Expert: Austin Cline - 4/30/2008

Question
QUESTION: Since people calling themselves "agnostic" are thinking not about the flimsy & trivial distinction between knowledge (firmly believing) and belief, (thinking you know) but about the distinction between "strong atheism," (which is what most people grow up thinking "atheism" means) and their own position, aren't their claims that agnosticism is a more rational postition utterly correct? (adjusting for nitpicky semantic issues, that is)

ANSWER: 1. Knowledge is not simply "firm belief." At a bare minimum, it should be defined as a "justified, true belief." There is, however, a great deal of debate over what knowledge really is.

2. Belief isn't "thinking you know," either. Belief is assenting to the truth of a proposition and does not necessarily entail any knowledge claims.

3. Agnosticism is not necessarily more rational than strong atheism; it depends on how we are defining "god" in the first place. No one thinks it's more rational to be "agnostic" about Bigfoot or elves.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for responding; I'm dogged & long winded & if you're not annoyed with me yet, you probably will be.

I'll stick to my definitions on 1 & 2, but I don't really care about that part of it.  

3. If you're equating one's position toward Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus & Company with one's position toward Bigfoot or elves, you're right.

(Although if Bigfoot or elves were as important to as much of the population as, say, yahweh, I think that .0000001% chance there's a Bigfoot might be worth splitting semantic hairs about...)

But isn't the basic idea of god "a consciousness behind the universe?"

And if we define god that way, (a big if, sure) isn't agnosticism (or weak atheism, whatever) more rational than strong atheism?

ANSWER: "I'll stick to my definitions on 1 & 2, but I don't really care about that part of it. "

If you are gong to use personal, idiosyncratic definitions instead of standard definitions - especially in philosophical discussions - then communication is rendered impossible. Indeed, it is arguable that communication and learning were never your intentions at all. If you are gong to seriously discuss belief and knowledge, you can't make up your own definitions for those words; you have to work with standard definitions - and go beyond the short definitions provided in pocket or online dictionaries, too.

"But isn't the basic idea of god "a consciousness behind the universe?" "

That is a common characteristic ascribed to gods, but there is no such thing as "the basic idea of god." Gods come in all flavors throughout human history. Apollo, for example, was a god but was in no fashion "a consciousness behind the universe."

"And if we define god that way, (a big if, sure) isn't agnosticism (or weak atheism, whatever) more rational than strong atheism?"

No. If you claim an entity exists, but define it in a way that has no impact on the universe (a necessary implication from it being untestable), then you have defined it in a way that is functionally equivalent to nonexistence.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Communication's only rendered impossible if you conceal your definitions.  I disclosed mine.  As I indicated, I'm not attached to them.  I guess that was your cue to question my intentions.

"Standard" definitions of terms about which there's "a great deal of debate" and about which dictionaries differ are perhaps hard to come by.  

But my point was not so much to idiosyncratically redefine "knowledge" and "belief," but to point out that they're frequently used interchangeably, and most people calling themselves "agnostic" are not thinking about the distinction between them.

An agnostic sees two views, "I believe there's a god" and "I believe there is no god" and says "I don't believe either of those things."  The fact that his reason for disbelieving has to do with his beliefs about knowledge doesn't make agnosticism a knowledge-orientation rather than a belief-orientation.

Is 'no measurable impact' the same thing as 'no impact?'

Is 'functionally equivalent to nonexistence' the same thing as 'nonexistent?'  

Answer
"Communication's only rendered impossible if you conceal your definitions."

This assumes that others care about one's idiosyncratic definitions.

"But my point was not so much to idiosyncratically redefine "knowledge" and "belief,""

Yet that's what you did, and then proceeded to derive conclusions about others based on those definitions. Youc can't say anything about others who call themselves agnostics when you use definitions you've created for yourself rather than standard definitions which others may be relying upon.

"An agnostic sees two views, "I believe there's a god" and "I believe there is no god" and says "I don't believe either of those things." "

Some agnostics do this. They are mistaken.

"Is 'no measurable impact' the same thing as 'no impact?'"

To the extent that anything which exists has an impact, and to the extent to which any impact must be at least theoretically measurable to exist, then yes.

"Is 'functionally equivalent to nonexistence' the same thing as 'nonexistent?'"

On a pragmatic level, yes.