Agnosticism as a Spectator Sport
I watch the verbal sparring between theists (usually monotheist or some close variant) and atheists (usually the "don't believe" and the anti-theist variants) and as I sit on the agnostic bleachers (the "cannot know" variant), I find myself wondering about the interplay between the belief and the existence of any god or gods.
I lightly JP this process with some definitions:
- universe - the collection of all energy and matter to which we (potentially) have access
- exist - A thing can be said to exist if it can act or be acted upon. This includes, but is not limited to everything in the universe (as defined).
- god - An entity that can choose to control at least one aspect of the universe.
- belief - A mentally held construct of some truth, whether grounded or not. Not a knowledge claim.
- theist - An entity that holds a belief that at least one god exists.
- atheist - An entity that holds no belief about the existence of gods.
- antitheist - An entity that holds a belief that no gods exist.
Belief Without God(s)
Suppose no god exists -- the theist's belief is false and the antitheist's belief is true.
This might lead to some paradox if we hold to a truly "free will". By the definitions provided, we could be considered a god and therefore would exist and invalidate this supposition.
Belief With God(s)
Suppose at least one god exists -- the theist's belief is true and the antitheist's belief is false.
The existence of a god being in concordance with a belief that a god exists does not make any other claims about that god; the breadth and limits of the control that the god may choose to exercise are another consideration beyond existing.
- One Omni-God - This one god controls everything.
- One Supreme God (with 0 or more lesser gods) - One god controls everything but may delegate to others
- Pantheon - collections of gods who collectively control aspects of the universe. A pantheon could be directed by a supreme god.
- Belief Begotten God(s) - gods that exist as a direct result of belief. The gods that people believe in come to exist and fulfill the details of the belief -- the breadth and limits of control. A kind of collective force of will to shape the universe. (The core concept of Neil Gaiman's "American Gods"
Who cares?
From the human perspective, either way, we just go through life making (what feels like) choices.
From a god perspective (if any exist), the god or gods will go on making their choices for their reasons. Perhaps these choices are made with our intercession, or perhaps our pleas are ignored.
The whole point I am stalking here is that if god(s) exist, is it only the us who believes? Does everyone need to be a Claude Hooper Bukowski? Maybe not, but if no god believes in us -- acts with regard to our persons -- we may as well be in the position of there being no gods since we are irrelevant to them. And maybe if there is at least one god, then at least one god believes in antitheists despite (to spite?) the antitheist position.
But what do I know?
(These thoughts are subject to change.)
4 comments:
Given the terms as defined the thought is well presented. To frame this about god(s) instead of belief, although changing your definitions, may be more aligned with academic thought. I believe god(s) exist; I believe no god(s) exist. Thus it focuses on the object not the (non)belief about it. ($0.02)
Thanks. I have elected to use "antitheist" as the term that represents someone who holds "I believe no god(s) exist" as an active disbelief position, and "atheist" as the term that represents "holding no belief about the existence of gods". I understand that this is not completely in line with much academic thought, but in the public sphere, the two positions (broadly under atheist) are often conflated to "straw man" many arguments against theistic disbelief.
As for the focus: I appreciate your highlighting of the dichotomy between belief and existence. The belief is independent of the existence of god(s) (unless Neil Gaiman is correct). We are free (enough) to believe all kinds of things that are true or false. There are many things that do or do not exist. We tend to believe things when we have sufficient evidence to maintain that the belief is true, but there are some "wiggle words" in that statement -- notably "tend to" and "sufficient".
In the end, I think all I am saying is our belief regarding god(s) is likely irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of god(s). Dispute of any god belief can only be resolved by a discovery of a ground truth of existence or non-existence. And then what? None of it changes the ground truth. Why would anyone want to be right? Just to say, "Ha-ha! I am right!"?
Do beliefs exist as a belief? If not, based on the definition for exist, there needs to be the thing ie mental construct— that acts or is acted upon. What is the thing that is a mental construct?
Perhaps "construct" is not the correct word in my definition of belief. Perhaps "pattern" is a better word? In some limited ways, a belief is like a Platonic "shadow on the wall" -- not a thing to be acted upon, but our perception based on some other existing thing(s).
A belief can not act. A belief cannot be acted upon (directly), only the holder of the belief can be acted upon. When the belief holder is changed (acted upon), then the belief pattern might be changed.
Post a Comment