3 ms·

Even smarter people are more likely to be Agnostic over Atheist. Here is Bertrand Russell on the topic: "I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or wheth

Even smarter people are more likely to be Agnostic over Atheist. Here is Bertrand Russell on the topic: "I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

andywood 17y ago
Semantics. People who do not call themselves atheist generally tend to think that you should only call yourself atheist if you mean to say you are certain there is no god. People who do call themselves atheist generally only mean by it that they do not consider the existence of gods to be a credible hypothesis, anymore than the existence of leprechauns or centaurs. I think the main difference is that agnostics seem to think it's really important to stress that the jury is still out. For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out, in the same sense that the jury is still out on invisible dragons; but it simply doesn't make any difference for any practical purpose.
- camccann 17y ago
  If nothing else, a reasonable person's certainty in any hypothesis must be bounded above by their (presumably finite) degree of confidence in their own sanity. Absolute certainty is all but nonsensical.
- derefr 17y ago
  Or, to put it another way, agnosticism, plus Empiricism, equals atheism. Rationalists, meanwhile, just call themselves agnostics and see the matter as sorted.
- rmorrison 17y ago
  "For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out" I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of atheists express their belief in no god w/ the same confidence that a catholic would express a belief in theirs. I think it's an important distinction to make.
  - andywood 17y ago
    Apples and oranges. Having spent considerable time on both sides of that fence, it seems to me that the way skeptics look at the world is qualitatively, fundamentally different from the way believers do. At the risk of oversimplifying: believers subscribe to going notions (shamanism, catholicism, astrology, etc.), which become like parts of their lifestyle and identity; skeptics try to determine how likely various propositions are based on knowledge, logic, and evidence. Now, there are a few religious people who try to apply the searching scrutiny of the skeptic to their faith, and there are those who identify with the atheist camp, but sort of after the style that believers identify with things. So the division will get muddled if you go actively looking for exceptions to it. But the point is that most non-believers simply do not hold their non-beliefs in the same way, or for the same reasons, that believers hold their beliefs.
  - kls 17y ago
    yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the truth is we don't know the why. There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and could very well represent the language and rules of a designer. An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: "see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible" they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we are here and how it could have happened. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject. Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.

andywood 17y ago

Semantics. People who do not call themselves atheist generally tend to think that you should only call yourself atheist if you mean to say you are certain there is no god. People who do call themselves atheist generally only mean by it that they do not consider the existence of gods to be a credible hypothesis, anymore than the existence of leprechauns or centaurs. I think the main difference is that agnostics seem to think it's really important to stress that the jury is still out. For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out, in the same sense that the jury is still out on invisible dragons; but it simply doesn't make any difference for any practical purpose.

camccann 17y ago
If nothing else, a reasonable person's certainty in any hypothesis must be bounded above by their (presumably finite) degree of confidence in their own sanity. Absolute certainty is all but nonsensical.
derefr 17y ago
Or, to put it another way, agnosticism, plus Empiricism, equals atheism. Rationalists, meanwhile, just call themselves agnostics and see the matter as sorted.
rmorrison 17y ago
"For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out" I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of atheists express their belief in no god w/ the same confidence that a catholic would express a belief in theirs. I think it's an important distinction to make.
- andywood 17y ago
  Apples and oranges. Having spent considerable time on both sides of that fence, it seems to me that the way skeptics look at the world is qualitatively, fundamentally different from the way believers do. At the risk of oversimplifying: believers subscribe to going notions (shamanism, catholicism, astrology, etc.), which become like parts of their lifestyle and identity; skeptics try to determine how likely various propositions are based on knowledge, logic, and evidence. Now, there are a few religious people who try to apply the searching scrutiny of the skeptic to their faith, and there are those who identify with the atheist camp, but sort of after the style that believers identify with things. So the division will get muddled if you go actively looking for exceptions to it. But the point is that most non-believers simply do not hold their non-beliefs in the same way, or for the same reasons, that believers hold their beliefs.
- kls 17y ago
  yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the truth is we don't know the why. There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and could very well represent the language and rules of a designer. An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: "see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible" they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we are here and how it could have happened. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject. Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.