So the last post got me athinkin’. The problem of defining terms like “atheist” and “agnostic” has reared its ugly head again. I think arguing about definitions is almost always a waste of time, but it’s especially annoying when the argument gets to the question of historical usage and what the “true” definition of something is.
In terms of atheist, there are two main definitions: (1)someone who believes there are no gods and (2) someone who does not believe there are gods. A common anti-atheist argument is that 1 is “correct” historically and philosophically, and that atheists today are doing a bait and switch in order to avoid having to prove that gods do not exist.
A typical retort might be that there is little practical difference between the two definitions — not to mention that meaning is dictated by usage (and changes anyway) so what’s wrong with 2? I’ve also seen some claim that there is no difference between “not believing X exists” and “believing X does not exist”, which is another area we can all waste time on.
Once you throw “agnostic” into the mix things get really hairy. To some these are tangential questions with gnostic/agnostic describing your assessment of how confident your knowledge is and theist/atheist describing whether or not you believe in a god. So you can be an agnostic theist (eg. you believe YHWH exists but believe he can’t be proven) or a gnostic atheist (you believe we can know that a god doesn’t exist) and so on. On the other hand, many self-described agnostics use definition 2 above for themselves, which generally requires them to insist definition 1 is the “correct” definition of atheist.
I hope that merely listing some of the issues have convinced you that this is a silly argument. It’s akin to asking “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a sound”? A very good post to read about this is this one: the people who argue over this are just using different definitions of sound. Both definitions have some social use hence both definitions have someone feeling it’s the “natural” one.
Part of the problem is that the split is too crude: like much of language it’s built on a binary: either you accept something or you don’t. But this is one of the biggest problems with the human brain — we aren’t good at thinking about probabilities. Rationality on the other hand is (IMO) is all about probabilities. So I think it’s in probabilities that we can clear this up a little.
Of course the idea of there being a continuum of belief has been suggested many many times, including by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, which discusses the spectrum of theistic probability:
- Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”
- De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
- Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
- Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
- Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
- De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
- Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”
The advantage of this is that it includes the entire set of attitudes that is likely to be held. Unless someone is a self-identified agnostic who thinks it’s impossible to even come up with a subjective probability for the existence of a god, or that there is no subjective probability etc. If you are one of these people please comment, I’d love to hear from you.
But of course you can set any probability for yourself about a theistic statement. This scale is just a way of splitting the spectrum into bands that are more socially convenient. As opposed to walking around saying “I’m an 82%-er”.
Still, I think the basic idea is right. Even if we talk about having beliefs or not having them, we SHOULD be talking about our degree of confidence that something is true. At least if we’re interested in reason. For now I think it would be interesting to examine confidence levels. So let’s have some statements:
- The universe was created by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immaterial being/intelligence
- The universe was created by a being/intelligence (note that this includes ideas like the universe being a simulation)
- [Some form of mainstream] Christianity is true
- Zeus exists
My thumbsuck ratings are 5%, 25% or even higher (a complex topic for another day), 2.5%, 0.5%. What are yours? Next post I’ll look at the problems of what those numbers might mean in terms of words like atheist/theist/agnostic.
13 comments ↓
Just to play the devil’s advocate
, let me say that I might be inclined to assign a random probability to any of these statements. For example, I might say that the probability that the christian dogmas are true is a random variable which takes values between a=0.1 and b=1.5, uniformly. (And one might want to take it to the next level: i.e., say that a, b themselves are random… etc.)
I would put the probability that Zeus exists as 0% (to many decimal places). We have explored Mount Olympus thoroughly and there are no gods there
David, the kind of process I’m describing is a sorta Baysean one — at least as far as that’s possible for someone like me who doesn’t have enough knowledge of probability to truly know what he’s talking about. But from what I remember, I don’t think 0% and 100% are even possible probabilities in Baysean updating. As you get more and more evidence your confidence for a proposition only asymptotically approaches 100% but can never get there. Same for 0% but in reverse.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong please!
Takis — I’m afraid my high school level stats are rusty wrt to your comment: could you rephrase? I’m not sure how this differs from my post or what the specific values of a and b mean.
(Yet more evidence that probability is one of the hardest subjects for people to follow — and certainly one of the hardest to teach well!)
[...] ← Defining Theist, Atheist, Agnostic etc, Redux [...]
Michael, I was being funny, nothing more. I wanted to say, that I’m more uncertain than being certain that the probability is 0.8 %. So, as you observed, I said it’s somewhere between 0.1 % and 1.5 % (oh, by the way, I forgot to put the % sign in my earlier posting!!!)
And, you are right, under some assumptions, the values 0% and 100% are not possible for the Bayesian update. (But they can be possible if say, my prior distribution assigns positive probability to 0% and to 100%.)
Also, indeed, probability is hard to teach. Evidence for this: 1) Many good mathematicians have the impression that probability is trivial. 2) The existence of many statisticians who cannot come to grasp with mathematical probability.
[...] Defining Theist, Atheist, Agnostic etc, Redux (anadder.com) [...]
For the vast majority of the post you have Abrahimic privilege.
Here’s my take on any mainstream religion:
1. I do not know if any gods exist
2. I believe no gods exist
3. I know your god doesn’t exist
As to my percentages:
0% (impossible for this universe to exist if a creator god was omnipotent and omnibenevolent)
0.0000000001% or less of a creator deity (1 in a trillion)
0% as it is internally inconsistent
0.0000001% as it could easily be a powerful alien rather than a ‘god’
Abrahamic privilege? How? I did speak of a god or gods and this would include the vast majority of major religions. Unless you mean that I’m excluding spirits and other elements on animism?
On your first 0% answer, you say “this universe” but then you would already be assuming a 0% probability of simulation? Which you seem to be doing for your next answer (since you reference a creator deity) — is that right?
“100 per cent probability of God” Singular.
“I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.” Hmm, the Greeks and Romans, Hindus and Egyptians may not quite see it that way.
“an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent…” Most gods in history have been far from these ‘ideals’.
Hence I feel there is an assumption throughout the post that while ‘gods’ are one belief, the Abrahimic monothestic one has a special place. Which, politically, is entirely true.
As to a simulation, I tend towards the idea that this may be a simulation since, given humanities progress, it appears more likely that natural processes that lead to intelligent life will produce more simulations than natural processes that simply lead to intelligent life. This makes it a better than 50% chance that we are in a simulation. Still, solipsism is also unfalsifiable so what can one do about it? Examine all evidence that is presented and look for inconsistencies or clues. i.e. Treat it as real until it can be conclusively proven otherwise.
I tried 1 in a billion for a creator deity but it didn’t sit right. A billion ain’t what it used to be. Even a 1 in 10 billion seemed too likely. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but with no evidence of one and science continually making the case for a naturalistic explanation for everything, I see no need to posit the immaterial to explain the material.
“Humanity’s” Grammar nazi.
All those bits are quotes from Dawkins, I agree he was focused largely on Abrahamic religion which is why my wording expands a bit.
As for the simulation, in that case you should be much more willing to believe that this universe was created by an intelligent being (ie. a programmer)? Especially if you put simulation at 50%.
I do think it’s possible to have some evidence for/against simulation but this would require us to have a lot more knowledge about consciousness, physics, rationality, biology etc etc than we currently do.
[...] Defining Theist, Atheist, Agnostic etc, Redux (anadder.com) [...]