More Agnostic Dissent

Danny very kindly posted a great reply to my last post on agnosticism, which I put below:

You define atheism as:
"1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
You go on to argue a "weak form" of atheism: "absence of belief in God."

Where is the weak form, or passive disbelief in this definition? Certainly not definition 1. As for definition 2, the word disbelief describes an active, not passive sentiment.

The relevant definition of disbelief according to dictionary.com: "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true." The definition page also includes this highly relevant aside from Websters, contrasting the word “unbelief” to “disbelief”: “One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.”

The whole issue boils down to semantics. I don’t think our sentiments are far apart.

Another comment of yours got me to reconsider one of the statements I casually tossed out before: that God is unknowable. This implies that it is in principle impossible to discern whether God exists or not. Now, while it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, it is not logically impossible to prove that God DOES exist. If some entity were to show up and start throwing around lightning bolts, raising the dead, ressurecting Michael Jackson's career (requiring both of the above), etc... only a hardened skeptic would continue to deny the possibility of a supernatural omniscient diety. But I require first-hand or verifiable -– preferably repeatable -- empirical evidence to even begin to admit God’s existence.

I still doubt whether we can ever know God on a scientific basis. Consider this theorem: If science could understand God, then by definition God wouldn’t be supernatural. And if God isn’t supernatural, well, then God just ain’t all he’s cracked up to be.

Can we ever know God on a non-scientific basis? Perhaps. But when we throw away science, what are we left with? Anything goes.

One more comment on your definition of agnostic.
The part of definition you provide of agnostic that resonates most with me is the notion “that human knowledge is limited to experience.” But that can’t be the whole story, can it? I would claim to know certain things I have never experienced. We rely on other’s experiences to help inform our understanding of the world. Humanity could hardly progress without that. Now, some people have had genuine religious experiences, in which they say (and believe) they have communed with God. Why do I reject the evidence of those experiences out of hand, but not the imputations of a scientist describing the moment after the Big Bang? I need to ponder that, and I pose that as a question for you, Brod.

As for your questions:
1. The Big Kahuna argument you suggest earlier seems correct. God: alleged all-powerful creator of the universe. Unicorn: Alleged horse with a horn sticking out of its head. God gives much of the population of the earth a reason to get up in the morning. Unicorns give much of the female 5-9 demographic a reason to stay up past bedtime. 'Nuff said.

2. The definition of atheist you cite is that it is the belief that there is NO God. So no, a Christian atheist seems impossible, as they do believe in A God, though not the God of other religions. Interesting idea, though.