Not much difference it seems at first but there are strong differences in personality. I wrote a paper on agnosticism a long time ago; it makes some sweeping generalizations and I am actually revising it into a better, tighter, paper but for now I will give you guys the rough draft. Agnostics, please do not take offense to this, but this is how I view agnosticism: I view it as self-defeating project. If people are interested, I am willing to post my revised and much better paper later when I finish it. If its too long then forget about reading it, but I wrote this paper in order to speak to those agnostics and try to convince them to take God's existence as the most pressing matter of their lives. It's really long (6 page paper) so bear with me. Here it is: NOTES FROM A NOBODY Throughout my life I have viewed atheism as a position that could not be taken too seriously. To claim that there is no God seemed foolish to me because it ruled out the possibility of God’s existence. I understood the beliefs held by the pious and the agnostic. The pious finds proof of God’s existence through his individual experience since he feels a direct relationship to God. The agnostic however, does not see any reason or proof behind God’s existence, but wisely refrains from ruling out the possibility that God might exist. What is it about the atheist that makes him so certain and defiant? What does the atheist know that the religious and the agnostic do not? It seemed outside human understanding to rule out God’s existence because one can never be certain that God does not exist. If atheism is for the fools, then it seems odd that its followers included such great thinkers as Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell. How could these great thinkers fall into the category of fools? Wouldn’t they realize that there was no way to prove their claims? It did not seem reasonable that Sartre, Russell and other thinkers would stand by such a weak and vulnerable statement. After reading Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophies, I realized that it was I who was foolish for looking at atheism the wrong way. When one says, “I am an atheist,” it is not simply a statement of belief but rather how one acts according to those beliefs which forms the life that someone lives. This is why the statement reads, “I am an atheist,” since it is part of who a person is. After this revelation, I understood that atheism is actually an individual’s statement that he does not want God in his world, and/or does not recognize God’s power. Whether God exists is not the question for atheists, rather atheism is a declaration that God will have no part in that individual’s life. Does the atheist recognize God’s influence in the lives of others, such as the pious? My answer is no. Although atheism is an individual’s choice, the choice extends into how that individual perceives the world around him. The atheist does not recognize God’s presence in his own life or the lives of others. When the atheist looks at the pious he sees a sham; when he looks at God he sees a lie. So with this understanding of the atheist, how should we understand the pious or the agnostic? Kierkegaard would say that both the atheist and pious have chosen themselves and their existence, and therefore every action they make is one that creates their beliefs. For example, the pious acts in a religious way because he has a religious view and perspective on the world. But how do the pious and the atheist see two different worlds when living in the same surroundings? Like Dr. XXXXXX says, it is a simple disagreement between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Dee believes in God and life after death, while Dum on the other hand, does not believe in God and thinks that there is only one life to live. “Both look at the world, both see the seasons change, delight as new life appears, wonder together at the enormity of space in the night sky, are awed by the majesty and beauty of mountains, the force and depth of the sea.” These two Tweedles see the same reality, but perceive and interpret it in their own way. This is not a disagreement over scientific facts or objective truths, but rather a disagreement of belief. The best way to describe the disagreement between these two Tweedles is Wittgenstein’s Duck/Rabbit. (Clutchfans, you can see this picture by going to Google and searching for Duck Rabbit and go to Images) When I first saw the figure it looked like a duck. But at second glance, it became a rabbit. The figure illustrates the different perceptions one can see while looking at the same reality. Dee understands how Dum sees a duck, and Dum understands how Dee can see a rabbit, but the two have a fundamental disagreement where there can be no compromise. It is this simple disagreement of perception that leads the two towards very different walks of life. But are we missing something here? The agnostic would argue that there is another view possible: to envision both the duck and the rabbit, to see both perceptions at the same time. At first glance the agnostic view seems legitimate, but one soon realizes that it is self-deceiving. An agnostic is someone who believes God’s existence is unknowable and avoids commitment to either believing or disbelieving in God. The agnostic is surrounded by choices but he decides to make evasive choices that will not send him upon a different path: choices that aren’t decisive. Instead, the agnostic wants to keep all possibilities available to him. He wants to move freely between both worlds: have his cake and eat it too. How would the agnostic fit as a mode of existence? I think that Kierkegaard would say that being agnostic is being in despair. The individual decides to live outside his self and refuses to choose. I think there are two types of agnostics: those who are concerned with only objective truth, and those that fear their commitment to atheism or religion will restrain their freedom. The first we shall call Socratic Agnosticism and the latter will be called Romantic Agnosticism: both deceive themselves and both are in error. The Socratic Agnostic believes there is not enough proof to declare whether God exists or not. He believes himself wise for claiming Socratic ignorance about God since there is no objective proof, but indeed the Socratic Agnostic has missed the point. The Socratic view only leads to agnosticism and skepticism. The Socratic will tell Euthyphro, “Prove to me that the gods exist! Prove to me that you know what the gods want!” Indeed, under the Socratic method it is impossible to prove God’s existence. If Euthyphro had not been a religious fraud, he would have refrained from trying to prove his point objectively as he did in the dialogue and instead proudly say, “I believe, because I have faith!” God’s existence is a subjective truth and so too is faith. Faith is required in order for the pious to believe in God, and faith is required in order for the atheist to declare absolutely, “There is no God.” It is faith that the agnostic lacks, and he will never find it because faith is not conceptual as he thinks, but concrete; it’s not something you know, it’s something you live. This is not to say that the Socratic Agnostic is not aware of faith but he fails to understand it. The Socratic realizes the importance of faith, but he looks for it as if it is something that could be found through reason or empirical evidence. Therefore the Socratic will never believe in God’s existence or nonexistence because he views faith as something he must possess rather than something he must experience. The Romantic Agnostic avoids committing himself to either believing or disbelieving in God. For if he chose between either atheism or piety, he would have to live the existence of his choice and refrain from actions that are contradictory to his new-found faith. Therefore he would have to play a predictable role and go along with the rules. The Romantic thinks this to be a restraint on his freedom: he refuses to choose between the two so that he can do whatever he pleases. What the Romantic Agnostic does not realize is that he is in a state of bad faith! Although it is freedom that the Romantic loves, he flees from the very freedom he seeks by refusing to exercise his choice. Rather, the Romantic likes to flirt with both sides as according to his whim; upon hard times he will ask God for help and mercy, and on better days he will ignore God and religion if it gets in the way of his desires. Does the agnostic actually believe that God is so stupid that He cannot see through this strategy? And if there is no God, whom then is the agnostic fooling but himself? Yet this is the “freedom” that the agnostic holds onto by running from commitment. It is the ability to be both the pious and the atheist: the ability to see both the duck and the rabbit. But this kind of thinking is irrational! To believe that one can be both pious and atheist by switching between the two roles is just as irrational as it is to see the duck and the rabbit together at once. It is only possible to see the duckrabbit by deceiving oneself! Being a Romantic Agnostic is just that self-deceit: it is a thirst for freedom but is ultimately a refusal of freedom, choice, responsibility, and existence. It is the individual’s retreat into bad faith. Therefore the Romantic will never achieve his true self, never acquire a personality, and never come into existence, for faith is required to do all these things. We have been talking about the agnostic, the atheist, and the pious when in fact we have entered the philosophy of Kierkegaard and his modes of existence. The agnostic relates to the category of the aesthete, the pious to the religious, and the atheist to the ethical. After all, the atheist has no relation with God, but only relations with people whereas the ethical only has relations with people as well. Furthermore the agnostic’s existence as well as the aesthete’s revolves around the pleasure principle. The aesthete and the agnostic treat freedom as a sort of pleasure. The agnostic believes that by fleeing from commitment he can protect his freedom. He is able to play roles that are contradictory to the religious and atheist, and can switch in and out of these roles as he pleases. He believes he can become “religious” off and on according to his whim as if God is there for his satisfaction. The life of the agnostic is that of a masquerade. But this masquerade is a celebration of self-deception according to Judge Wilhelm in Kierkegaard’s Either/Or. Judge Wilhelm says to the aesthete, “So far, no one has succeeded in knowing you; for every revelation you make is always an illusion… In fact, you are nothing: you are merely a relation to others, and what you are you are by virtue of this relation.” Judge Wilhelm despises the unpredictability that the aesthete and agnostic adore, because with this unpredictability and lack of commitment, the agnostic denies his true self and personality by refusing to choose himself and his existence. In other words, the agnostic creates his own alienation from freedom. Only through self-inquiry and meditation can the agnostic cease to be a No Body. As a former No Body, I must warn the agnostic that he is in danger. In danger of becoming the man “who woke up one day and discovered he was dead.” I have lived the life of the agnostic. I have been an undeclared atheist: not willing to make the commitment to God but not willing to deny His existence if indeed He did exist and send me to hell. But right now it is time to declare my existence and say, “There is no God. I am an atheist.” With that statement, I immediately feel the burden of responsibility: anguish. I dread that I may be wrong. I dread that God may in fact exist and sentence me to eternal damnation. I dread the little life that I have on this earth and the uncertain future it holds. This is the faith of the atheist. There is always risk that comes with faith and it is a burden I heartily accept because without it I would truly be dead.
Doesn't all of this rely on a certain definition of God? Don't you have to have a idea to believe in? The God that one experiences and the one we speak of are different. Also, someone could experience that which some call God, but call it something else, or feel a label is distracting to the actual experience. It can become an argument over linguistics, with the experience transcending the words. I see labeling yourself as anything self-defeating, you are binding yourself to your own concepts. I don't feel comfortable doing that.
I disagree really with the first sentence, in that one cannot define God. For a Christian, we have revelation, but revelation only informs us that the "ignorance principle" and I borrow that from Socrates and the agnostics and use it to mean, the philosophic search that ends in knowing that it cannot know the whole, or know that which is being qua being but points to something outside of self and reason (but not divorced from reason), that "ignorance principle" is fulfilled in the trinitine mystery of the three figure Godhead....Yet still we do not "know God" in the sense that we know physics, or astronomy, or even simple sentence formation (this one remains a mystery to me). These things are like doctrines of the church, on the right track yet always growing in the fecundity of their true meaning, yet God is beyond even the fullness of those things. Words, sounds, sights, etc. etc. pretty much fail to describe. Love comes close, but even we cannot wrap our minds around agape or divine love. That's the funny thing about Christianity in that in some ways it is saying that it knows everything and holds full knowledge while at the same time what it knows is (and this is probably the kicker for me when it comes to Xianity) a simple and humble subservient love for God, a knowledge that it cannot know the whole (unless of course blessed and given grace, which must then be accepted, by the creator) You should really check out Father Thomas Merton's 7 Storey Mountain.[/I} He was this monk who often said things that would come close to some of the sig's you've had, just with a Christian Emphasis. Oh and I'm not trying to convert you or anything like that, its just that of all the thinkers I can think of, you would probably be turned on by his thought the most.
Now, I'm confused. Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. This means I cannot believe in some sort of something?
I'm saying I've never met someone who didn't turn some sort of something into a god.... For instance, most atheists will believe in a thing called love, and that love becomes an objective truth outside of them that they live by.
That's kind of my point. When someone asks if you believe in God, they are really asking you if you believe in the concept of God, because that's all we have to speak about. Even saying a "God that can not be defined" is still a concept of God. Every individual has their own unique idea. So when I am asked the question, I prefer to say no sometimes and yes others. I would like to try not to get tangled in the concepts.
Oh yeah twhy77, I am familiar with Father Merton. My favorite quote from him is "I will be the best Buddhist I can be."
God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. I do not believe in the existence of the above. In my opinion, this makes me an atheist.
View the above conversation between Mr. Mewogi and I.... Worshiping money, another person, the Earth, etc. etc. would indirectly be the worshipping of some god or gods...you might not choose to worship the monotheistic God, but you are turning that worship onto something else that rules your life...in a way its inescapable and the differences lie only in the language. A true atheist I've yet to stumble across in my sojourns. Someone who disbelieves in the monotheistic God I've seen many a time. Dictionary defintions really don't capture the fullness of the words you are speaking of, in short the language runs short simply because there is no tangible language to describe God.
I most wholeheartedly disagree. In any discussion, it is important to agree upon what is being discussed. The meaning of words used is crucial. I refute your explanation that an atheist is someone who worships nothing. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods. I don't think it is unreasonable to use the word "god" to describe a supreme being of some description. You appear to define "god" as "any object of worship". I do not agree with this definition. In fact, I would suggest that you're stretching the definition of "worship" too. I have chosen not to worship polytheistic gods or a monotheistic god. Not only have I have chosen to not worship, I have also chosen to disbelieve in their existence. I fail to see how that could make me anything other than an atheist. Pimphand24 cites Kierkegaard, and I would recommend Fear and Trembling as an interesting read.
Been there done that, you seem to be more of a Shopenhauer type of guy. Listen, we're disagreeing on terms here, and that's fine, I guess you could call yourself an atheist because you don't believe in Diana, Goddess of the Hunt, or in the monotheistic God. That's all well and good. Doesn't quite fit my definition of an Atheist, most notably seen in Conrad's Kurtz in Heart of Darkness.
I have trouble seperating the two if they are to be played out to all of their logical consequences....
You have an odd philosophy, there. I guess, basically, you are saying that atheists don't exist...so neither do nihilists? Of course, you are altering the definition of "atheist" so that it is impossible to be one, thus making your worldview highly problematic.
In a sense you are right and thats my fault for not being more precise when I speak. Nihilists I would say exist, even if it can only be in a Kurtz like state. And I didn't say it was impossible to be an atheist (or if I did, I think I meant, that it is hard to stand on the precipice of that abyss and stare at the great nothing like a Kurtz would, very few do, they despair and usually end up committing suicide), just that the term gets misused a lot these days for someone who simply doesn't believe in a monotheistic God, yet still believes in man's search for happiness or love (which is part and parcel of the non-atheist's search for God). Two simplify it, there either is or is not a God. I think the former necessetitates nihilism (at death, things cease because there is no Eternal transcedence, there is simply nothing, and to what extent that nothing invades the life we live is another question) simply because of the logical implications of being and non-being. Life loses importance becomes like a dull wave crashing upon a rock, etc.. etc.
I don't understand why you would tie atheism to monotheism either. My atheism applies equally to polytheistic religions. By the way, don't worry, I'm not about to commit suicide. Even if I am an atheist. I don't understand why you would name two specific gods to define my atheism. I don't believe in any gods. My search for happiness/love, which you cite as a reason for my lack of atheism, is merely my attempts to create a chemical imbalance in my brain, directly attributable to my reaction to physical events. I suppose it would equate to drinking to get drunk. Perhaps you could further explain why this sort of behaviour constitutes belief in a god (by your definition).
So nature, or cosmology to be fair, becomes your God, the be all end all absolute truth. Natural theorems substitute for dogmas and so on and so on.
So the physical universe is my god? Obviously excluding the question about the very nature of our physical existence. So to be an atheist, I would have to disbelieve in the physical universe, and by definition my own physical existence?
