defsthstathstagnstc2.html

Definitions of Theist/Theism, Atheist/Atheism, and Agnostic/Agnosticism

People seem to have different definitions of theist/theism, atheist/atheism and agnostic/agnosticism.

Confusions arise when people begin to use unclear and unusual phrases such as agnosticism meaning ONLY the belief that knowledge is impossible, which is an absurdity since to KNOW knowledge is impossible means one knows knowledge and that knowledge of knowledge is impossible, which is a logical contradiction.

From conversations with normal people, humorously defined as nonscholars, I have found that normal/nonscholarly people most often use the following definitions of theist/theism, atheist/atheism and agnostic/agnosticism, and I propose that serious consideration be given to using these definitions instead of the scholarly definitions for serious discussions concerning religion.

If what is now formal is unclear, then what is now informal but clear can become what should be formal. What is nonscholarly perhaps ought to be scholarly.

What is philosophy?

Philosophy = Greek: "philo": "love" + "sophy": "knowledge" = "Love of Knowledge" = A view of life; a view of all things and events in the universe.

What is an individual's personal philosophy?

An individual's personal philosophy is his set/system/collection of concepts/principles/techniques for analyzing/evaluating/judging the causality [causal relationships/cause-and-effect relationships between/among people/things/events] of the people/things/events of reality, who/which are the natural phenomena of reality; an individual creates a personal philosophy from his experiences in determining which people/things/events in reality and which concepts/principles/techniques [ideas/thoughts/thinking] in his mind realize/achieve positively/negatively his desires/fears/priorities.

The scholarly definitions:

Theist = Person who has a belief in the existence of gods and in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, who asserts that gods exist and that he has proof gods exist.

Theism = The philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods and a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.

Atheist = Person who has no belief in the existence of gods.

Atheism = The philosophy which includes no belief in the existence of gods.

Scholars thus define agnostics to be wimpy atheists, because where atheists have no belief in the existence of gods agnostics also have no belief in the existence of gods, therefore agnostics are atheists.

Also, there are many scholars and atheists who insist that agnosticism means the belief that no knowledge is possible for a subject or issue.

Unfortunately, for anyone to claim as a fact instead of as an opinion that knowledge is impossible is logically illogical, because he would have to have complete knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the fact that humans cannot know this knowledge—that it is impossible for humans to know this knowledge, but this is an absurdity since he, himself, is a human.

The most absurd claim is this: It is impossible for man to know everything. This claim, if it is indeed a claim of fact, is absurd because the man or woman making the claim has to know everything including the “fact” that man cannot know everything, and that he or she who is making the claim is a man or a woman and theoretically incapable of knowing everything.

It appears logical for someone to state as an opinion that he or she has the opinion or belief that man cannot know everything. Opinions are, after all, not claims of fact. But when we realize that opinions have to be based upon SOME facts, we realize that opinions cannot be excused from some logical connection to the people/things/events of reality, even though that connection might well be very weak or difficult to prove in an absolute/conclusive sense. The theory behind this thinking based upon the idea that knowledge is supported by a ferocious amount of proof whereas opinion/belief is supported by only a wimpy amount of proof. In other words, claims of facts are more often supported by many facts whereas statements of opinions are more often supported by few facts.

There is a problem inherent in the scholarly definition of the atheist/atheism: whereas agnostics have no belief in the existence of gods and no belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, agnostics also have no belief in the nonexistence of gods and no belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, whereas although atheists have no belief in gods atheists usually have their reasons which function as far as they are concerned as proof of the nonexistence of gods and therefore atheists do not have no belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

In other words, to focus upon the concept of proof, atheists have no belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods but they also have (A) a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods and (B) no belief in the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods (which is to say that they have a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods); but agnostics have no belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods and, at the same time, no belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

To focus upon the difference one more time: atheists have no belief in the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods whereas agnostics have a belief in the nonexistence of proof of the existence or the nonexistence of gods.

What does the phrase “believe in” mean?

To “believe” must include such ideas as p is true, and p exists; or such ideas as p is false, and p does not exist.

All reality consists of things and events.

A thing is an object, a unity which retains its identity for the duration of a period of time longer than a related events.

Examples: Jane, a ball, and Dick, all objects. (From the early reading primers by which many Americans learned to read.)

A concept is a mental representation or idea of a thing. A true concept accurately describes/represents a thing; a false concept does not accurately describe/represent a thing.

An event is a relationship between or among things, a relationship which retains its identity for the duration of a shorter period of time than its related things.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick. The event is the relationship among Jane, the ball and Dick in which Jane throws the ball to Dick.

A principle is a mental representation or idea of an event, of a relationship between or among things, of the causality of an event in which one thing as a cause causes/creates/produces another thing as an effect. A true principle accurately describes/represents an event; a false principle does not accurately describe/represent an event.

A technique is an application of a principle. A true or practical technique is a successful application of a principle; a false or impractical technique is an unsuccessful application of a principle.

Example: Principle: Muscles can be strengthened by exercise; Technique: exercising muscles by lifting weights.

Point of humor: People do not like to be considered things, therefore they are included from this point in a description of reality which now consists of people, things and events.

To exist means to be a person, a thing, or an event comprised of matter and/or energy and to have physical properties which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted either directly with biological perceptual senses or machines such as telescopes, microscopes, audio amplifiers, hearing aids, etc., which extend the perceptual senses or indirectly by the observation of the effects upon other people/things/events; to exist means to be independent of anyone’s opinion; to exist means to not be the content of an idea, a concept, or a principle.

Example: Stars and planets can be observed directly with the biological perceptual senses and with machines which augment the biological perceptual senses, but black holes, collapsed stars whose gravitational fields are so strong that light cannot escape and the black hole cannot be observed directly with the perceptual sense of sight with or without telescopes but the dense gravitational field surrounding the black hole produces changes in the positions and motions and orbits of neighboring stars and planets which can be observed and thus the existence and position and motion of the black hole can be inferred and thus observed indirectly from its effects upon other things/events. Stars, planets and black holes are all independent of anyone’s opinion of them. They exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived; and they can be perceived by beings who/which have the perceptual means of perceiving them. They are not merely the content of ideas/concepts/principles, because they exist regardless of related ideas/concepts/principles.

Existence is to be contrasted with the content of an idea which, as the content of an idea, may or may not be true. Existence is truth. That which exists is true in the sense of truly being real, truly being actual. That which is the content of an idea may or may not be true or have existence. Thus, it is reasonable to define existence, which has to be true, by contrast of that which is the content of an idea and which may or may not be true.

Thus, to believe must include the ideas that proposition p is true and that person/thing/event p exists or that proposition p is false and that person/thing/event p does not exist.

To have a belief in gods is to believe gods exist, to believe in the existence of gods, to believe in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, and to believe that the statement gods exist is a true statement; to have no belief in gods can mean, simply, and obviously, to not have a belief in gods, but it can also mean to believe that gods do not exist, to believe in the nonexistence of gods, to believe in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, and to believe that the statement gods exist is a false statement, AND it can also mean to believe in the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods AND the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, and that the statement gods exist is a meaningless statement until conclusive proof is discovered of the existence or nonexistence of gods.

Listing the possibilities for visual clarity gives us the following:

To have a belief in gods means:
To believe in the existence of gods
To believe in the existence of proof of the existence of gods
To believe that the statement gods exist is a true statement
To believe that the statement gods do not exist is false

To not believe in the nonexistence of gods
To not believe in the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods
To not believe the statement gods do not exist is true
To not believe that he statement gods exist is false

To not have a belief in gods means:
To not believe in the existence of gods
To not believe in the existence of proof of the existence of gods
To not believe that the statement gods exist is a true statement
To not believe that the statement gods do not exist is false

To believe in the nonexistence of gods
To believe in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods
To believe that the statement gods exist is false
To believe that the statement gods do not exist is true

To not have a belief in the existence of gods, but, at the same time, to not have a belief in the nonexistence of gods
To not believe in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, but, at the same time, to not believe in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods
To believe that the statements gods exist or gods do not exist are meaningless statements until conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods is discovered

We have seen in the listing of what happens when someone has no belief in gods that a person has either (A) a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods or (B) a belief in BOTH the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods and the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

The A philosophy can easily be labeled as the atheist/atheism philosophy whereas the B philosophy can easily be labeled the agnostic philosophy.

It is my contention that normal people separate agnostics from atheists by focusing upon the existence or nonexistence of proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods, with atheists being defined as not believing in the existence of proof of the existence of gods while believing in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, and with agnostics being defined as not believing in the existence of proof of the existence of gods while not believing in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

What is proof?

Proof is --

1. Physical Evidence: People/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and thus observed and measured directly or indirectly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc., or who/which can be inferred by their effects upon natural/physical phenomena (people/things/events comprised of matter/energy and therefore exist in contrast to being the subject matter/content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.)

2. Eyewitness Reports: Testimonies by credible individuals corroborated by corroborating reports by credible corroborators.

3. Logical Arguments: Arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified lead logically to conclusions which are true if the premises are true; wherein the premises must answer question: Is this premise true?; wherein verification of the premises must by based upon physical evidence and/or eyewitness reports.

The nonscholarly definitions:

Here are the normal/nonscholarly definitions of theist/theism, atheist/atheism and agnostic/agnosticism:

Theist = Person who has a belief in the existence of gods and in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, who asserts that gods exist and that he has proof gods exist.

Theism = The philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods and a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.

Atheist = A person who has a belief in the nonexistence of gods and a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, who asserts that gods do not exist and that he has proof that gods do not exist.

Atheism = The philosophy which includes a belief in the nonexistence of gods and a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Agnostic = A person who has no belief in the existence of gods and no belief in the nonexistence of gods, and who has no belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods and no belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods; who asserts that the theists’ proof of the existence of gods is inconclusive and that the atheists’ proof of the nonexistence of gods is also inconclusive; and who asserts that the question of whether or not gods exists cannot be answered at this time. Also, agnostics assert that mankind can live happily without answers to all questions, and that no answer is needed for the question Do gods exist? for mankind to enjoy life and living; and that some questions without conclusive proof are best unanswered rather than create answers for which there exists no conclusive proof, and that there is more harm than good possible with unsupported answers to currently unanswerable questions.

Agnosticism = The philosophy which precludes belief in the existence or nonexistence of gods and but which includes a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods.

What we have are beliefs built upon proof of some kind. The theist has the belief that he has proof of the existence of gods while the atheist has the belief that he has proof of the nonexistence of gods while the agnostic has the belief that neither the theist nor the atheist have proof supporting their assertions.

If theists cannot prove their assertions that gods exist, and if atheists cannot prove their assertions that gods do not exist, then the only rational philosophical position to hold is that of agnosticism in the sense of recognizing the lack of proof of either theism or atheism.

Agnosticism thus does not mean that no proof is possible of a proposition/assertion/claim—how could anyone prove THAT?!?!?!; but, instead, agnosticism means recognizing that proof is necessary for accepting as true a proposition/assertion/claim and, no conclusive proof appearing supporting either theism or atheism, then the question must remain unanswered until additional proof is discovered.

Note that the informal/nonscholarly definitions provide for three philosophical positions: (1) belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods; (2) belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods; (3) belief in the nonexistence of proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods.

Note that the informal definitions do not recognize the word parsing of atheists who want to claim (A) that atheists have no belief in the existence of gods, (B) that there are only two belief positions, (1) belief in the existence of gods, and (2) no belief in the existence of gods, and (C) that this definition of atheists (as having no belief in the existence of gods) is the ONLY acceptable definition of “atheist(s)/atheism.”

While it is true that agnostics have no belief in the existence of gods, it is also true that agnostics have no belief in the nonexistence of gods, which is why they are agnostics awaiting (A) proof of the existence of gods or (B) proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Atheists automatically have a belief in the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods. That idea is implicit in atheism.

Atheists may have a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods. That is, they may claim they have no such belief in the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, but they may in fact have such a belief.

If a person who claims he is an atheist has a belief in the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, then he satisfies the criteria for an agnostic, which is for a person to have a belief in the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods as well as a belief in the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods.

The test for an atheist or an agnostic: Answer these questions: (1) Do you have (A) a belief in the nonexistence of gods and (B) a belief in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods?; (2) Do you have a belief in (A) the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods and (B) the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods?

A YES to #1 means you are an atheist—you believe in the nonexistence of gods and in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods; a YES to #2 means you are an agnostic—you believe in the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods and in the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.

With all due respect to atheists who claim that they ought to have the right to define what atheist/atheism means and therefore who they are, normal people (nonscholars) make up a great majority of the American population, and the world’s population, and include atheists among them, and they do separate atheists from agnostics according to who believes in ONLY the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods and who believes in BOTH the nonexistence of proof of the existence of gods and the nonexistence of proof of the nonexistence of gods, and that, for the sake of clarity, all of us interested in religion ought to use the informal/normal people’s definitions of theist/theism, atheist/atheism, and agnostic/agnosticism.

In this way, for the sake of clarity of communications, what is informal can become formal, and what is nonscholarly can become scholarly.

Agnosticism thus does not mean that no proof is possible of a proposition/assertion/claim--how could anyone prove THAT?!?!?!; but, instead, agnosticism means recognizing that proof is necessary for accepting as true a proposition/assertion/claim and, no conclusive proof appearing supporting either theism or atheism, then the question must remain unanswered until additional proof is discovered.

Agnosticism thus recognizes that not all questions require answers. For example, the question Do gods exist? does not require an answer; people can live good and worthwhile lives despite not having a conclusive answer to the question Do gods exist?

The essence of agnosticism is thus: He who asserts must prove!

And, concerning religion, and the assertions/propositions/claims of theists, the agnostic slogan could very well be thus: Show us the gods!