I accept them. I'm not saying the Big Bang is absolutely true, I don't KNOW. I do think it's the best explanation so far. As far as god go. It was our first explanation of how things worked. Being the first, it was also the worst. It has been replaced many years ago with more logical explanations. I will go with the science. That doesn't mean I am going to uselessly try to disprove something I don't think exists.
@TheMiddleWay
NASA or even human beings are HARDLY the only entities in the entire universe that could put a teapot in orbit around Mars!
No telescope would be able to tell you whether there is a teapot orbiting Mars that may be hidden in an asteroid, or simply INVISIBLE, as goddites claim about their deities!
And all that matters not - the person is without the ability to know, whether not possessed of the means to do so, or locked in 23/1 solitary confinement and thus unable to access that information!
He simply doesn’t know. He is without knowledge. He is AGNOSTIC in the matter!!
@TheMiddleWay
There are plenty of sources for knowing whether or not the Big Bang is a reasonable possibility!
The Big Bang theory arose from the accumulated KNOWLEDGE of man and is subject to further and better knowledge!!
KNOWLEDGE!!
You DON’T know what it looks like - a space alien could make one.
It could be incredibly tiny.
It could be hidden INSIDE something.
It could be disguised as an asteroid!
It could have an orbital path that is just too large for you to be able to comprehend or measure!
It could be “invisible”, it could be “supernatural”.
It could exist in another dimension.
You need to BELIEVE it’s there before you are able to see it!
You can’t see it until after you’re dead.
YOU COULD SIMPLY MISS IT!!
And all that doesn’t even matter - you simply don’t have knowledge of its existence!
That’s called I DON’T KNOW, whether you could eventually find out or not!!
That is typical goddite STOOPIDNESS - “How do you know, where you there?”
?????
That is typical goddite STOOPIDNESS - “How do you know, where you there?”
???
I don’t believe in god AND I don’t believe in no god!
Kindergarten simple!
???
I don't see it as contradictory or an oxymoron at all.
agnosticism: the belief that one cannot have absolute knowledge one way or the other regarding the existence of gods
atheism: the lack of belief in the existence of gods
Most (but not all) atheists that I know would identify as agnostic atheists. They lack a belief that gods exist because no-one has ever proved that any god exists. They acknowledge, however, that they do not and cannot know with certainty that they are correct because no-one has ever proved that gods do not. They see the probability of the existence of gods to be so remote that it is negligible.
The same argument holds for an agnostic theist. They see the probability of the non-existence of at least one god to be so remote that it is negligible, but acknowledge that no-one has proved one way or the other whether gods exist. They believe that gods do exist. (As an aside, those who believe in the Christian god tend to actually believe in two gods -- the second being Satan.)
Then there are the gnostics. Personally, I find gnostic atheists to be generally more angry people -- "Of course there's no god because, if there was, he'd never let <insert tragic event> happen," and I find gnostic theists to be completely devoid of any meaningful concept of what it means to "know" something -- "I know God exists because I can feel Him in my heart," or "There is no way this could have been a coincidence -- I know God saved <some person from certain death>,"
A/gnosticism has to do with whether or not knowledge of something can exist. Most (but not all) people, whichever side of the argument they are on, will acknowledge that proof is impossible -- thus they are agnostic. A/theism has to do with whether or not the claim of the existence of a god is believable -- atheists say no, it is not believable, while theists say yes, it is.
Two completely different things, independent of each other except for the topic to which they are applied. So, there are:
agnostic atheists (which is the majority of atheists)
gnostic atheists (who believe they "know" they are correct)
agnostic theists (who acknowledge they cannot know)
gnostic theists (who believe they "know" they are correct
Among theists, I'm not certain whether there are more gnostics or more agnostics, but in my experience most of them behave as though they are gnostic (as in, if they are agnostic, they avoid admitting to it because that could be construed as doubt.)
firecracker
Level 6
Jan 5, 2018
3
I think you are trying to put too much reasoning into people's belief one way or the other. There seems to be no disagreement about what it means to be a/gnostic. Can one have absolute knowledge of the existence of gods? Any reasonable individual would respond in the negative.
The issue arises when trying to apply reasoning to a/theism. It is a belief one way or the other. I doubt many people have sat down a rigorously rationalized their position. Some may have, and I suspect most of those consider themselves to be gnostic a/theists. I find myself rather skeptical about the gnostic part of that (although I struggle with that myself -- do I consider myself gnostic? -- no, but sometimes I really have to talk myself through why I cannot be.) For most people, it seems that a/theism is intuitive, not rational. It is a faith -- no knowledge required.
Just like it makes no sense to try to claim knowledge of whether gods exist, or not, it makes no sense to assume that one's position as an a/theist was arrived at via rigorous reason. It's intuition more than anything else, at least with most individuals.
I believe an agnostic “theist” would be called a deist - he believes in a god, but claims no knowledge of which one it is...
asocial, abiogenesis, agnostic, atheist
What do these have in common? A- means without. A-social: without social contact, abiogenesis: the beginning when there was no life; agnostic: when you say you have no knowledge; atheism: when you have no belief in a god (theism=belief in god)
An agnostic atheist doesn't know for sure if there is a god, and does not have a belief; an agnostic theist would be someone who knows there's no proof, but believes anyway (in other words, someone who falls for pascal's wager or something like that. To put it bluntly, someone who doesn't care much about the truth, or isn't good at finding it)
Janus819
Level 7
Jan 5, 2018
2
@TheMiddleWay which God would I believe in? I've already found enough problems with the god I was raised to worship that I can no longer believe in it even if I want to.
How would I know for sure that no gods exist? I don't believe any do, and I consider it unlikely enough that I might claim no god exists, but evidence could sway me.
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions. Do you know?-liar or agnostic. Do you believe?-sheep or atheist. To be clearer, either you believe in god(s) or you don't, which is what theist and atheist mean.
It's more like "I don't know, but it seems about as likely as Russell's Teapot. I can't prove there isn't one in space hidden behind something, but how would it have gotten there?" or "I don't know, the same way I can't be sure there are no leprechauns or unicorns."
@TheMiddleWay I happen to have a leprechaun in my pocket...
@TheMiddleWay weeelll... cues in the 70's debby does dallas soundtrack hahaaa
@TheMiddleWay and... what if after you reach into my pocket, you do, indeed find a leprechaun? Then what? And the Bill Cosby thing just about killed me! I spit hot tea all over my keyboard. I do laugh often, but that was a choking sort of moment, tootally unexpected! And yes, blame it on philosophy. "It was in the name of science, I sweaarsesss it!!"
@TheMiddleWay I wish they had a laughing you could give instead of the thumbs up. Thumbs up is just sooo... Fonzie! Ayye! Sit on it Potsie!
@TheMiddleWay sorry, but this applies to my above Fonzie comment
@TheMiddleWay "After all, the atheist claims that god doesn't exist and thus theirs is a claim of ontology." That's not what all atheists say. Look up any definition of atheist (other than things like"fool" citing the bible) and it's literally just not believing in any specific god. Leprechauns are mystical creatures common to Irish folklore. They could easily hide from a loud scientist looking to collect them as proud of their existence. They are too clever to fall for most traps. You cannot prove that they don't exist, especially with all the anecdotal evidence. However, does that mean it's more reasonable to say "Sure, little magical people who wear green and have a bunch of gold could exist" than "prove it"
@TheMiddleWay Haaahaaaaaa!!! brown chicken brown cow!" Ahahaha! I just about died laughing when I read that!!! I am still busting up over here!
@TheMiddleWay hmm... although I thought it was a pot of gold one received after locating a leprechaun, I suppose 3 wishes could be equally attributed to said action. Guess you better cross your fingers and hope you come in contact with a leprechaun once you get that hand into my pockets. hah! 
I think, first, though, you must rub its belly to get those wishes. If you find the lil green fellow, what will your wishes be? World Peace? A hawai'ian pizza with extra cheese? The Answers to Life and the Universe??! haha (yeah, well, at this point, i would settle for the feature of "Dont fucking LOSE all my goddamned emails here at agnostic.com!" over anything else. you will understand this bitching complaint once you read my emails... well, that IS, IF they are actually All there. grrrr!)
@TheMiddleWay oh geez! I am laughing so hard I am crying!! You are going to land me in the hospital with all your inuendo and side speak! Its okay! I am a sucker for great puntasticness! I Am actually imbibing the pot at the moment, no time for the gold! lol! hee hee! I will think of you next time i hit my bowl. I will send you thoughts of smoke like a prayer. Keep a watch to the north. You may see it coming... yooour waaay! Well, if you reach into my pocket, not only might you strike gold, but i suspect you will also strike an unwrapped stick of gum, random 4 foot long strains of my hair that managed to work their way into that pocket via my hair ties, maybe some stones because I tend to collect random stones whenever I am out hiking, a lighter... i mean... god knows what you would find in there! Hell, you might even find the answers the the universe inside my pocket!
@TheMiddleWay bwaa you are funny, goofy... goofunny??? Or would you be Punny since you are so puneriffic? Yes, let us ring Guth into this one too! haha!
Okay, I must admit, Oscar Wilde is my favorite human being, Ever and that is due to his overwhelming wit. ...I sense some "Wilde" in you, sir!
@TheMiddleWay get a room you two lol
or at least private messages
@Jnutter819 yup! I was waiting for that one for a few days now. haha! I noticed this thread has turned into a monstrosity! haha! Looks like MW prefers to turn the entire room into this...lounge and prompts you to join in! You can appreciate some Brown Cow Brown Chicken chat, right? hahah
@TheMiddleWay time to put on the peer pressure!! hahah
@TheMiddleWay ooh sooo... are you saying this is akin to an experiment to test the boundaries of "how much is too much?" I see. well, i think we Can make this happen buddy! yess... we can!!! Let us put this theory to the test! muhahahaha!!
@TheMiddleWay im down! i will push this shit with you, man!! we Got this! hahaha
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.