How Can Someone be an Agnostic and an Atheist at the Same Time?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

Generally, all sentences of the form “XXXXism is true” are meaningless, because the suffix “-ism” refers to beliefs, not facts.

That doesn’t make any sense. Atheism is true if there are no Gods. Theism is true if there is a theistic God. These beliefs can be true or false whether or not we affirm them.

For example, @John_Harshman, you believe (and publicly affirm) that evolution is a true description of our origins. Whether or not evolution is true does not depend on your belief in evolution. Nor does your belief in evolution somehow negate evidence for evolution, nor does it mean your belief was not derived from belief.

Much of this conversation is confused by the false notion that faith = evidence free = belief = not fact. That might be true for some things, but it need not be true in all cases.

[T.j_Runyon]

@structureoftruth

ve also seen instances (e.g. in debates) where the weak atheism definition is given

Then they go on to present some argument againt’s God’s existence. The new atheists at least. Which always makes me scratch my head

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

nor does it mean your belief was not derived from belief

Need to fix that last word.

@swamidass

Much of this conversation is confused by the false notion that faith = evidence free = belief = not fact.

I’m not sure that anyone has actually expressed that false notion. But I’m willing to go with a relationship between “evidence-free” and “faith”, thought that relationship isn’t identity, just pretty close.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

That doesn’t make any sense. Atheism is true if there are no Gods.

If we all were certain that there are no Gods, there’d be no need for the word “atheist,” as there would be nothing with which to contrast it!

The term only exists because we don’t know. When we get to things that we really do know, we use the term “xxx denialist” to refer to those who don’t accept the fact, like the Holocaust.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

For example, @John_Harshman, you believe (and publicly affirm) that evolution is a true description of our origins.

Well, I won’t speak for John H, but I don’t believe that. I accept that based on the evidence.

@swamidass

Nor does your belief in evolution somehow negate evidence for evolution, nor does it mean your belief was not derived from belief.

It’s not a belief. If the evidence indicates that my acceptance of evolution is incorrect, I will change my mind.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@structureoftruth

Let me just refer earlier in this thread… (emphasis added)

T.j_Runyon (quoting from Draper’s SEP article):

here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing . This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.

Yes, but you seem to have missed an important qualification, despite it being bolded:

@T.j_Runyon

Therefore, in philosophy at least,…

[T_aquaticus]

@T.j_Runyon

Then they go on to present some argument againt’s God’s existence. The new atheists at least. Which always makes me scratch my head

Would you label Richard Dawkins as an atheist?

I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.
–Richard Dawkins

[John_Harshman]

I’ll speak for me. I don’t believe that the difference between “believe” and “accept” is worth having a big argument about. That’s true for most of the quibbles about definitions we’ve been having here lately.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Somehow I’m not concerned this definitional conversation is not going on devolve into a hundred post circular “conversation.” I wonder why not?

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

I wonder why not?

Can’t imagine. Because there are fewer creationists involved?

[T_aquaticus]

There does seem to be a good middle ground that most here would seem to agree with as it is described by Draper in the aforementioned SEP article:

Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different. For example, in some contexts the crucial issue may be which definition of “atheist” (as opposed to “atheism”) is the most useful politically, especially in light of the bigotry that those who identify as atheists face. The fact that there is strength in numbers may recommend a very inclusive definition of “atheist” that brings anyone who is not a theist into the fold. Having said that, one would think that it would further no good cause, political or otherwise, to attack fellow non-theists who do not identify as atheists simply because they choose to use the term “atheist” in some other, equally legitimate sense.
Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Flew’s definition of atheism is the one I am using which refers to the psychological state of not believing in gods.

[T.j_Runyon]

@T_aquaticus

I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.
–Richard Dawkins

I’d consider him an atheist. It’s not about certainty. It’s about which hypothesis, Theism or atheism, best explains the universe we see. For a long time I held the position that metaphysical naturalism was the best explanation. Now I think Theism. Though I’m still very sympathetic to naturalism. I’m in a weird place right now lol

[Patrick]

@T.j_Runyon

Theism or atheism, best explains the universe we see.

Neither explains the universe.
The only methodology that best explains the universe comes from science which is a product of human creativity and ingenuity over the past million years.

[T.j_Runyon]

Goodness gracious. I’m not talking about the inner workings of the universe. I’m talking about the nature of it. The nature of reality.

[Patrick]

And so am I. The nature of reality is best explained by Science. Theism or atheism explains nothing about the nature of reality.

[T.j_Runyon]

You’re not getting it. Science can explain the workings of the universe but it can’t touch metaphysics. Many atheists will claim that the indifferent nature of the universe is by explained by atheism. Do you not agree?

[T.j_Runyon]

@Patrick

The nature of reality is best explained by Science.

What best explains the success of science? Why does science work so well?

[Patrick]

@T.j_Runyon

You’re not getting it. Science can explain the workings of the universe but it can’t touch metaphysics. Many atheists will claim that the indifferent nature of the universe is by explained by atheism. Do you not agree?

I am getting it. Atheist make no such claims. As a human being I don’t feel indifferent about other human beings.

[Patrick]

@T.j_Runyon

What best explains the success of science?

It works!

@T.j_Runyon

Why does science work so well?

Because it is based on human creativity and human reasoning. Humans have been using science for a million years to figure out how the world works and how to live better.

[T.j_Runyon]

@Patrick

Atheist make no such claims

I can no longer take you serious. I know you aren’t big on philosophy but goodness. I bet I can find something along those lines on this forum that you’ve said.