Jehanne

First of all, I am not aware of any academic or any other author for that matter who is, at present (or in the past), defending agnosticism "against" atheism. Secondly, historically speaking, very little, if any, difference existed, philosophically speaking, between those who referred to themselves as being "atheist" and those who referred to themselves as being "agnostic." Can you provide any sources for your claim? The Wikipedia article that I provided references the term "Agnostic Atheist" as dating from the 19th-century.

lauraclay

There is a such thing as an agnostic atheist. However, if you are truly agnostic then you are not atheist. Agnostics believe you can't know. Atheists believe they do know, and they know that there is not a god. Huge difference.

Jehanne

This is simply not true. Again, if you take the time to read The God Delusion, especially pages 43 to 57 (oddly enough, entitled "The Poverty of Agnosticism"), Dawkins admits to being an agnostic. To some extent, all atheists are agnostics. Atheism is a statement about belief, agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Contrary to Dawkins and others, an "Atheist Agnostic" who posts at the IIDB (where I also post) does not believe in God (which she, like me, defines as "an absence of belief") but is also of the opinion that God is both unknown and unknowable. As an atheist, I would agree with the former, but certainly not the latter. Dawkins, on countless occasions, also admits to "possibly being wrong," as do I.

lauraclay

There is a difference between possibly being wrong and completely and totally believing that you can't know. I think agnosticism also covers beliefs. Just because one man says otherwise doesn't convince me. I can give you countless other people so support my view.
Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The coiner of the term, all about beliefs.
There are definitely different 'branches', I guess, of agnosticism. There's theistic agnosticism, and atheistic agnosticism. But I think that the adjectives in front of agnosticism sort of nullify it. It is no longer complete agnosticism if you believe or disbelieve in a God. But, you can still call yourself agnostic. In one forum somebody wrote (with humor, not to be taken with 100% literalness):
Please, please, please, do not take this to be my opinion. It's just a little humor to lighten things up.

What Is An Agnostic?
Bertrand Russell Bertrand Russell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jehanne

Dawkins, in The God Delusion, talks about Huxley's "agnosticism." By Huxley's definition, I am also an agnostic. Remember, however, that Huxley wrote before Popper and Russell, and especially before methodological statistical analysis became part of the scientific method. In short, for many atheists, atheistic naturalism is the "null hypothesis," and the burden of proof is on the theist or deist to provide evidence to the contrary, that is, to provide evidence that would disprove scientific naturalism. Such logic (namely, the use of p-values) was unknown in Huxley's time, because it had not yet been invented! The position that Huxley was espousing is, in essence, equivalent to modern atheism, as Dawkins rightly argues in TGD.

Problem is, though, as I stated above -- no scholar whom I know of is defending agnosticism against atheism. Many have accepted George H. Smith's argument that all agnostics are also atheists. Dawkins rightly argues that there are no "strong atheists" (Category 7 on Pages 51-52 of TGD is, in effect, empty), which means that all atheists are "weak atheists" at least with respect to some concept of "God." A "weak atheist" is basically an agnostic who believes that the "burden of proof" is on the believer and not on the skeptic to provide evidence of his/her deity. At a minimum atheism says that we should suspend judgment with respect to a person's deity. At most atheism says that the existence of God is "very, very improbable." After reading TGD, I took issue with Dawkins on this point, but if you consider his statement as being a dynamic probability (as opposed to a "static" assessment), then what he is saying makes, IMHO, perfect sense.

Russell equated agnosticism with atheism late in his career, which I cited above.

lauraclay

Where does atheism only claim that it's very unlikely that there is a God. I was always under the impression that atheists believe there cannot be a God.

Jehanne

I am not aware of any atheist author or thinker (or very many individual atheists, for that matter) who claim with "100% certainty" that there is no God. As an atheist, I simply suspend judgment (and hence, choose to withhold belief) with respect to the existence of God. I would not, as Dawkins does, even say that the existence of God is something that is "very, very improbable"; although, I think that his claim is reasonable, provided that he is open to new evidence (which, of course, he is.) Even Dawkins admits to being in "Category 6" and chooses to be agnostic about God to the same extent that he is agnostic about fairies and unicorns but no where has he ever claimed that "God does not exist." Neither did Russell or any atheistic author after him. Antony Flew, an atheistic philosopher who converted to deism here a few years ago, wrote The Presumption of Atheism and was true to his own words.

debdodd

So what's your point? If someone wants to call themselves an agnostic what's the big deal? Women dye their hair blonde and call themselves blonde's but strip 'em down butt naked and you'll know the truth. What does it matter what one calls oneself .... In the big scheme of things does it matter? Is there government funding if you're in one category or another? It's not the label on the person that makes them who they are, or what they believe.

You've got a great background, you can spout off Bertrand Russell and all his ilk but like you said .... a bunch of "probables" and "unprovable" and "I may not be exactly correct" rhetoric ... big deal .... what laura believes is what she believes and therefore it is "right" for her. What is not right is for you to lay all your college knowledge on her and tell her she is not who she says she is .... if she wants to say she's a "blonde" big deal, no sweat, I say she's "blonde" until her roots show in 6 weeks and then she'll be a "blonde" again after a visit to the salon ......

I know I broke it down in an idiotic way .... don't you think the more important factor is that she is reading, looking for truths? She'll absorb or not but why must it have a label just to read and seek? Discussion and debate are great learning tools until someone stops debating and begins postulating because they have a better academic background than another. Some of us are every day people nothing more ....

sometimes when academics get on threads they want to educate us a little too much opposed to discussing issues. That's just my observation .... you're sounding a little to condescending when you tell her "if you take the time to read" TGD ... well it kinda' smacks of an attitude of academic superiority that's not flattering.

Jehanne

I agree. We're splitting philosophical hairs here! If someone asked me, "Are you an agnostic?", I would reply "Yes." If someone asked me, "Are you an atheist?", I would reply "Yes." If someone asked me, "Are you an agnostic or atheist?", I would reply "atheist."

Oh, I agree 100%!

Agreed.

Okay.

Dawkins' book is a popular treatise on atheism. I do have a graduate degree but it's in business! (a MBA)

lauraclay

You do realize debdodd said all those quotes, not me, right? I mean, I agree with her, but you still misquoted.