LINK New research uncovers stereotype differences between agnostics and atheists
"Agnosticism and atheism are often categorized into one “nonreligious” group in research despite these being distinct belief systems."
Yes, yes they are: both different and both systems of belief.
"For example, atheists and Christians might both be perceived as highly dogmatic as these categorizations take a stand on the existence of a God whereas agnostics do not (referred to as dogmatic recalcitrance)."
Those who know me on this board know that I've said this a million times: the notion that Atheism and Chritianity are both dogmatic but agnosticism is not.
"Altogether, findings give support for both the moral deficiency and symbolic threat hypotheses of prejudice against the nonreligious. Support for the dogmatic recalcitrance hypothesis was mixed across these two studies."
Neat! Don't know either hypothesis but still, neat!
"The researchers do cite some limitations to this work. “Agnostics are an extremely difficult group to study because being agnostic is not mutually exclusive with atheism or theism. In other words, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist,” Bergstrom said. “Additionally, many people do not know what it means to be agnostic.”"
A researcher that points out the limits to their work already gains favor with me.
2
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
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Before I knew the difference between agnosticism and atheism, I lost faith in faith and abandoned my religion. I did not know there was a term for my intellectual position, but I became a nullifidian before I even identified as an agnostic or an atheist. Today, I am comfortable being identified as either an agnostic or an atheist. My identity as an agnostic appeals to my intellect, and my identity as an atheist appeals to my emotions.
p-nullifidian
Level 8
May 10, 2022
2
Which one likes the frosted side?
@TheMiddleWay I’ve never said “there is no God,“ but as a nullifidian, I dismiss descriptions and accounts of a deity or gods as described in the religions of the world, just as I do all religions themselves, and could never accept such as a matter of “faith.”
My agnosticism informs me that we as a species have no evidence which might constitute knowledge of a deity, and that the existence of a god or gods is, in all likelihood, unknowable.
Therefore, lacking any faith in the existence of a deity, and having been presented with no evidence thereof, I am without a belief in a god or gods. In other words, I am also an atheist.
Also: Atheism is not dogmatic. Given evidence, an atheist will accept that evidence (if it stands up to the test of proof). Religion rejects evidence; given evidence, religion chooses to believe dogma. Atheism is compatible with science; dogma is not.
Once again; show me some real evidence for something supernatural, and I'll have to accept that it exists. Now, imagine a fundamentalist saying "Show me some evidence that all life on Earth evolved from other life, and I'll accept it." You won't ever hear that, because Fundamentalist dogma is that God created every species just as it is, and there was no evolution of one from another.
A splendid (in its tragic way) example of dogmatic thinking is geologist Kurt Wise, who once dreamed of a doctorate from Harvard until he found that science and the Bible were utterly incompatible:
I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
Now, that's dogma.
Paul4747
Level 8
May 10, 2022
1
@TheMiddleWay Dogma, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." PLEASE show me where agnostics or atheists accept any authority as incontrovertibly true.
Yes, people do try to set themselves up as being "an authority" on atheism or agnosticism; but, lacking anything to back up that claim, very few agnostics or atheists are likely to accept them as authoritative.
Your reply is interesting. The Catholic Church has never given up dogma; they've just changed the dogma to try and demonstrate that they're just slightly in touch with modern times. But the Church still has a credo (edited for brevity's sake);
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God;
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead.
Now, if you don't believe that, you aren't Catholic! That's dogma.
The only way you can say there's an atheist/agnostic "dogma" is by twisting the principle that we are meant to be open-minded and seek evidence, into some kind of creed that the "top" agnostics laid down. But there's no such creed!
Once more: neither atheism nor agnosticism are "systems of belief", any more than the scientific method is a "system of belief".
In the words of Sam Harris:
Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
Simply put: Atheism takes the position that it is rational to think that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Pure agnostics, on the other hand, state that the lack of knowledge cannot inform their opinion at all. Agnostic atheists are those who don't claim to know, but think that it's more likely than not that there are no gods (or other supernatural phenomena).
Show me some evidence, and then I might think that something supernatural might exist; but I still won't believe in it, any more than I "believe" the Earth is round. Earth is round, no matter what I believe. It's a fact. Accepting facts, accepting evidence, accepting proof, is not a system of belief; the converse, not accepting things that have no evidence, that have no proof, is not a system of belief either.
Are we clear?
Paul4747
Level 8
May 10, 2022
3
@TheMiddleWay Again, it's nothing to do with belief. I don't "believe" the world is round (actually an oblate spheroid); it just is. Looking at the facts shows that the world is round. The only way to conclude otherwise is to believe the facts are wrong, or to ignore them altogether.
And Plato "believed" there were eternal Forms, apart from the real world; that this world is an insubstantial shadow. Christianity is a Platonic religion, which holds that there's a "perfect" state of being (Heaven) somewhere else. I wouldn't hold up Plato as any kind of expert on fact-based knowledge.
As an atheist eg I completely reject notions of deity as implausible, I was a bit confronted by being described as dogmatic. So I looked up dogma;
DOGMA:- "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".
Well my reasoning for being atheist, that I have rejected notions of deity as implausible, was devised by me and me alone. There was no "authority" that laid down this notion for me.
That is where agnosticism/ atheism differ from theists; there is no doctrine, there is no authority. People arrive at their stances through individual thought, hopefully reasoned.
Some have said organising atheists is like herding cats. The same is true for agnostics.
So an interesting study, but I reject atheists are dogmatic or recalcitrant whereas agnostics are not.
Neither atheists nor agnostics are dogmatic because neither of their principles came from an "authority", instead coming from the individual.
Leave dogma for the theists.
puff
Level 8
May 9, 2022
0
puff:
@TheMiddleWay So a disbelief in Santa Claus/ Unicorns/ Thor or any other myth makes you dogmatic as well?
The trouble with agnostics/ atheists is you can't really group them besides the vague "some may share some principles, but not all share the same set of principles". This is hardly dogmatic. Pragmatic in which principles they adopt maybe, but not dogmatic as such. Need groups that follow an authority for that.
Think we will have to disagree on this one.
@TheMiddleWay
"Another example of the dogma is this notion that the world would be a better place without religion, a notion which has no basis in reality."
A belief that the world would be better without religion also does not necessarily mean the believer is dogmatic. You could have a very reasoned set of ideas that led you to that conclusion, but if they're not imposed by an authority, or may be completely different than another's reasoning, can rule out the notion of dogma. By your rationale, you could describe any belief people have as being dogmatic.
@TheMiddleWay So are you considering each individual like you described to be their own authority to satisfy that [soft] condition of dogmatism?
@TheMiddleWay But regardless of their method of forming their opinion/belief, unless you consider each of them that didn't get told what to believe out of some sort of imperative (like a church or the Republican party leadership for instance) to be their own authority, how would it be dogma and not simply a poorly reasoned belief?
To me that's not dissimilar from saying that a joke about Bill Cosby is necessarily racist. I don't think it follows logically that an unreasoned or poorly reasoned belief is dogma without showing the link or reason that it's dogmatic in the exact same was that you'd fail to be able to show a joke purely about Cosby raping women even explores the concept of race let alone is racist.
@TheMiddleWay Oh, I see your point now in the light of dismissing alternate theories and new information. But I guess I don't see how that applies to the OP. There isn't really any new information/ evidence/ findings to dismiss regarding the existence of god... unless you're saying that belief in and of itself is also dogma. If that's the case, literally everything is dogma all the time because there's likely someone, somewhere that has "evidence" you could be reviewing about something you believe that they don't (like how the Earth is actually flat) for a never ending task.
And you can go on saying it for another million times that "Atheism and Chritianity (sic) are both dogmatic but agnosticism is not" and it will always be bullshit, or more specifically your bias as an agnostic. The dogmaticism is yours.
David1955
Level 8
May 9, 2022
3
@TheMiddleWay nor you.
"For example, atheists and Christians might both be perceived as highly dogmatic as these categorizations take a stand on the existence of a God whereas agnostics do not (referred to as dogmatic recalcitrance)."
Once again, the correct definition of atheism, being without belief, is dishonestly replaced with the Christian definition that claims atheists dogmatically make the claim that their god doesn't exist.
"In Study 1, participants reported stereotypes that they believed society held about agnostics, atheists, and Christians. Common stereotypic traits for agnostics were indecisive, questioning, and confused, but for atheists were immoral, intolerant, and evil."
Meaning that the researchers surveyed the opinions of a bunch of ignorant morons off Amazon (MTurk), trolled them with an inciteful definition of atheists and found them to be hateful bigots. What a surprise!!!
"For example, atheists and Christians might both be perceived as highly dogmatic..."
Just what about atheists is dogmatic? Not believing means one doesn't believe a dogma. What part of not believing cannot be understood. Or is it, WILL NOT be understood. Mustn't let truth get in the way of hate.
@TheMiddleWay I gave the universal definition of atheism, and being obtuse with false statements and non-sequiturs can't change that. Saying that an analysis is lacking without saying how is fallacious ad hominem. And of course you run away from the question on what dogma atheists have.
The study is even worse, selecting ONLY CHRISTIANS for the poll of atheist characteristics!!
[tspace.library.utoronto.ca]
@TheMiddleWay The ad hominem was your claim that the analysis was lacking without any evidence. The alternative is to say that it's more bullshit from a troll who is unable and intentionally unwilling to comprehend content.. And I've seen my definition used by other posters with complete consistency. It's you and the Christians that try to redefine it. And still no answer to the dogmatism of atheists. Pure troll.
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.