Kenny wrote:Squible wrote:Agnosticism is the default position, for it is not an epistemological position whereas theism and atheism are.
Agnosticism - No knowledge / I don't know / It's unknowable
Theism - Belief that God or gods exists
Atheism - (A = not) therefore not theism - Belief that God or gods do not exist
For example I am not afleaist about there being a flea in our house. I am agnostic about whether a flea is somewhere in my house, actually prior to this comment I was too because I hadn't thought about it and held no position either way. Then again the dogs were just let inside so now I have good reasons to become fleaist, since it is likely they do have at least one flea between them.
This whole default position rubbish and the definition of atheism being distorted across the internet gets weary at times...
Atheism and Theism is about what you
believe, Agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different conversation. In theory, you can believe God does or does not exist; but not know.
Ken
Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of god/s is unknown and inherently unknowable. Direct from a philosophy book and different to your definition. Notice it too is also a belief. It is an epistemic
position in that we can't know or is unknown, however that wasn't the context of my reference to epistemological position in my previous comment. Yes beliefs can simply be just that...So sure you could hold beliefs for theism/atheism with absolutely no epistemic foundation. However generally they are formed with what WE DO KNOW as an indication either for and against Gods existence, therefore those who argue from that are using underlying knowledge to argue for their beliefs, which means it is based on an epistemology. Epistemology is theory of knowledge and also comes in many different schools. Usually you will find a matching metaphysical position with an epistemology such that they cohere well together.
This whole discussion as far as I see it is quite complicated. Since it also comes down to discussions about true belief which is generally considered knowledge.. Quite frankly I read about this sometime ago and it is quite a large topic, I might go have another read to clear my thoughts on it all further. Philosophers are still debating the relationship between belief and knowledge.
Perhaps you should also learn about reformed epistemology, in that belief in God is a properly basic belief, therefore it does an end run around this discussion. If it is properly basic then it is warranted belief. A reformed epistemologist could potentially argue that you are not functioning properly.
Reformed epistemology also does an end run around the whole foundationalist and coherence theories of belief as well.
The problem is at the root we all hold to basic beliefs and work outward from that point. We cannot escape that, if you have ever read discussions between foundationalists and coherence theory holders it's quite interesting..
I hold that belief in God is properly basic no different to my belief that I talked with my wife this morning even though she is not here to confirm it, or lets say last week I was alone at night reading a book on scholastic metaphysics. I can't prove either, yet I am warranted in holding to those beliefs. Another properly basic belief is that my faculties are in fact working correctly, until I have a defeater for that I am warranted in maintaining that position.
Many Christians will also affirm the witness of the holy spirit which is how we know, but that's another big discussion...
