I’m not sure why this article is categorized as “Hall of Shame.”  I think it’s a well written piece that illustrates the lack “knowing,” which serves as a connection and common trait among all people when it comes to the existence of of a god.  as a non-theist, I think it is important to highlight common ground among believers and non-believers.  How else would there ever be a chance for believers to make concessions to non-believers and use reason in their thought processes?  The bottom line is that nobody, no matter what they say, knows for certain whether a god does or does not exist.  Every person has that in common.  as non-theists, why not use that to our advantage in our effort to spread secular values and scientific knowledge?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There are plenty of opportunities for theists to make concessions and introduce reason to their thought processes. They are welcome to begin at any time.
Everyone is ignorant as to whether or not the flying Spaghetti Monster ultimately propels the planets on their course with his noodly appendages or not. This fact doesn’t make winners of Spaghetti Monster agnostics. By the way, how are doubting agnostics treated where religion really holds sway? Declaring your doubt in Middle Ages Europe was a recipe for discovering “common ground”? So then why the liberal cant like it’s atheists against agnostics and believers? Because fundamentalism isn’t in quite the position of strength in our society, perhaps only by virtue of our constitution. So let’s not pretend like religion is the friend of doubt and skepticism and only has a problem with certitude!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Read Russell’s “God and Religion”, edited by Siekel.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This seems to me like arguing for the existence of Sherlock Holmes or Bilbo Baggins. Why we should take seriously the existence of any fictional character is beyond me.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“There is no disagreement among philosophers about the more popular arguments to which theists and atheists typically appeal: as formulated, they do not prove (that is, logically derive from uncontroversial premises) what they claim to prove.”

The problem here: what is it that the ‘popular atheist arguments’ claim to prove? It’s a total strawman that atheists claim to prove there are no gods, outside of a minority of ‘strong atheists’. Richard Dawkins (as he is specifically mentioned) claims no such thing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@EGD

I’m not sure why this article is categorized as “Hall of Shame.”

At the very least, because the author:
a) Claims a position of expertise on the interplay between theology and philosophy
b) Fails to demonstrate any understanding that gnosticism and theism are different (orthogonal) concepts

To the contrary - Gary Cutting makes the all too common mistake of pretending that agnosticism is the middle-ground between belief and the absence of belief. A self-identified expert should know better. (Note that I don’t claim to be an expert either - I’m just an armchair enthusiast.)

This leads to at least four statements of belief:
1) I believe God exists, and I know/could know it to be true. (Gnostic theist)
2) I believe God exists, but I don’t know/cannot know if this is true. (Agnostic theist)
3) I do not believe God exists, and I know/could know this to be true. (Gnostic atheist)
4) I do not believe God exists, but I don’t know/cannot know if this is true. (Agnostic atheist).

Gary Cutting ignores 2 amd 4. and assumes an incoherent position:
5) I simultaneously do not believe and do not not believe God exists because I don’t know/cannot know if God exists.

Statement 5) is incoherent - you can’t simultaneously not believe something and also not not believe something.

Typically I’m an ardent usagist when it comes to assigning meanings to words. But I make an exception here, because there aren’t any other words that precisely represent what ‘gnostic’ and ‘theist’ are supposed to represent.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@ Jason A - I agree.  As far as I understand, Dawkins’ chief claim re: god is that given the total absence of any credible evidence for god whatever, a belief in god makes as much sense as a belief in an invisible, intangible fairy kingdom beneath my mother’s garden.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

EGD:
You said:“as non-theists, why not use that to our advantage in our effort to spread secular values and scientific knowledge?”
You mean atheists not non-thesists.  One who doesn’t believe in a God is an atheists.  Non-theism is just a word used by people too scared to call themselves atheists.  The same mischaracterization is probably one of the reasons this article is in the hall of shame.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I guess I am an agnostic who heavily leans towards atheism. The concept of God should not be given any special attention over any other concept we can imagine. If you claim to be a true agnostic you are saying that every possible thing you can conceive of can exist because it can hide itself from our senses. Not just god, we are talking about pink time hopping unicorns, radio active dragons with a depression and the spaghetti monster. You won’t even be able to deny that our emotions are actually the thoughts from another race that lives in another dimension, influencing us this way. They all have the same right of existence as god. Sure they could all be true and out their, hiding from us but let’s just say that it’s not very likely.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@pdskep & @EGD

Aren’t ‘atheist’ and ‘non-theist’ synonyms anyway?

I thought the ‘a’ prefix and the ‘non’ prefix meant the same thing to start with.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@DaFreal4ever

f you claim to be a true agnostic you are saying that every possible thing you can conceive of can exist because it can hide itself from our senses.

Actually… no.

Gnōsis just means ‘knowledge’. In the context of theism, a gnostic claims to know (or claims to be able to know in principle) about the existence of God. An agnostic does not.

So all a ‘true’ agnostic has to do is not claim knowledge - this can optionally include denying the possibility of knowledge.about God.

However - regardless of whether someone is a gnostic or an agnostic, either way they must either believe God exists, or not believe God exists. It has to be one or the other - it can’t be both or none.

So every agnostic is either an atheist or a theist, whether they like it or not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Daniel

Yes they are synonymous, but the name non-theist is superfluous and hardly used by anyone.  The word atheist has been around a lot longer and it’s time we took it back.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This bit bugs me: “subtle and sophisticated versions of arguments for and against God’s existence (for example, my colleague Alvin Plantinga’s modal-logic formulation of St. Anselm’s ontological argument or William Rowe’s complex version of a probabilistic argument from evil)”.  It’s the old debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin—in other words, mental masturbation that obscures the fundamental idiocy of religion.  As if, by using big words like “modal-logic”, “ontological”, and “probabalistic”, religious philosophers can imbue their idiotic arguments with some authority.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Again, there seems to be a constituency out there that thinks a person who says “I don’t know” is cowardly.  You are all forgetting that you don’t know either.  Just because I think the existence of god is about as likely as the existence “pink time hopping unicorns,” doesn’t mean I am privy to any definitive information on the subject, while others are not.  Why is it such a bad thing to identify common ground?  Why is it so dangerous to say “I don’t know, and neither do you”?  It doesn’t mean you have to live your life differently than you do by saying “I don’t believe a god exists.”  Why shouldn’t we use some kind of commonality as a starting point for rational dialogue?  The comments above do not address those questions.  All they do is say “if people want to believe in god, then i want nothing to do with them and have no interest in engaging in a dialogue about it.”  That to me, is infinitely more cowardly than saying, “I don’t know.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@ EGD - I think the answer to your question is tucked away in our ideas of “knowledge” and “proof”.

In general, people use these terms to talk about two forms of knowing.  The first is a kind of absolute, mathematical certainty, along the lines of “Two is greater than one.”  The second is evidence-based, where all available, credible evidence points to a particular answer, along the lines of “George Washington is dead.”

In almost every field of endeavor, we use both forms of knowledge, and the vast majority of knowledge that we possess falls into the second category.  But devout persons insist that only the first kind of knowledge is sufficient in the realm of religion, and that is a dangerous and cowardly double standard.

So, for example, any given minister will agree that George Washington is dead, that there is no such being as Sauron, and that Barney the Purple Dinosaur is actually a guy in a costume and not really a dinosaur.  And the devout will freely and rightly condemn as lunatics anyone who seriously claims otherwise.

But then they insist on getting a free pass where the divine is concerned.  They demand that the standards of knowledge that apply to everything else must be lifted when talking about god.  And letting them do this, I will suggest, is cowardly and counter-productive.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Matthew K.

I wholeheartedly agree with your final statement.  Allowing anyone to change the standards of knowledge and/or logic on any subject is irresponsible, dangerous, and indeed cowardly.  My question is not whether they are entitled to think that way.  I wish it was widely viewed as simply unacceptable to apply such an absurd standard to something as dangerous as religion.  However, it is not.  Whether we like it or not, it is not only widely accepted, but it is encouraged and passed along from generation to generation.  So we agree.

My question, however, is why it is seen as such a bad thing to identify something which is common among all, and use it as a basis for rational debate and conversation.  We can sit here all day and talk about how religious people don’t use reason and how they are readily willing to discount logic for the benefit of their faith.  I don’t think that is at question.  My point is that doing that won’t accomplish much, except provide food for our egos and build higher and higher, the wall between reason and blind faith.  Nobody, in as many times as I have asked this question, has been able to answer it.  so, again, “why is it bad to identify and highlight common ground?”  What is the real life danger associated with it?  is it that you’re scared to be associated in any way with religious people?  Do you apply that philosophy to every part of your life?  Do you not converse with the religious, simply because they are so? 

In order to make real progress in educating people about reason, science, logic, and secular values, dialogue must take place.  That dialogue must start somewhere and all parties must be willing to engage in order for it to be effective.  So why not start with a commonality and see where we can go from there?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Daniel

How is “I don’t know” any different from “it is (not) possible”?

If you say you don’t know, you mean that it is possible none of these undetectable things exist, while at the same time saying it is possible that all these things exist. I am not a true agnostic because i don’t want to leave open the possibility for everything we can think of to exist. I like to stick to facts and at the moment there is not a single fact that would point in the direction of any of these things to exist so for now i ll stick only to what i can see, sense, touch or what instruments tell me is out there.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@ EGD - Well, I suppose I can take a crack at addressing your question.

If, by common ground, you mean that in a very strict sense we are all “agnostic” about everything (except certain mathematical or logical truths), then my response is that this definition of “agnostic” is a red herring, and distracts us from the real issues.  I sort of suspect that’s not what you’re getting at, though.

If, instead, you mean that as a practical matter atheists should seek to emphasize our commonalities with believers, rather than emphasize the rather tremendous difference, then I think the answer is that we generally do.  When I order an espresso, I do not berate the barista when I notice that he is wearing a cross around his neck.  When my devout co-worker asks for help, I do not condition that help on her listening to me go on about how the Abraham and Isaac story is actually pretty appalling.

However, when someone initiates a conversation on the subject of religion, such as by suggesting that the Bible is the source of all wisdom, or that mathematical knowledge is all we are allowed to cleave to, then I am inclined to give my honest and often uncharitable appraisal of their position.  I say “You are wrong,” and then explain why.  And, setting aside the point that they really are wrong, I do this for three reasons.

The first is that this is the way you deal with bullies.  You let them know that you are not going to take their crap lying down.  The fact that we are outnumbered only makes it more imperative to be clear that we will not be held down with fairy tales.

The second reason is for the benefit of others.  Many times, we take bad things for granted until someone with a clear voice says “No.  This is terrible.”  If you want others to understand that something ubiquitous is also terribly wrong, the way to do that is by stating clearly and without ambiguity “This is terribly wrong.”  This is not something you can soft sell.

I hasten to add that sounding shrill and frantic tends to unravel this goal.  “Firm but polite” is important.

Finally, it isn’t just to feed our egos but also to feed the egos of those who have been beaten and battered.  To let them know that they are not wrong to stand up straight.  We are bold in facing fairy tales with facts, in order to embolden others who would do the same.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@DaFreak4ever

How is “I don’t know” any different from “it is (not) possible”?

I think we’re at cross purposes. We’re both atheists, after all.

I don’t disagree with your dismissal of those who claim to be fence-sitters on the God question.

I disagree with your analysis that there is a coherent fence-sitter position in the first place.

As I said to EGD, everyone either believes in the existence of God, or they do not. Both a and ¬a cannot be true. Neither can they both be false. It must be one or the other.

Consider your fence-sitter (F) and an interviewer (I)

F: God’s existence is possible.
I: But do you hold it to be true?
F: No - but it’s possible.
I: So you’re not a theist?
F: Yes, that’s correct.
I: Then you’re an atheist?
F: Nonononononononono. I’m an agnostic. It might be true.
I: But you just said you weren’t a theist. That’s all atheist means!
F: Errr…. No. Atheists are mean, shrill, arrogant and nasty, just like that Dawkins fellow who I’ve not read, but have read plenty about, thankyouverymuch. I’m certainly not an atheist. *sneer*

The pretense that ‘agnosticism’ occupies some middle ground between belief and the lack of belief is an incoherent (and therefore intellectually vacuous) cop-out. And that’s before the reductio ad absurdum you’ve presented above comes into play.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Nice post Daniel.  My biggest issue with this topic has nothing to do with theism per se, but it’s letting them control the definition of the word atheism.  It simply means without a belief in God.  Those who call themselves agnostic are atheists as well.  Many seem to be misinformed or too frightened of the word atheism.  As I said before, it’s time we took the word back and realize there’s no need for words like non-theist.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

if you are a believer or a nonbeliever then you fall into a mentality of paradigm paralysis.

two sides of the same coin.

neither side has any idea they are like kissing cousins.

once you state I believe or you state I do not believe the journey of discovery is over.

this is why we have religion and scientism as two sides of the same coin.

most that read this will have no idea what I am writing.

all believers and nonbelievers speak from opinion or theory and treat both as facts.

the intellect cannot know or discover the greatest of the mysteries of life.

the word god has so much baggage no airline in the world would issue a ticket to god.

the religious god has all the ignorance of humans.

everyone has a god of sorts. what we treasure is our god.

atheists treasure science then science becomes scientism,

science and religion deals with appearances.

the underlying reality of those appearances is what the religious need to deal with instead they fall into the same trap as the atheists.

judging by the appearances of matter and phenomena.

religious and atheists two sides of the same coin.

both sides militant due to doubt not certainity.

doubt is defensive certainity is humble.

overcoming doubt is not based in beliefs or theories but in realizations.

a religious person like an atheist has never had a realization.

it is impossible to be religious or an atheist once a realization has occurred.

the scientific method is about problem solving and objective.

realizations come from the subject not the objective.

religious folks confuse conversion with a realization.

athests have no idea what a realization is nor do they care to learn. their god is their intellect.

the religious god is made in the image of their ego.

oh well enough humility for one night.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I realized a long time ago that researcher posts incomprehensible nonsense

You don't have permission to flag this entry.