Jumpin said:
The topic that interests me right now is the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. While I think most people here (if not everyone) understands there's a difference, a great number of people do not; or at least respect the difference.
So, I understand the theist who can't distinguish between atheist and agnostic, sometimes not even between atheist, agnostics, and deists, or even people of differing religions.
But then there are people from the New Atheist movement who also take stances - Christopher Hitchens: agnosticism is a compromise, and that if people get to the position of agnosticism, why not go the rest of the way? Richard Dawkins: agnosticism is a midway position, like an egg on a barn-roof, it will eventually roll one way.
To respond to theists: think of it as academic vs vocational education - both can get you jobs, but one is focused on academic subjects while the other is focused on specific skills and processes for working a job - Academic examples include attending a university to learn Arts or Sciences - with subjects like Philosophy, Chemistry, and Literature; Vocational studies include attending a college to learn a program such as: Nursing, Plumbing, and Electrician school.
So, to respond to Dawkins, my above explanation, which is based on TH Huxley:
Ask the question, "What is the answer to the question of existence?" Instead of using just the "probability" analysis, look also at the "possibility" analysis.
So, lets look at the term X and Y as the probability terms (or you can do X for all, I just use different letters to avoid confusion.
Atheism: no god=X, gods=Y. So, in this analysis, X>50%, Y Agnosticism: sees no god=X or gods=Y as unknowable or unknown terms. Or even as a binary, "X=100% Possible" and Y=100% Possible". And I personally take it further, considering other possibilities, and specific god definitions, some as 100% possible, but others "man in the sky god" or "god on mount Olympus" as being less than 1%, if not 0%.
Theism: no god=X, gods=Y. So, in this analysis, X50%
To address Hitchens. Even using the explanation above for Dawkins, it's not a compromise, just a position. Yes, you can come to the position the same way. A Christian presents their evidence for their God, and you find that's incoherent with what we know about reality, and both an agnostic and atheist may come to this same conclusion for every religion. But that doesn't get us to atheism, merely to irreligion. Because the question of existence is still unknown, and the idea of a maker, a prime mover, or some kind of force we don't quite understand isn't going to lead all rational people to the same conclusions. An agnostic mainly entertains options much more seriously than an atheist. An atheist like Hitchens might ask "why entertain any of these options when you can't produce any evidence for them?", and to him the answer would be "Just conclude there probably is no forces that can be called godlike, and when you get there, you might as well go the rest of the way and say no gods exist." - but, in order to reach that position, you have to not entertain philosophical hypotheticals with seriousness. Agnostics merely cross the bridge into considering the different hypotheticals → this happens in science all the time, it's not irrational, it's part of the process in how we explore phenomena.
So, for me (switching this to a more personal discussion), when it comes to the question of existence, I see no evidence of an answer, so I entertain the possible options which include gods (or things I might define as gods) and no-gods. On religion, I think I could share some of Christopher Hitchens's anti-theistic positions because the idea of eternal damnation sounds evil to me.
That said, I don't have anything against atheists or theists/deists on their own. It's the application of dogmatic principles and "cult" approach that I dislike. And by cult, I mean the modern definition rather than the ancient ones. More or less, if people try to coerce their worldview on others, that's where I take a stand. I also think that judgment on others is asking for a fight :D Even Jesus hated judgment, a lesson many Christians can repeat thousands of times without ever learning or following it. But I'm getting off topic now. |
