In a previous post I wrote that Atheism is an intellectually dishonest position. That’s not a fair representation and much to broad to take into account the huge amount of thought that has gone into developing and defending atheism. An atheist does however set the bar very high in accepting a position that is tough to defend, just as Christianity is often tough to defend.
Even Richard Dawkins arguably the most famous current atheist admits to not being 100 percent sure there is no God. He says, ” I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” I’m not sure but it sounds like Dawkins is, by strict definition, agnostic.
My intention was essentially that of Dawkins. While some are functioning atheists, most are agnostics in philosophy. I hope that clears some things up.
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
The comment by Dawkins is maybe slightly out of context. What he was referring to is the (intellectually honest) fact that you can never be 100% certain that God doesn’t exist.
Technically you could say that this makes a person agnostic, but only going by the strictest dictionary definition of the word. Almost any agnostic or atheist would tell you that this is certainly something that the latter would say while the former wouldn’t. An agnostic is more likely to say that they either don’t know if there’s a God (giving equal or weight to the idea that there is), or else that there can be no meaningful answer to the question of God’s existence.
Most atheists will readily admit that it’s impossible to be 100% certain that God doesn’t exist. This is actually the very definition of intellectual honesty.
Comment by lifelessonsfromwriting February 20, 2008 @ 9:32 amI’m not sure I completely understood your point. I think we’re actually making the same point. I has said previously that atheism was intellectually dishonest but that conclusion was reached using an strict definition of the word. (It is ironic that people can call themselves atheist while not holding to a common dictionary or encyclopedic definition of the term but that’s beside the point.)
What I failed to do was make the distinction between the strict definition and what most practicing atheist really are because the two are slightly incompatible. But you’re right is intellectual honest to admit that and that was the entire point of my second post.
Comment by mootpoints February 20, 2008 @ 3:01 pmSorry, I thought you were saying that it was still intellectually dishonest! Never mind
Comment by lifelessonsfromwriting February 20, 2008 @ 6:26 pmI think you need/meant to name this post differently.
The previous post was:
Athiesm isn’t intellectually honest.
This post is currently:
Correction (Atheism is Intellectually Dishonest)
Based on the content of this post, I think the following title would have been more appropriate, and given the meaning of your post better:
Correction (Atheism is Intellectually Honest)
or
Correction (Atheism isn’t Intellectually Dishonest)
The other point I’d like to make is that while you may be correct in the definition of atheism and agnosticism by the dictionary sense, in practice they have slightly different meanings.
In practice an agnostic claims that they are not capable of knowing if god exists or not, so they do not make a claim in either direction.
In practice an atheist claims that while god’s existance technically can not be disproven, the likelihood is small enough and their is not enough evidence to support the position, so they make the claim that a rational view is that god does not exists until evidence is shown to disprove this view.
A simple analogy to show the difference is santa claus.
Comment by Rodibidably March 6, 2008 @ 1:47 amA believer in santa says that despite evidence to the contrary they choose to believe anyways.
An agnostic says there is not enough evidence, or there is no way to know, and thus they are leaving the question of if santa exists or not for another time.
An atheist says that santa COULD exist, but there is no reason to attribute presents under the tree to a mythical fat man in a red suit, so I choose to live my life as if there is no santa.