a/theist, a/gnostic

[groverat]

I just drew a little punnet square explaining my conception of what it means to be (a)theist and (a)gnostic.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/6618/atheismpunnetsquare5xq.png

I've noticed that discussions of (a)theism and (a)gnosticism break down before terms are even defined so this is an effort to create an easy-to-understand baseline.

What key concepts did I miss?

[shetline]

Originally posted by groverat
What key concepts did I miss?
The absolute necessity of having a presuppositional trinitarian framework before any cohesive and logically coherent claim can be made about anything?

[BRussell]

Can you explain it? I don't get it.

[hardeeharhar]

I disagree. I think there are two different forms of agnosticism. One says there is no answer to 'is there a god?'. The other says the question of is there a god is meaningless.

Your nice square doesn't take into account these differences.

[shetline]

Originally posted by BRussell
Can you explain it? I don't get it.Yeah, something's wrong. It works out so that everyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof, has to be male. Not a single XX in there. I guess we're all male, some of us are just more uppercase about it than others.

[groverat]

One says there is no answer to 'is there a god?'.

This would fit into the "negative knowledge claim" category, I think. Why someone either claims or does not claim knowledge isn't important to this very limited exercise.

This little square isn't mean to explain all of philosophy and theology, it is merely meant to provide clarity for common groupings.

The other says the question of is there a god is meaningless.

Again, I do not think this fits into the purview of my limited exercise.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by shetline
Yeah, something's wrong. It works out so that everyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof, has to be male. Not a single XX in there. I guess we're all male, some of us are just more uppercase about it than others. Not to mention that this whole scheme discriminates against those of us with Kleinfelter's syndrome. Stop ignoring us, world. I exist!

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by shetline
Yeah, something's wrong. It works out so that everyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof, has to be male. Not a single XX in there. I guess we're all male, some of us are just more uppercase about it than others.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Males all the way

[shetline]

On a more serious note...

There's a lot of wrangling over the terms agnostic and athiest and exactly what they mean, even among people who call themselves one or the other or even consider themselves both at the same time.

Your grid shows the basics: agnosticism deal with knowledge of deities, atheism deals with existence of deities. One is an epistemological stance, the other is ontological.

Of course, since the central question is if we know or can know if a deity or deities exist, it's hard to draw such neat boundaries. To claim that God exists is to claim some form of knowledge of that existence.

There's also "weak atheism" vs. "strong atheism" to deal with -- the difference between saying there's no good reason to believe that deities exist or, instead, making a positive assertion that deities don't exist. Even then, one can be a strong atheist without taking a completely absolutist stance, admitting that one's assertion of non-existence has a less than 100% certainty.

I think this Wikipedia article "Agnostic atheism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) does a reasonable job of summing up my own stance, and it provides a good quote from Robert Flint on the relationship between agnosticism and atheism:
The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one. (p.49)

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other... (p.50-51)

[THT]

I think your definitions are fine groverat, at least for conversational purposes.

Your choice of letters on the other hand is not. XY, xY, Xy, and xy simply don't work because Macs are supposed to be case insensitive. How will the Mac OS 9 and earlier users carry on with the conversation?

In Meyers-Briggs fashion you ncan expand your definition space to 4 character combinations making a total of 16 classes of beliefs. If you can't answer everyone's questions with some combination of Xyxy, xYXy, XYXY, ..., etc., well I've lost faith in your ability to come up with definitions.

[Placebo]

God is dead, remember?

[tonton]

I used to consider myself agnostic, believing in some sort of spirituality. However, I now know that I am truly atheist, as while I believe in the sociological practicality of faith in the spiritual for certain individuals/societies, I do not believe in the existence of the spiritual as an entity that exists beyond the philosophical.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by tonton
I used to consider myself agnostic, believing in some sort of spirituality. However, I now know that I am truly atheist, as while I believe in the sociological practicality of faith in the spiritual for certain individuals/societies, I do not believe in the existence of the spiritual as an entity that exists beyond the philosophical.

Which begs the question: Do you consider the question of the existence of god to be particularly meaningful?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Placebo
God is dead, remember?

pfflam should jump in here, but my understanding is that that was a warning, not a hurrah.

[shetline]

Although I consider myself both atheist and agnostic, I'm open to the idea that there might be some deeper mystery or quality to the universe for which the idea of deity is only a vague and shadowy hint, something behind the question which you can't answer even by invoking gods, which is why there is something, anything at all, rather than a profoundly absolute nothing.

[shetline]

Originally posted by midwinter
pfflam should jump in here, but my understanding is that that was a warning, not a hurrah.
And here I thought Nietzsche was just trying to get everyone to send flowers.

[groverat]

Originally posted by shetline
And here I thought Nietzsche was just trying to get everyone to send flowers.

Yet another conspiracy from Hallmark. :grumble:

[tonton]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Which begs the question: Do you consider the question of the existence of god to be particularly meaningful?

Extremely.

[tonton]

Originally posted by groverat
Yet another conspiracy from Hallmark. :grumble:

:lol:

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Which begs the question: Do you consider the question of the existence of god to be particularly meaningful?
A priori, sure. Only to conclude afterwards it wasn't very meaningful at all, of course.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by tonton
Extremely.
Even when he plays no practical part in your everyday life?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Which begs the question: Do you consider the question of the existence of god to be particularly meaningful? Most of the arguments for the existence of God beg the question. ;)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
Most of the arguments for the existence of God beg the question. ;)

Even Descartes's.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
Even Descartes's. OK, since you are avoiding the "begs the question" usage debate, I'll try to draw you into another one: Why is Descartes saddled with a second 's' after the possessive apostrophe but Jesus gets a pass? Religious discrimination?

[hardeeharhar]

Wait, there is a debate with regard to my use of begs the question???

I am sooo confused, and hungry... not a good combination...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Wait, there is a debate with regard to my use of begs the question???

I am sooo confused, and hungry... not a good combination... I thought an English professor might get on you about it. ;) To beg the question means to make a circular argument, not to "raise the question." It's one of those silly internet debates, like apostrophe use, that crops every now and then.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by BRussell
I thought an English professor might get on you about it. ;) To beg the question means to make a circular argument, not to "raise the question." It's one of those silly internet debates, like apostrophe use, that crops every now and then.

I guess I haven't been round the internets enough...

Apparently there are three accepted definitions of the phase:

1) The logical fallacy as you stated -- to lay claim to the principle of an argument
2) Avoid the question
3) To raise the question

So I guess there isn't really a debate...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I guess I haven't been round the internets enough...

Apparently there are three accepted definitions of the phase:

1) The logical fallacy as you stated -- to lay claim to the principle of an argument
2) Avoid the question
3) To raise the question

So I guess there isn't really a debate... The debate is that only one of those three is the correct one, and the other ones are just incorrect usages that have grown popular. See, we're having the debate right now!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by BRussell
The debate is that only one of those three is the correct one, and the other ones are just incorrect usages that have grown popular. See, we're having the debate right now!

Damn you BRussell!