Atheism-EN

Yes, my last post, Definition of Agnosticism , is intentionally provocative. But someone who happened to have read all the posts on this blog (yes, I like to imagine that there is someone like that) can perhaps remember an older post , imported personal blog , which refers to a concept of " agnosticism "quite different.

What happens then? I am completely contradicting myself? I changed my mind in the last year?

Nope. What is happening is that "agnostic" can have two meanings: the current, and formal.

Small "the party": something similar happens with the term "theory" in everyday language, gives the idea of a hypothesis that we raised between the 3rd and 4th beer of the night, a conversation of friends. Scientifically, it is much more detailed and formal, which is supposed to 1) be able to make verifiable predictions, and 2) be desprovável ¹ , but not having the facts "desprovem." Thus, when a creationist says "evolution is just a theory", it is to be ignorant (confusing meanings) or, more likely, dishonest (because of certainty that someone has already explained about the scientific meaning of "theory", but he continues to intentionally confuse things).

That is, if we think of agnosticism as formal, the only thing that means is that the person does not claim full knowledge, perfect on the issue. In other words, in formal terms, I'm not absolutely sure, 100%, unwavering, that there is no god ² , right, so I'm technically "agnostic." As everyone who does not have a dogmatic belief is. Under this definition, the only "non-agnostic" fundamentalist fanatics are believers, or believers "normal" or atheists are.

On the other hand, if I'm not absolutely sure, mathematically 100% of non-existence of any god, I'm so convinced of this as I am non-existence of nonexistence of elves, werewolves, the blue tea Russell, the Father Christmas or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does that make me an "atheist." Why? Because "evidence" is a concept that only exists in mathematics. But that would not, therefore, can not be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" about non-mathematical things. My "sure" that there is no god is equivalent to my "sure" that if you drop a coin, it will fall down and not up, yes, the laws of physics can be changed in the next second, and therefore, a mathematical way, my certainty can not technically be 100%, but even so I am "for all purposes" right. So I am an atheist, because I'm not "undecided" on the issue.

In short, I'm technically an agnostic atheist (and here the terms are not contradictory), but for all intents and purposes I am simply an atheist.

Now, on the other hand, we have the current definition of "agnostic", which is quite different from what you've been talking about in this post so far. In common parlance, an "agnostic" is someone who is "in," you think you can not decide or by theism or atheism. What do you think, because we can not prove that there is no god, then you can not rationally be "atheist," because for him, or there is no evidence one way or the other, any of the positions require "faith ".

Is that the kind of thought I have a problem. For now, because it is illogical and incoherent: a person for any other subject, do not need 100% certainty (in a mathematical sense), it is sufficient certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The typical "agnostic" never have gone to Western China, and yet probably do not have doubts about whether China exists ("after all, I have no proof, I never saw her ... and even if there were, it could be an optical illusion! Indeed, we may be brains in a jar and be all in our minds! Who am I to know something?? " ³ ). Why is the existence of a god should be different, or require another level of "evidence"?

It is understood that a person does not decide not to have enough data, but then only if you decide to have perfect data, with total and absolute evidence (which, again, exist only in mathematics), goes a great distance. And as I said, usually the "agnostic" does not do on other issues.

It is also an attitude in my view unfairly, as an "agnostic" typically refuses to admit that, even without proof perfect, there is evidence for each of the positions are not equivalent. On the contrary, as are the overnight. Evidence for the existence of a god are zero (typically not go bad as logical arguments " must be a first cause for all this "or" there must be God, but life does not make sense "or" without God, as can there be right and wrong? "or" atheists is that they have the obligation to prove that God does not exist "), and the lack of them turns out to be strong evidence against this hypothesis. On the other hand, evidence for a 100% natural universe are huge (among many others, there is the fact that throughout history, as it learns more, supernatural explanations have been systematically being replaced by natural, not the opposite happened). An "agnostic" typical refuses to admit it, which is dishonest and illogical of him. Hence my last definition . And hence my dislike - the inherent intellectual dishonesty and cowardice - for this type of "agnosticism".

Add to:

1. "God did it" is not desprovável, so can never be a scientific theory. [ ↩ ]
2. although they have with respect to, for example, from 3 monotheisms gods, which are obviously invented self-contradictory. [ ↩ ]
3. yes, there are people who say things like this, but do not do that in real life, if they did, they could not get out of a padded cell. [ ↩ ]

Possibly related posts:

1. Richard Dawkins, and atheism vs. agnosticism
2. FAQ: "If we can not prove the existence or nonexistence of a god, it makes more sense to self-descrevermo us as 'agnostic' instead of 'atheists'?"
3. Definition of Agnosticism
4. FAQ: "How can you be an atheist? You can not prove that God does not exist! "
5. "The burden of proof belongs to atheists"?

Article of Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 12:25, filed under Agnosticism , Atheism , Logic . You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed RSS 2.0 . You can comment on or create a trackback to here on your site.