QUOTE: "Agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wants to clear something up: "Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism," he says, but the stout ale of "radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty." In fact, he insists, his belief system is just as distinct from atheism as it is from theism. It is important that you know this.”

dhw: As you would expect, I thoroughly endorse Ron Rosenberg’s description of agnosticism, and the fact of the matter is that both theists and atheists are so convinced of their respective faiths that many theists believe agnostics are atheists, and many atheists believe we are theists! I will deal only with Regis Nicoll’s criticisms:

RN: "The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.”

dhw: Difficult to follow, but doubt in the possibility of something is not faith in its impossibility. To be 100% certain you need 100% proof. If God exists, only he can provide it, and if he doesn’t exist, then no one can provide it! RR and I simply don’t know what to believe, but if God exists, we doubt if he will suddenly make an appearance to convince us. Maybe there could be 100% proof in an afterlife, but that can only be proved or disproved when we’re dead, and I suspect RR is as uncertain of that as I am.

Follows easily, a faith in absolute uncertainty.

RN: To the most important question in life—"Does God exist?"—a person can answer "Yes," "I don't know," or "No." But in practice, a person must live as if God either does or does not exist; there is nothing else to do, except perhaps to oscillate schizophrenically between the two.

dhw: In life, it is perfectly possible to live without “oscillating”, and I would question the claim that the most important question in life is whether God exists or not. What world does RN live in? For vast numbers of people the most important question is “Can I survive?” And the next question may well be: “How can I be healthy and happy?” As an agnostic, I like to think that I live just as moral and humanitarian a life as any religious believer or atheist humanist would do, and although I am so fascinated by the subject of a possible God’s existence and nature that I started this website, I can calmly accept my own belief that I shall only know the objective truth about God’s existence if there is an afterlife. My ignorance does not make me a schizophrenic oscillator.

Fair enough.

RN: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea."

dhw: What “truth”, and “revealed” by whom to whom? Is it a revealed truth that God told Moses (Deuteronomy) that non-believers should be killed, and whole cities should be destroyed? Or that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that insulting Mohammed should be punished by death? What is “functional” atheism and what are the “benefits” of atheism? Does RN believe that atheists and agnostics want to go round killing people, or that they are incapable of love and charity and altruism and empathy? I don’t go to church or synagogue or mosque – that would be hypocritical, and I must confess that when I do attend religious ceremonies, I find myself objecting to many of the assumptions which are just as blinkered as those of atheists who place their faith in materialism and chance. But I do not reject God or materialism, and I am not schizophrenically oscillating. Call it “weak tea” if you like, but – to be really nasty – I would argue that weak tea is preferable to the horrors perpetrated by the strong drinkers who wage war in the name of their God, or to the arrogance of those who call God a “delusion”.

fair enough.

RN: "Agnosticism is a statement, a mood, a posture. It thrives in the intellectual oxygen of coffee houses and cocktail conversations. But outside of those artificial environments, in the real world where life is lived, the atmosphere supports only belief and unbelief.”

I don’t know what circles RN lives in. Yes, it’s a statement: “I don’t know the truth, and I doubt if I ever will.” But it’s not a mood or a posture or a topic for intellectual “cocktail” conversation, and the use of such terms – which suggest hypocrisy and superficiality – is sheer arrogance. Luckily for me, the “atmosphere” in which I live does not support any particular faith, but in those societies where a particular belief – whether religious or secular - reigns supreme, there tends to be oppression and vicious intolerance. How many agnostics have gone to war to defend their inability to make a decision on whether God exists or not?

DAVID: time for a dhw comment. I've said previously dhw comes across to me as 99% atheist.

dhw: That is because you are as blinkered as RN.

It is an opinion from what is seen to be presented. Thank you for an in-depth review. With new followers, it should be repeated now and then.

As you would expect, I thoroughly endorse Ron Rosenberg’s description of agnosticism, and the fact of the matter is that both theists and atheists are so convinced of their respective faiths that many theists believe agnostics are atheists, and many atheists believe we are theists! I will deal only with Regis Nicoll’s criticisms:

RN: "The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.”

Difficult to follow, but doubt in the possibility of something is not faith in its impossibility. To be 100% certain you need 100% proof. If God exists, only he can provide it, and if he doesn’t exist, then no one can provide it! RR and I simply don’t know what to believe, but if God exists, we doubt if he will suddenly make an appearance to convince us. Maybe there could be 100% proof in an afterlife, but that can only be proved or disproved when we’re dead, and I suspect RR is as uncertain of that as I am.

RN: To the most important question in life—"Does God exist?"—a person can answer "Yes," "I don't know," or "No." But in practice, a person must live as if God either does or does not exist; there is nothing else to do, except perhaps to oscillate schizophrenically between the two.

In practice, it is perfectly possible to live without “oscillating”, and I would question the claim that the most important question in life is whether God exists or not. What world does RN live in? For vast numbers of people the most important question is “Can I survive?” And the next question may well be: “How can I be healthy and happy?” As an agnostic, I like to think that I live just as moral and humanitarian a life as any religious believer or atheist humanist would do, and although I am so fascinated by the subject of a possible God’s existence and nature that I started this website, I can calmly accept my own belief that I shall only know the objective truth about God’s existence if there is an afterlife. My ignorance does not make me a schizophrenic oscillator.

RN: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea."

What “truth”, and “revealed” by whom to whom? Is it a revealed truth that God told Moses (Deuteronomy) that non-believers should be killed, and whole cities should be destroyed? Or that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or that insulting Mohammed should be punished by death? What is “functional” atheism and what are the “benefits” of atheism? Does RN believe that atheists and agnostics want to go round killing people, or that they are incapable of love and charity and altruism and empathy? I don’t go to church or synagogue or mosque – that would be hypocritical, and I must confess that when I do attend religious ceremonies, I find myself objecting to many of the assumptions which are just as blinkered as those of atheists who place their faith in materialism and chance. But I do not reject God or materialism, and I am not schizophrenically oscillating. Call it “weak tea” if you like, but – to be really nasty – I would argue that weak tea is preferable to the horrors perpetrated by the strong drinkers who wage war in the name of their God, or to the arrogance of those who call God a “delusion”.

RN: "Agnosticism is a statement, a mood, a posture. It thrives in the intellectual oxygen of coffee houses and cocktail conversations. But outside of those artificial environments, in the real world where life is lived, the atmosphere supports only belief and unbelief.”

I don’t know what circles RN lives in. Yes, it’s a statement: “I don’t know the truth, and I doubt if I ever will.” But it’s not a mood or a posture or a topic for intellectual “cocktail” conversation, and the use of such terms – which suggest hypocrisy and superficiality – is sheer arrogance. Luckily for me, the “atmosphere” in which I live does not support any particular faith, but in those societies where a particular belief – whether religious or secular - reigns supreme, there tends to be oppression and vicious intolerance. How many agnostics have gone to war to defend their inability to make a decision on whether God exists or not?

DAVID: time for a dhw comment. I've said previously dhw comes across to me as 99% atheist.

That is because you are as blinkered as RN.

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo15/functional-unbelief

"Agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wants to clear something up: "Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism," he says, but the stout ale of "radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty." In fact, he insists, his belief system is just as distinct from atheism as it is from theism. It is important that you know this.

"In "An Agnostic Manifesto" published on June 28, 2010, at Slate, Rosenbaum takes great pains to explain that God-deniers, like God-believers, have childlike faith: faith that reality is nothing but the sum-total of the physical world; faith that science is the sole source of knowledge; faith that the materialistic quest will unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, including the ultimate questions about human existence; and faith that their beliefs are not based on faith, but are settled beyond rational argument.

***

"God-deniers dismiss God-believers for their dogmatic claims, yet fail themselves, as Rosenbaum rightly notes, "to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing." Not to mention the impossibility of nothing creating everything!

"But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."

"It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith.

***

"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.

"One such source is intellectual predisposition. This was best expressed by the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who once said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"Note that Lewontin's faith in science as the ultimate source of knowledge is based on his intellectual preference for a particular worldview, not on science's proven explanatory power in answering ultimate questions.

"Another source is our non-rational sensibilities. For example, as I pointed out in "Radio Silence" in Salvo 14, astrobiologist Paul Davies believes that a yet-to-be-discovered principle has been woven into the cosmos so as to make the emergence of biological life inevitable. He believes this, not because he has any evidence to substantiate this notion, but because, as he says, he is "more comfortable" with it than with the alternatives, which presumably include a necessary, non-contingent Being.

"More to the point is NYU law professor Thomas Nagel, who, in a moment of admirable candor, admitted, "It isn't just that I don't believe in God . . . I hope there is no God! . . . I don't want the universe to be like that."

***

"Obviously, authority-derived knowledge requires faith—faith in the expertise and trustworthiness of other people.

***

"The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.

***

To the most important question in life—"Does God exist?"—a person can answer "Yes," "I don't know," or "No." But in practice, a person must live as if God either does or does not exist; there is nothing else to do, except perhaps to oscillate schizophrenically between the two.

***

"...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea."

"Agnosticism is a statement, a mood, a posture. It thrives in the intellectual oxygen of coffee houses and cocktail conversations. But outside of those artificial environments, in the real world where life is lived, the atmosphere supports only belief and unbelief.

"It may well be that there are no atheists in foxholes, but it is certain that there are no agnostics there, or anywhere else on terra firma."

Comment: time for a dhw comment. I've said previously dhw comes across to me as 99% atheist.

again you said you don't have to accept a definition. I said "YOU" can't change it on a whim either. It aint that hard there big man. -I have not changed any definition on a whim. -> I think you are afraid to make simple predictions with the information we have. Just look at what you did to the light switch example. "mathematician", are you kidding me? -This is utter poppycock. definition
 
> Will you stick the screw driver in or are you going to move and let me fix it?-No, I would gather some evidence first. Frankly I would not trust you with my electrical wiring.

lol, nice try again rom,
> 
> you said "... I don't have to agree with your definition..."
> 
> I said we can't change it on a whim either.-Please answer my question. Where have I changed a definition on a whim?-And you said you can't change it on a whim ... not we.
You went on to say Cause you don't like it.

you can't change them at a whim either.-What definition have I changed GateKeeper?

David: Dawkins degree of atheism is of very little importance to the overall discussion and content of the conversation. 
> Romansh: Agreed, generally I have avoided that part of the discussion. I don't how I could neasure how certain I am in a certain type of god? 
> > David: I don't care what degree of atheist he is. It doesn't redefine the content of his writings.
> Romansh: Agreed, it is our interpretation of the content that defines the content,-My role on this website has not been to define God. I can't measure types of God. I can't describe God. What I have done is to describe the complexities of the cosmology of this universe, as I understand them; the complexities of the biochemistry of life and of evolution; the difficulties in understanding the origin of life. And from all of this, perhaps as an approach from incredulity, concluding and stating that chance cannot have caused the reality we experience. There must be a guiding greater power, which I cannot be expected to describe beyond that simple statement. Does this power have more than an enermous intellect? I don't know. Adler's considered position was that there is a 50/50 chance He cares about us.

Romansh: If you think understanding the meaning (and nature) of words don't help or matter, fair enough.
> 
> You have been defining terms covering folks intent in thinking about God or no God or gods. Words in the discussions should be defined so we all understand each other, 
Agreed.
> but, as an example, Dawkins degree of atheism is of very little importance to the overall discussion and content of the conversation. 
Agreed, generally I have avoided that part of the discussion. I don't how I could neasure how certain I am in a certain type of god? 
> I don't care what degree of atheist he is. It doesn't redefine the content of his writings.
Agreed, it is our interpretation of the content that defines the content,

Romansh: If you think understanding the meaning (and nature) of words don't help or matter, fair enough.-You have been defining terms covering folks intent in thinking about God or no God or gods. Words in the discussions should be defined so we all understand each other, but, as an example, Dawkins degree of atheism is of very little importance to the overall discussion and content of the conversation. I don't care what degree of atheist he is. It doesn't redefine the content of his writings.


> > Romansh: Personally, I did not think I was saying anything terribly controversial here.
> 
> My point is it shouldn't be controversal because it to me the definitions don't matter or help understanding the real issues. I don't care what Dawkins is in his own mind and I don't like what he does.-Frankly David what you don't like about Dawkins' actions is irrelevant to this discussion ... it belongs to the Dawkins Dissed thread. -If you think understanding the meaning (and nature) of words don't help or matter, fair enough.


> Romansh: Personally, I did not think I was saying anything terribly controversial here.-My point is it shouldn't be controversal because it to me the definitions don't matter or help understanding the real issues. I don't care what Dawkins is in his own mind and I don't like what he does.

I don't see the importance of worrying about these minute differences in definitions. To me an atheist doesn't accept the concept of God or gods, strongly or weakly doesn't matter, and an agnostic like dhw is not sure that it can be proven there can be a God or gods, but he remains open to the possibilty that proof may appear. -Essentially I agree with you David; so long as we are clear which definition we are talking about. The problem lies when we use the weak definition of atheist because it applies to agnostics such as dhw and myself. I have no problem with this as it is only a semantic shell game, but dhw seems to have some fundamental disagreement with the weak definition. Also from what I have read Dawkins also falls into the weak category which I think dhw also objects to.-> All simple and not worthy of prolonged discussion. Resembles the famous number of angels on the head of a pin. We debate here about whether science is providing any answers to the question. Whether the Bible is some help is also covered. Definitions don't get to any central points.-Personally, I did not think I was saying anything terribly controversial here.


> Romansh:We then move on to the difference between atheistic and atheist when used as an adjective. For me there is a subtle difference. For me it is OK to say David has an atheistic position in the Trinity ... in that like atheists you disbelieve in a Trinitarian god. (Assuming you do).
> 
> I can't see the problem here.-I don't see the importance of worrying about these minute differences in definitions. To me an atheist doesn't accept the concept of God or gods, strongly or weakly doesn't matter, and an agnostic like dhw is not sure that it can be proven there can be a God or gods, but he remains open to the possibilty that proof may appear. All simple and not worthy of prolonged discussion. Resembles the famous number of angels on the head of a pin. We debate here about whether science is providing any answers to the question. Whether the Bible is some help is also covered. Definitions don't get to any central points.

Having been away and then returning to this vast inane discussion, down a huge rabbit hole, I find disappointing. The definition of atheist is a non-issue. Please, over and out.-The problem David is there are two broad definitions of atheism in use.
generally speaking:
1) an active disbelief in any god.
2) a lack of belief in any god.-Personally I am happy with either definition, so long as when we use the word atheist we are clear which definition we are speaking about. These are commonly denoted as strong and weak respectively.-similarly for agnosticism
1) not knowing whether god exists or not (but not necessarily limited to god).
2) lacking a belief and disbelief in god.-I would agree that amongst the general public 2) is a common perception, but anyone of a philosophical persuasion would understand that 1) is original intent. 2) for me reduces agnosticism to an atheistic position where the concept of god is somehow important to me. It is not.-We then move on to the difference between atheistic and atheist when used as an adjective. For me there is a subtle difference. For me it is OK to say David has an atheistic position in the Trinity ... in that like atheists you disbelieve in a Trinitarian god. (Assuming you do).-I can't see the problem here.


> dhw: Now please read this carefully: any use of the word "atheistic" to mean anything other than disbelieving in the existence of god(s) can only lead to the confusing, illogical and ... to my mind ... utterly pointless argument that a person can be theistic, atheistic and agnostic all at the same time, even in relation to the same god. But if that's how you wish to use language, carry on. Message received? Over, and if there is no response, over and out.-Having been away and then returning to this vast inane discussion, down a huge rabbit hole, I find disappointing. The definition of atheist is a non-issue. Please, over and out.