[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

Thu Mar 10 05:52:31 UTC 2005

Just to confuse further, check out the original meaning of Agnostic
(see article at end). Thomas Huxley's position was that you shouldn't
claim the truth of something that you can't prove. To take a position
of A-gnosis is to disclaim internal, subjective knowledge in all
areas, including that of God/The supernatural.

The common usage of Agnostic is to mean religious fence sitter, while
an Atheist is one who firmly disavows the existence of god. Looking
more closely at the terms, Atheist means "without theism", much more
like the common usage of Agnostic (ie: don't know, don't care), while
Agnostic in its original form makes a very strong claim that you
cannot know anything about the existence of the metaphysical, a far
more anti-religious stance (ie: can't know, shouldn't care).

I personally call myself an atheist and an agnostic. I accept the
agnostic principle of Huxley (it's trivially logically true), but am
prepared to shave it down a little with Occam's razor, to say that if
you can't in principle know anything about a subject (eg: existence or
non-existence of a God who cannot be measured), you can properly
assume that it doesn't exist (the simplest model), with the
appropriate caveats that unanticipated future evidence could change
your mind (as *should* be the case in all areas of science/knowledge).
I'd say the same about Santa (not the historical figure St Nick); I'm
happy to bet the farm on the position that he doesn't exist, but if I
was presented with extraordinary evidence of his existence, I'd
cheerfully admit I was wrong.

So I myself am without theism (thus the minor claim of being an
Atheist), but I think Huxley was right about the unknowable nature of
the mystical, so am prepared to accept the stronger label of Agnostic,
with the caveat of Occams Razor to allow me to say that I'm as certain
as anyone can be of anything in the empirical realm that there is no
God.

(in my definition of God I assume the usage of God to mean something
external to the individual; if you want to redefine God as some subset
of you and half a dozen of your drinking buddies' group gestalt, and
you find that definition useful, please feel free to go nuts! Of
course you are wrong about it; I've recently discovered through
meditation that God is actually the bacteria in the hole in a tooth on
the bottom right of my jaw; I can send photos to prove it exists even.
Yeah!)

Quick observation on Mike's belief statement; classic position for a
guy who likes to argue about stuff but wants to be able to squirm out
of criticism; he goes for the least definite position (saying he
actually has no position, waiting for more evidence), while waving his
hands about how atheism is probably crap (but he's not going to
actually stand behind that statement, it's just useful because it's
more likely to attract replies than if he said Theism was crap in this
forum). He makes vague references to the Drake equation (which proves
nothing at all, it's just a framework for thinking about the
possibility of alien life without providing any of the constants), and
the Simulation Argument, without saying why he finds it meaningful.
Just the usual mudslinging and "look at me! look at me!" posting. Very
skilled though, I've become quite a fan of Mike over the years; he has
got to be the most skilled long-term troll I've ever run across.

Anyway, some actual content:

------
The original meaning of Agnostic 
http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm
Written by Kellie Sisson Snider 

Agnostic definition as was defined by T.H. Huxley, the man who coined
the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something
that cannot be proven.
'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good.' Socrates 

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) came up with the word 'agnostic'
while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not
consider himself "an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or
an idealist; [nor] a Christian…" and while he had much in common with
freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately.
His difference with the people who gave themselves the above labels
was that he did not feel certain of his knowledge- or 'gnosis'- that
he "had successfully solved the problem of existence."

The essential problem was that Huxley believed the problem was
unsolvable. And thus far, despite the existence of famous thinkers
like Emmanuel Kant and David Hume who philosophically agreed with him
on the matter, there wasn't a name for someone who believed you could
never know the source of, nor reason for existence.

Huxley got the term "gnostic" from the early Christian Gnostics, whom
he said, "professed to know so much about the very things of which I
was ignorant", and created the word 'agnostic', with the prefix giving
the new word the opposite meaning of the core word, which means,
"knowing". This is close to the meaning that most modern day people
associate with the word. It is used to mean a person who is not
certain whether God exists or gods exist. It is subtly different from
the original meaning in that the term started out to mean that
knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an
uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you're considering that the
origin may be God, science, or something else entirely.

Throughout his life, during which the word 'agnostic' caught on and
became commonly used, Huxley tweaked his term, and adjusted its
meaning. He ultimately came to describe agnosticism as a method of
thinking, in the way science is a means of thinking, not a belief in
and of itself. His ideal was that everyone should be able to give a
reason for his faith, or simply not claim it as his own. He said it
this way: "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as
it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that
conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

There was a moral edge to Huxley's agnosticism. "That I take to be the
agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not
be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may
have in store for him." There was an implied call for an honest
intellectual decision in terms of belief. To put it into brief, modern
words, he might have said, "Don't claim it if you cannot explain it".

Huxley understood and accepted that the new term would have different
meanings depending on the understanding and intellect of the
individual. Furthermore, he knew that the meaning for each individual
would change as time goes on, to incorporate new findings in
understanding or in science. He said, "That which is unproved today
may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow."

Huxley defined agnositicism as follows, and this is perhaps, the
truest definition of the term today: "… it is wrong for a man to say
he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can
provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is
what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential
to agnosticism." It is not merely a matter of whether or not one knows
if God exists, but it is a matter of whether one can objectively
define his belief, whether in God or in anything else.

Huxley was a gifted speaker, and was known, in the course of his many
debates, to quietly state that he knew nothing about the supernatural
about which his opponents claimed firm belief, then, somewhat louder,
to add, "And neither do you."
-----

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:14:33 -0500, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Atheism, like most religion/belief sets, has a hard time getting a solid
> definition pinned down. As a result you cannot say that anyone who is not a
> theist is an atheist. For example, Mike says he's "agnostic", so he is not
> an atheist in the sense that he does not believe that no god exists.
> 
> It's been argued around a lot, but believing (realizing, logically deducing,
> etc) that there is no valid belief system is still a belief system/ life
> philosophy/ religion / whatever.
> 
> BAL
> 
> >From: Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline
> >Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:03:56 -0500
> >
> >Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack
> >of theism, no more, no less. You're not a theist, so you're an
> >atheist. So sayeth the Grand High Council of the Godless.
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and
> > > > > insults.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you
> > > > keep cycling on of late?  Is intellectual consistency and integrity a
> > > > virtue in your system of values?
> > >
> > > Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring
> > > my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments.
> > > So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until
> > > I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation
> > > Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the
> > > atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the
> > > theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the
> > > atheist.
> > >
> > > I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist
> > > majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made to
> > > understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not
> > > being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the individual
> > > taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and the
> > > same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes that
> > > would go to support private religious education of other people's
> > > kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> > >
> > > Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very
> > > vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other
> > > policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral consistency?
> > >
> > > Mike Lorrey
> > > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> > > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> > > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
> > >                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> > > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *