Likeandthey
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2017
- Posts
- 277
In regard to the three outcomes, theism, atheism, and agnosticism, I've always read these positions comprising varieties of evidentiary support for the existence or non-existence of God. The logic would then be about formulating reasonable arguments such that a conclusion is able to be inferred from presented evidence. Which is why in the history of such a topic you have people trying to develop actual proofs for the existence of God. People like St. Anslem. Belief wouldn't, in this case, have much merit in regard to any of the three positions. Each is a bit more logicially rigorous.
I don't think you can logically prove the existence of God (theism) or disprove the existence of God (atheism). Lots have tried using various historical records, though. This leaves the position of philosophical agnosticism.
The supplied example, from the point of view of the two children, would result in agnosticism. The metaphor, however, kind of pulls at the reader in a way that the reader introduces knowledge that neither of the two characters actually have. Which, to me, is a little bit disingenious to do. One is led to introduce as a premise the very thing the two characters are trying to reason to 'prove'.
All that said, there are plenty of people who do utilize much looser definitions of the three positions. A theist (different definition), for instance, may say that the point isn't about evidence. The point is about belief, etc. In which case they would arguably qualify as a mystic or a spiritualist rather than a rationalist.
As another aside, there are extensive and numerous debates around God's inaccessibility and ultimate abandonment of the human species (the interpretation of god's 'will', the death of christ, the ossification of the church, dogma, etc). Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for death of God theologies, which are predicated on this abandonment- the God who throws himself into creation and is cruxified and dies. God is fully and actually dead. So, you end up with a position called Christian atheism (which then focuses on good works and living communities rather than the focus on there being a higher power who transcends and interferes).
I don't think you can logically prove the existence of God (theism) or disprove the existence of God (atheism). Lots have tried using various historical records, though. This leaves the position of philosophical agnosticism.
The supplied example, from the point of view of the two children, would result in agnosticism. The metaphor, however, kind of pulls at the reader in a way that the reader introduces knowledge that neither of the two characters actually have. Which, to me, is a little bit disingenious to do. One is led to introduce as a premise the very thing the two characters are trying to reason to 'prove'.
All that said, there are plenty of people who do utilize much looser definitions of the three positions. A theist (different definition), for instance, may say that the point isn't about evidence. The point is about belief, etc. In which case they would arguably qualify as a mystic or a spiritualist rather than a rationalist.
As another aside, there are extensive and numerous debates around God's inaccessibility and ultimate abandonment of the human species (the interpretation of god's 'will', the death of christ, the ossification of the church, dogma, etc). Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for death of God theologies, which are predicated on this abandonment- the God who throws himself into creation and is cruxified and dies. God is fully and actually dead. So, you end up with a position called Christian atheism (which then focuses on good works and living communities rather than the focus on there being a higher power who transcends and interferes).
Last edited: