tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post3574402598151732337..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Defining IgnoranceJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-36157571093025181922012-08-04T06:22:31.579+01:002012-08-04T06:22:31.579+01:00John Wilkins had a similar discussion with P.Z. My...John Wilkins had a similar discussion with P.Z. Myers.<br /><br />"Knowability: We are all atheist about some things: Christians are Vishnu-atheists, I am a Thor-atheist, and so on. [Which is why the "are you agnostic about fairies?" rejoinder is just dumb.] But it is a long step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Thor) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities. I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that."<br /><br />"So, I’m not an atheist in the general sense. I’m not a faithiest. I’m not a “fellow traveller” or a Mysterian, or any of those. I am simply an agnostic. In fact, I am a Militant Agnostic. Not only do I say “I don’t know”, I rigidly insist that you do not either. Good thing, then, that I don’t care…"<br /><br />http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/06/in-which-i-upset-pz-again-by-not-knowing/Rabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07408375613189248963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-63432526765980687372012-08-03T05:33:08.316+01:002012-08-03T05:33:08.316+01:00"Only the withholder of belief, the agnostic,..."<i>Only the withholder of belief, the agnostic, does not have to bear any burden of proof, because he is not believing or asserting anything ...</i>"<br /><br />That's not actually true. The so-called agnostic is claiming that *you* don't know what you believe you know (and may be arguing for). If you are presenting an argument for what you believe you know to be true, the 'agnostic' is <i>simply dismissing</i> it ... and thereby "refuting" it.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-13368901126344433562012-07-27T16:17:12.452+01:002012-07-27T16:17:12.452+01:00For these reasons I actually think the best defini...For these reasons I actually think the best definition is the one provided by the NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia, which (ironically considering the source)should be acceptable to most people. It goes something like:<br /><br />"A person is an Atheist if they subscribe to an atheistic philosophy; that is to say, a philosophy which does not include God or gods either as premises or as conclusions."<br /><br />I rather like this definition because it captures both the idea that an atheist need not outright deny the existence of God, as well as the religious perspective that it should have a substantial philosophical component.<br /><br />I suppose one problem with this definition is where that leaves Agnostics. But I suppose you could modify it to say:<br /><br />"A person is an Agnostic if they follow a philosophy which is indeterminate with regards to God or gods; that is to say, a philosophy which includes an "X unknown variable" (whose value could be Zero) at all the points at which a deity could potentially be involved."<br /><br />Unwieldy, I know, but I think it characterises the essence of the Agnostic position rather well.The Perplexed Onenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-3924696739621060582012-07-22T10:40:03.014+01:002012-07-22T10:40:03.014+01:00That's a very clever observation. It looks lik...That's a very clever observation. It looks like I'm arguing for an older definition of atheism and a contemporary definition of agnosticism and Tim was arguing for a contemporary definition of atheism and an older definition of agnosticism. I think this is mistaken however.<br /><br />The definition of atheism that I'm arguing for is not <i>merely</i> the traditional definition; it's also the contemporary definition. Tim's definition was a product of logical positivism which was common in the middle of the 20th century. I don't know if it was ever the standard definition of atheism though. My appeal to the traditional definition was to establish that the logical positivist definition was an aberration.<br /><br />Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a relatively recent term. I don't know whether Huxley's definition was accepted and so had a brief history before philosophers took it over to use in a general epistemological sense rather than just a theological sense.<br /><br />So, in short, I was appealing to the traditional <i>and</i> contemporary definition of atheism. Tim was appealing to an anachronistic definition. And I was appealing to the contemporary (and technical) definition of agnosticism, and this may very well have been its traditional definition as well. Time was appealing to its original definition but didn't argue that this definition was ever common (although it may very well have been).Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-71335005765900976102012-07-19T17:39:43.446+01:002012-07-19T17:39:43.446+01:00Having read through the previous comment thread wh...Having read through the previous comment thread which prompted this post, this seems a rather bizarre argument to me. Both Jim and Tim are simultaneously criticising each other for inappropriately using a "modern" definition of one old word, whilst simultaneously claiming that the "traditional" definition of a different old word should take precedence. I'm frankly baffled by this.<br /><br />The failure to connect here seems to be that Tim's concept of atheism involves only a statement about himself, whereas Jim thinks that atheism necessarily also requires a statement about the exterior world. If the terms "hard" and "soft" pose a problem, why not just call them "first-person" and "third-person"?<br /><br />Fact is, whatever you want to call it, Tim's version of "atheism" has a very-low-to-nonexistent burden of proof to meet because he's in the best position possible to know his own mental states. When he says he doesn't believe in God or finds the arguments for His existence unconvincing, the burden of proof would be on the critic to demonstrate that he was lying.<br /><br />Of course, if he was to THEN go on to say that belief in God is unwarranted, that non-belief should be a default position, or that the arguments for His existence should be unconvincing to any rational person, THEN he would have to assume a burden of proof for those statements. I think you both agree on this. The only difference I can see between your positions is actually over the meaning of words.The Perplexed Onenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-5341988284337083432012-07-14T04:22:08.285+01:002012-07-14T04:22:08.285+01:00Tertius said: "This "soft atheism" ...Tertius said: <i>"This "soft atheism" nonsense is better described as lazy atheism, the resort of those unwilling to do any "hard" thinking."</i><br /><br /><br />Them sounds like fight'n words to me.Rabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07408375613189248963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-80507562189348814162012-07-14T02:47:30.789+01:002012-07-14T02:47:30.789+01:00"Soft atheism strikes me as an attempt to get..."Soft atheism strikes me as an attempt to get the negative position of the atheist and the burdenfree position of the agnostic. It looks like an attempt to disbelieve in God without having to go through all the rigmarole of having any burden of proof placed upon one's shoulders."<br /><br />Absolutely agree. <br /><br />This "soft atheism" nonsense is better described as lazy atheism, the resort of those unwilling to do any "hard" thinking.tertiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06305221919889595000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-26905370775846612472012-07-13T22:10:37.565+01:002012-07-13T22:10:37.565+01:00Two points: First, I hope this post doesn't so...Two points: First, I hope this post doesn't sound like I'm running Tim down. The definition of agnosticism came up in the comments to the earlier post and as I crafted my response I quickly realized it was too long to be another comment but would have to be a post of its own. I actually respect Tim's willingness to come into the lion's den to debate us.<br /><br />Second, I say that the agnostic is not asserting or believing anything and so does not bear any burden of proof. Obviously this would only hold for personal agnosticism rather than universal agnosticism. To claim that no one knows something (or that no one <i>can</i> know it) definitely qualifies as an assertion and so someone who makes that claim would bear the burden of proof.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.com