Yes, this is a reasonable rationality quote. However, can we discuss the idea behind it because it’s not entirely clear to me.
If the person maintains that there is any possibility—as indicated by his “just in case”, then is he not, necessarily an agnostic? What is so wrong about choosing the correct word? He doesn’t believe in God but believes he could be wrong: he’s an agnostic atheist.
Q: Am I being down-voted because I’m wrong? Am I beyond help??
To say that you’re agnostic about something can mean two things: That you’re not 100% certain, or that you’re (approximately) 50% certain. If you’re using the first meaning, nothing you’ve said is wrong… but it is extremely pedantic. It’s true we can’t be 100% certain that there is no God, but it’s also true that we can’t be 100% certain about any of our beliefs except perhaps mathematical truths. Would you go around saying you’re agnostic about the possibility that Obama is Satan in disguise, or the possibility that the keyboard in front of you is actually a specimen of an as-of-yet undiscovered species of animals with keyboard-mimicry capabilities? Of course you wouldn’t. So why would you bother mentioning your agnosticism about God?
Of course, there are some people who really are agnostic about God, in the second sense of ‘agnostic’. They’re wrong, but at least they’re not being pedantic.
What annoys atheists like me is those who take advantage of the dual meaning of ‘agnostic’ to make us look like overconfident fools: They’ll say that no one can know “with absolute certainty” that God doesn’t exist and that it is therefore arrogant to believe that he doesn’t exist. To someone who hasn’t come to terms with the inherently probabilistic nature of knowledge, this can sound like a convincing argument, but to the rest of us it can be rather infuriating.
“Agnostic,” as used here and as criticized by Adams, is most often a weasel word used by atheists who believe atheism necessarily requires a god-hating, Hitchens-esque attitude towards religion and do not identify with that, or who are afraid to admit to their atheism for social reasons, or out of fear that they are wrong and god will punish them (and that calling themselves “agnostics” instead of “atheists” will somehow prevent god from punishing them, the absurdity of which is Adam’s point, obviously.
Interestingly, this is not the original meaning of agnostic. A “gnostic” believes that the question “Is there a god?” is discoverable or knowable. An “agnostic” believes that it is unknowable or undiscoverable. Thus, an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe there is a god and believes we can never (fundamentally, not just practically) know if there is one or not. The person you would describe is just an atheist, and probably a gnostic one.
I think the vast majority of the atheists in this community believe they could be wrong, they just assign a very, very low probability to it, particularly with respect to certain specifications of god.
“Agnostic,” as used here and as criticized by Adams, is most often a weasel word used by atheists who believe atheism necessarily requires a god-hating, Hitchens-esque attitude towards religion and do not identify with that, or who are afraid to admit to their atheism for social reasons, or out of fear that they are wrong and god will punish them (and that calling themselves “agnostics” instead of “atheists” will somehow prevent god from punishing them, the absurdity of which is Adam’s point, obviously.
Interestingly, this is not the original meaning of agnostic. A “gnostic” believes that the question “Is there a god?” is discoverable or knowable. An “agnostic” believes that it is unknowable or undiscoverable. Thus, an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe there is a god and believes we can never (fundamentally, not just practically) know if there is one or not. The person you would describe is just an atheist, and probably a gnostic one.
I think the vast majority of the atheists in this community believe they could be wrong, they just assign a very, very low probability to it, particularly with respect to certain specifications of god.
Yes, this is a reasonable rationality quote. However, can we discuss the idea behind it because it’s not entirely clear to me.
If the person maintains that there is any possibility—as indicated by his “just in case”, then is he not, necessarily an agnostic? What is so wrong about choosing the correct word? He doesn’t believe in God but believes he could be wrong: he’s an agnostic atheist.
Q: Am I being down-voted because I’m wrong? Am I beyond help??
To say that you’re agnostic about something can mean two things: That you’re not 100% certain, or that you’re (approximately) 50% certain. If you’re using the first meaning, nothing you’ve said is wrong… but it is extremely pedantic. It’s true we can’t be 100% certain that there is no God, but it’s also true that we can’t be 100% certain about any of our beliefs except perhaps mathematical truths. Would you go around saying you’re agnostic about the possibility that Obama is Satan in disguise, or the possibility that the keyboard in front of you is actually a specimen of an as-of-yet undiscovered species of animals with keyboard-mimicry capabilities? Of course you wouldn’t. So why would you bother mentioning your agnosticism about God?
Of course, there are some people who really are agnostic about God, in the second sense of ‘agnostic’. They’re wrong, but at least they’re not being pedantic.
What annoys atheists like me is those who take advantage of the dual meaning of ‘agnostic’ to make us look like overconfident fools: They’ll say that no one can know “with absolute certainty” that God doesn’t exist and that it is therefore arrogant to believe that he doesn’t exist. To someone who hasn’t come to terms with the inherently probabilistic nature of knowledge, this can sound like a convincing argument, but to the rest of us it can be rather infuriating.
Thank you. In the future (LW will get this question again) I think a link to this comment would be most helpful.
“Agnostic,” as used here and as criticized by Adams, is most often a weasel word used by atheists who believe atheism necessarily requires a god-hating, Hitchens-esque attitude towards religion and do not identify with that, or who are afraid to admit to their atheism for social reasons, or out of fear that they are wrong and god will punish them (and that calling themselves “agnostics” instead of “atheists” will somehow prevent god from punishing them, the absurdity of which is Adam’s point, obviously.
Interestingly, this is not the original meaning of agnostic. A “gnostic” believes that the question “Is there a god?” is discoverable or knowable. An “agnostic” believes that it is unknowable or undiscoverable. Thus, an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe there is a god and believes we can never (fundamentally, not just practically) know if there is one or not. The person you would describe is just an atheist, and probably a gnostic one.
I think the vast majority of the atheists in this community believe they could be wrong, they just assign a very, very low probability to it, particularly with respect to certain specifications of god.
See “The Fallacy of Gray”.
“Agnostic,” as used here and as criticized by Adams, is most often a weasel word used by atheists who believe atheism necessarily requires a god-hating, Hitchens-esque attitude towards religion and do not identify with that, or who are afraid to admit to their atheism for social reasons, or out of fear that they are wrong and god will punish them (and that calling themselves “agnostics” instead of “atheists” will somehow prevent god from punishing them, the absurdity of which is Adam’s point, obviously.
Interestingly, this is not the original meaning of agnostic. A “gnostic” believes that the question “Is there a god?” is discoverable or knowable. An “agnostic” believes that it is unknowable or undiscoverable. Thus, an agnostic atheist is one who does not believe there is a god and believes we can never (fundamentally, not just practically) know if there is one or not. The person you would describe is just an atheist, and probably a gnostic one.
I think the vast majority of the atheists in this community believe they could be wrong, they just assign a very, very low probability to it, particularly with respect to certain specifications of god.