tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Nov 23, 2003 12:42:38 GMT -5
As I understand it so far, people here assume that there is gnostic and agnostic atheism, as well as agnostic and gnostic theism. And that the term agnostic (noun) as invented by Huxley over 100 yrs ago is misapplied.
In this nomenclature, I would be agnostic theist.
I think that you are right to seek greater precision for the terms.
However, I’d like to point out some problems I have with it. As I understand my own stance, I am a gnostic because I believe that valid knowledge is possible, and inasmuch as gnostic has also been used to denote arcane knowledge, that that is also possible. What I don’t think is possible is certain, infallible knowledge. So that makes me a fallibilist. I am a fallibilist across the board: in biology, in cooking, in theology, whatever. This is one of my basic postulates. I have run into real problems trying to explain this to fellow theists (There was no freaking Tree of Certainty in paradise! But it is a tough row to hoe). But theists are not the only ones who have a problem with it. Many people regardless of persuasion just don’t get it.
So, if you want to call me agnostic theist, so be it, as long as you mean it in the “no certainty” version of the word rather than “no opinion” or “have doubts”.
|
|
|
Post by GodlessSodomite on Nov 24, 2003 0:04:47 GMT -5
So would you say, those who have problems with your fallibilist position have a tendency to have an "either/or" mindset? By this I mean, you say this fallibist line of thinking pervades your mindset, do those who have trouble getting this seem to operate from a "false dichotomy" mindset? These would be the types of people who see either good or bad, or black or white, or A or B. I would guess it would be those operating from this frame of mind who would have the MOST difficulty understanding your viewpoint. Your fallibilist mindset would be more likely to allow you to see all possibilities, than those who could only see only two opposing possibilities. I would imagine this would cause them great difficulty grasping where you are coming from.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Nov 24, 2003 8:19:43 GMT -5
Yeh, I guess that is another angle to it. I mean, a lot of people of whatever persuasion just don't get that certain knowledge is impossible -- they look for it in religion, or hard science, or new age oracles.... And then of course you mix into it the whole either/or mindset like you say, and sheesh, where does one even start?! It's tough goin'....
|
|
zoul
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 35
|
Post by zoul on Dec 3, 2003 12:11:50 GMT -5
OUCH my poor head
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Dec 12, 2003 23:20:43 GMT -5
When I use the term "agnostic" to describe someone, I use it to describe a lack of knowledge about the existence of a god.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Dec 13, 2003 11:52:17 GMT -5
I find that I am continually explaining to people that, as an atheist, it doesn't mean that I say there is no god, only that I do not believe in one.
One of the problems with the terms, is that they were coined by theists to describe those who were different. They were meant to be insultive and derogatory. If you look at the root meanings of the words, the term atheist actually infers that there is a god, but we just don't have a connection to the deity:
a = preface of negation, without (Greek) theós = god (Greek) "without god"
a = preface of negation, without (Greek) gnôsis = investigation/knowledge (Greek) "without knowledge"
Recently, I have started using another term, nullifidian. I prefer this term because people don't that a preconceived notion of what it means. I can then explain that I simply don't believe. I found with using the term 'atheist', most people think, as Maverick pointed out, that I either worship the devil, have some strange concepts about the origins, or make the positive claim that there is no god.
nullūs = none (Latin) fidēs = faith (Latin) Definition: Of no faith; also, not trusting to faith for salvation.
BTW, fideism is the doctrine that knowledge depends upon faith ...
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Dec 14, 2003 11:30:21 GMT -5
I sympathize. I think most people out there assume that atheists are actively denying the possibility of God. I think some of the really loud atheists in the past did do this, and some still do, but still...
Agnostic was coined tho by the guy who wanted to self-describe -- I think Huxley. He wanted to coin something to differentiate himself from those who said flat out that God does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jan 3, 2004 12:11:14 GMT -5
I'll add a defenition:
lack
1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a halt. 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters, the reforms did not succeed.
v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks v. tr.
To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
v. intr.
1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but proof was lacking. 2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends.
I bring this up because atheists are often described as having a "lack of faith." This is not quite true; "lack of faith" implies that we need a faith and are not good enough to have one, which is not at all true. Atheism is a faith in no faith, to me.
|
|