Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huxley does not say don't believe until you know. He says don't claim to believe or know, without scientific evidence.
Believing a greater proposition is true, is based on beliefs of lesser propositions, usually justified in some way. Theists tend to layer beliefs upon other beliefs, "I believe my parents tell me the truth, they told me the preacher tells the truth, he told me the bible is true, etc. etc.". Huxley demands scientific justification, of lesser propositions, as evidence towards the truth of the greater proposition, before believing it is true. Agnosticism is not compatible with Theism.
Agnosticism basically equates to religious skepticism. Since it impossible to both belive x is true and doubt x is true. If you no longer have doubt, as to the truth of a proposition, you are no longer skeptical (Agnostic) about it. The Athe-ist believes a proposition, "God does not exist", is true. The Theist believes a propositon, "God exists", is true. Being an Agnostic (religious skeptic) is not compatible with being a believer, Athe-ist or Theist, though it may approve of the Athe-ists methodology.
Part 2, of the previous quote: "Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not." ~ Huxley
Modern definitions are based on George H Smith's, 1974, ATHEISM: The Case Against God. His whole case for redefinition rested on his argument that Agnosticism wasn't a viable third alternative to Athe-ism (what he admits is the most common definition, numerous times) or Theism. He spent much time butchering the definition of Agnosticism, to make his point.
Agnosticism is an adequate third alternative, all on its own, being the initial no belief stage of a justified true belief.
Part of the problem with Huxley's definition is that it can't really exist in practice. If there is a specific God proposition that is true, then that should condition your behavior in specific ways, for example we should tithe to a religious institution. If that god proposition is false, then there is no requirement to tite. If you don't believe either proposition, what do you do? Should you give 5% to a religion you don't believe, simply becasue it is splitting the difference? Or is your behavior generally indistinguishable from that of an atheist? Even if we do not claim knowledge, we assume in our behavior that if there is no evidence for the existence of God then there is no reason to behave as if it were true, which leads to a sort of default that he is not.
There may be a third alternative logically, but I fail to see one where the rubber meets the road, the way we act and make day to day decisions.
This is why the idea of a knowledge axis and a belief axis seems to make more sense. It appears to more accurately reflect the way people deal with these beliefs in real life.
The Athe-ist believes a proposition, "God does not exist", is true.
As an atheist, I do not believe that proposition to be true. I don't even know which "God" it's referring to. I'd actually rewrite this to say, "The atheist does not believe the claim, "a god exists" is true". The theist is making the positive claim, the atheist simply doesn't believe it. This distinction seems subtle, it is not.
A theist is a god believer.
An atheist is not a god believer.
a(not)theist(god believer)
It's really that simple. Why do people insist on making this more complicated than it is? Saying, "I'm not a god believer" is synonymous with saying, "I'm an atheist".
Mucking up the two positions, theist and atheist, with the terms gnostic and agnostic only servers to obfuscated the simplicity of the issue. You are either a god believer or you are not.
As an atheist, I do not believe that proposition to be true. I don't even know which "God" it's referring to. I'd actually rewrite this to say, "The atheist does not believe the claim, "a god exists" is true". The theist is making the positive claim, the atheist simply doesn't believe it. This distinction seems subtle, it is not.
A theist is a god believer.
An atheist is not a god believer.
a(not)theist(god believer)
It's really that simple. Why do people insist on making this more complicated than it is? Saying, "I'm not a god believer" is synonymous with saying, "I'm an atheist".
Mucking up the two positions, theist and atheist, with the terms gnostic and agnostic only servers to obfuscated the simplicity of the issue. You are either a god believer or you are not.
I wasn't using the more modern A-theist definition, I was using the older Athe-ist definition (strong Atheist, the linguistically correct definition, as the root word is Atheos, not Theos). And, I think it's the newer definition that has mucked up the simplicity of the issue. Broadening definitions conveys less information Atheist now has two definitions, both A-theist and Athe-ist.
Part of the problem with Huxley's definition is that it can't really exist in practice. If there is a specific God proposition that is true, then that should condition your behavior in specific ways, for example we should tithe to a religious institution. If that god proposition is false, then there is no requirement to tite. If you don't believe either proposition, what do you do? Should you give 5% to a religion you don't believe, simply becasue it is splitting the difference? Or is your behavior generally indistinguishable from that of an atheist? Even if we do not claim knowledge, we assume in our behavior that if there is no evidence for the existence of God then there is no reason to behave as if it were true, which leads to a sort of default that he is not.
There may be a third alternative logically, but I fail to see one where the rubber meets the road, the way we act and make day to day decisions.
This is why the idea of a knowledge axis and a belief axis seems to make more sense. It appears to more accurately reflect the way people deal with these beliefs in real life.
-NoCapo
There's no problem with his definition. He did not, in any way, say to assume something might be true. Far from it. It is basically the same as the weak Atheist position, which itself is a third alternative to the strong Atheist and Theist positions, except you're calling two positions by the same default name, requiring adjectives to distinguish them. Plus, you have no label for the no belief position to the strong Atheist proposition, "God does not exist".
I'm as certain that there is no God as I am that there is no Hercules, Superman, Santa Claus or Luke Skywalker. Therefore, I consider myself to be an atheist.
Isn't it funny how "agnosticism" only applies to God, but it never applies to any other imaginary concept invented by humans?
Agnosticism is basically a one word definition for religious skepticism, so yes only applies to religion. Are you Atheistic about unicorns? If so, your using "Atheistic" wrong.
I wasn't using the more modern A-theist definition, I was using the older Athe-ist definition (strong Atheist, the linguistically correct definition, as the root word is Atheos, not Theos). And, I think it's the newer definition that has mucked up the simplicity of the issue. Broadening definitions conveys less information Atheist now has two definitions, both A-theist and Athe-ist.
I guess I am confused by your athe-ism and a-theism... As far as I can tell, etymologically speaking, this distinction is nowhere to be found in the history of the word. In Greek atheos means godless, and was originally just an insult or a description of an impious person. It evolved from there through Latin and French, until it showed up in English with roughly its current meaning, one who does not believe in god(s).
There are quite a few shades of this lack of belief in a god. This is why many of us non believers have adopted the two dimensional model with the spectrum from agnosis to gnosis on the one axis, and atheism to theism on the other. It appears to more accurately model any particular shade of belief or unbelief.
Based on your own description I would put you in that same place that I inhabit, an agnostic athist. I do not claim to know that there is or is not a god, merely that it has not been demonstrated at this time, but the consequence of that is I live as though there is no god. Even if I claim not to have a belief regarding the existence of a god, my actions say otherwise, because I make no practical concessions in my life to a god. As you say, your definition of agnostic is roughly the same thing, only you gloss over the fact that your lack of belief in the absence of agod has much less impact on your life than your lack of belief in the existence of god.
This is in no way saying that this is what Huxley thought, but just becasue he invented the term, ther is no reason it cannot evolve like all the rest of human language, and in the process be used in a more precise manner to deal with the present day.
Like I said before, semantics aside, you are in the same boat as the vast majority of atheists, as real gnostic atheists are few and far between these days.
Except that atheist and agnostic is not synonymous. One can be for instance an agnostic theist just as another person can be an agnostic atheist. In fact, I would highly suggest all humans lie in one of these two categories.
Atheist/non believer: works
agnostic: describes something other than belief
heathen: is generally a pejorative
I guess I am confused by your athe-ism and a-theism... As far as I can tell, etymologically speaking, this distinction is nowhere to be found in the history of the word. In Greek atheos means godless, and was originally just an insult or a description of an impious person. It evolved from there through Latin and French, until it showed up in English with roughly its current meaning, one who does not believe in god(s).
There are quite a few shades of this lack of belief in a god. This is why many of us non believers have adopted the two dimensional model with the spectrum from agnosis to gnosis on the one axis, and atheism to theism on the other. It appears to more accurately model any particular shade of belief or unbelief.
Based on your own description I would put you in that same place that I inhabit, an agnostic athist. I do not claim to know that there is or is not a god, merely that it has not been demonstrated at this time, but the consequence of that is I live as though there is no god. Even if I claim not to have a belief regarding the existence of a god, my actions say otherwise, because I make no practical concessions in my life to a god. As you say, your definition of agnostic is roughly the same thing, only you gloss over the fact that your lack of belief in the absence of agod has much less impact on your life than your lack of belief in the existence of god.
This is in no way saying that this is what Huxley thought, but just becasue he invented the term, ther is no reason it cannot evolve like all the rest of human language, and in the process be used in a more precise manner to deal with the present day.
Like I said before, semantics aside, you are in the same boat as the vast majority of atheists, as real gnostic atheists are few and far between these days.
-NoCapo
Root word is Atheos, yes. There are supposed to be rules about root words.
To make the current definition match etymology, and linguistics, you actually have to base the new word on the word Theos, attach the -ism first, then attach the a-. Taking the root word Atheos, attaching an -ist, and coming out with the word A-the(os)ist instead of Athe(os)-ist, doesn't make sense.
A number of dictionaries still use the older definition, including Cambridge: "someone who believes that God does not exist"
Yes, we sound like we have the same position. With the new labeling system there is no word for our belief position, regarding the Athe-ist (strong) claim "God does not exist", as the A-theist label only addresses the Theist's claim. You, and I, are now missing a label. A strong Atheist doesn't have to be gnostic.
Terms can evolve, but Huxley outright stated what was the heart and most importent aspect of Agnosticism, in other works, and that was the skepticism aspect. This "Agnostic Theism" and "Agnostic Athe-ism", is not Agnosticism. George H Smith butchered the definition and presented this now incomplete labelling system, in 1974.
Agnosticism is basically a one word definition for religious skepticism, so yes only applies to religion. Are you Atheistic about unicorns? If so, your using "Atheistic" wrong.
What I'm saying is that no one says "it's impossible to know whether or not unicorns (or fairies, or Santa Claus, etc.) exist." No word has ever been coined in the English language to refer to this knowledge position. It is nearly universally agreed (among adults) that these things are make-believe and don't have a real existence outside of imagination.
However, it's only in reference to "God" that this unique knowledge position called agnosticism has been invented. Somehow, God gets special treatment compared to every other imaginary concept out there, it seems.
Yes, we sound like we have the same position. With the new labeling system there is no word for our belief position, regarding the Athe-ist (strong) claim "God does not exist", as the A-theist label only addresses the Theist's claim. You, and I, are now missing a label. A strong Atheist doesn't have to be gnostic.
I am not sure I see any difference between an agnostic strong atheist position ( I cannot know, but I believe god does not exist and therefore act as though there is no god) and the more normative agnostic atheist position( I cannot know, but I do not believe god exists and therefore act as though there is no god). To me the biggest problem with the strong atheist position is the knowledge claim, which the agnostic part takes care of admirably. Once you have gotten past claiming for a certainty what you do not know, it seems both positions wind up at the same place, living as though there is no god.
I personally am very comfortable with the idea of the label of agnostic atheist, since it both describes my approach to knowledge and my behavior regarding a deity.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
