You've lost me!

In the article you linked to one can read:

Many of the mistakes we make when we experience emotions are due to the illusion of certainty they create. High adrenalin and cortisol emotions, particularly anger, create the profoundest illusions of certainty, due to their amphetamine effects. Amphetamines create a temporary sense of confidence by increasing metabolic energy production, while narrowing mental focus and ignoring or discounting most variables that might invoke self-doubt. That's why you feel more confident after a cup of coffee than before it. It's why feel convinced that you’re right and everyone else is wrong when you're angry.

So when Im angry Im the more convinced that what I think is certain (or when Im euphoric maybe). But when the anger (or euphoria) is *caused* (how I write Italics?) by me being certain or uncertain about something its a different matter.

I believe that thinking there is no way to be 100% certain is a belif too. Consider me to be the particle in the QM wave. With hidden variables though. And you are the wave (nice analogy!).

Okay, you're agnostic; but do you believe in g/G or not?

(e.g. @Possibility – You don't know whether or not it will rain tomorrow; but, though it's not raining, do you or don't you take an umbrella with you in the morning?)

I fail to see how 'agnosticism' is anything but a distinction without a practical (i.e. moral or epistemic) difference.

Being agnostic means you dont know. Im not sure if thats the best way. I know there is (are) a god(s). But I ignore him and go my own way.

These were the key paragraphs for me:

Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong....
...Life is hard for the certain whenever reality crashes upon them. But it's abundantly exciting and filled with value and meaning for those who embrace its inherent uncertainty.

Conviction is the strong belief that a behavior is right, moral, and consistent with your deeper values. It offers a kind of certainty, not about the world, but about the morality of your own behavior. — Psychology Today

So certainty is about (potential) information you have in qualitative relation to (potential) information you don’t have, whereas conviction is particularly about your own behaviour: what you (should) do in qualitatively relation to what you (should) don’t do.

I believe that thinking there is no way to be 100% certain is a belif too. Consider me to be the particle in the QM wave. With hidden variables though. And you are the wave (nice analogy!). — Prishon

I want to clarify here that I did qualify this: not without ignoring or excluding information.

P.S. I like the ‘hidden variables’ edit!

Atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnosticism
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God — Deus

It is very good that you brought up definitions of both. Few do, even if the terms in most of the topics shout for their (own) definitions! :smile:

Now, let's see ... The atheist simply does not believe in (the existence of) God (or a "god"). This is quite justified and logical, since its existence has not been proved, or at least, not in a commonly acceptable way. On the other hand, the agnostic holds that nothing is known --this is too evident!-- or can be known about the existence of God. See, he also adds the impossibility to ever know anything about God. So, in a way he does rule out his existence, contrary to what you state. And with this, he also gets into a logical trap: you cannot claim that nothing can be known about something that is not known!

So, I personally like an atheist, more than an agnostic! :smile:

I feel that the OP definition is not the same as mine in agnostic.  I would have thought agnostic is for "not being sure", "don't know up to now", rather than impossible to know if God exists.

Agnostics don't get into the logical trap, because their attitude is open, not decided and subject to further thoughts and investigations for the matter.  The logical argument on the atheists was my own logical reflection, which has nothing to do with agnosticism. I was not arguing from agnostic point of view at all, but it was just my own passing logical argument, and it has nothing to do with agnostic.

Obviously the poster saying that agnostic is in logical trap is confused with the whole thing for some reason.

Agnostic is a better position to be, because it is opening the possibility for further investigation and changing their views in the future depending on the personal experience, change of thoughts through reading and discussions, personal feelings and / or logical reflections on the topic.

Hi!
I have responded to your topic --you asked "What are your thoughts?"-- but I I have not received a response from you ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/583919

Okay, you're agnostic; but do you believe in g/G or not? — 180 Proof

Agnostic is a better position to be, because it is opening the possibility for further investigation and changing their views in the future depending on the personal experience, change of thoughts through reading and discussions, personal feelings and / or logical reflections on the topic.

This isn't anything special or unique to agnosticism, there's nothing about atheism or theism that prevents one from investigating further or changing ones view if warranted by the evidence. One can be atheist or theist, and open-minded, or agnostic and closed-minded. They're just separate things.

And this idea that agnosticism is somehow more rational or warranted because it occupies the middle-ground, so to speak, reminds me of the fallacious bothsidesism we see in political discourse: i.e. the assumption that the truth or most rational position lies precisely in the middle. But sometimes, maybe even oftentimes, one side is just wrong. And its certainly possible with the case of theism. Especially certain forms of theism: evangelical literalist young-earth creationist Christianity, for instance, is just flatly wrong, conclusively disproven by the empirical evidence (evolutionary, geological, cosmological, etc). Being agnostic about the existence of such a deity would not be rational or justified, because the evidence very clearly and unequivocally supports one side over and against the other.

There might be certain god-claims or conceptions of deity that do warrant agnosticism... but by no means all, and this is by no means a given in general. You have to take them case-by-case.

This isn't anything special or unique to agnosticism, there's nothing about atheism or theism that prevents one from investigating further or changing ones view if warranted by the evidence. One can be atheist or theist, and open-minded, or agnostic and closed-minded. They're just separate things. — Seppo

Doubting theist? Unsure atheist?
But the definition of theist means that they are the ones who are fully committed to believing in God.
Atheist means the ones who do not believe in God.

If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists. Unsure about their own belief that God does not exist are not atheists either. In real life, these are possible, but clearly they are contradictory, which are unfit for logical discourse.

Why agnostics have to be viewed as the middle position only? It is not some geographical concept.

Agnostics can be also dualists, who can believe and at the same time disbelieve in God. It is the privilege that only agnostics can take.

Because agnostic means, doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding any subject of dispute.. Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.. The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.. The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable.

Uncertainty doesn't mean either belief in the existence or nonexistence. Its position is uncertain, not in the middle. This is only applicable concept to the agnostics.

We are not particularly talking about only Christianity here. It would be God in general sense. You would need another separate thread to discuss what God is.

But the definition of theist means that they are the ones who are fully committed to believing in God.

No, nothing about the definition of theist or atheist says anything about their level of commitment, certitude, or open-mindedness. These terms denote a certain belief (or disbelief): either in, or against, the existence of God. One can hold that belief with varying levels of commitment, certitude, or closed/open-mindedness, without being any more or less a theist or atheist.

If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists

This is a self-contradiction. A doubting theist is still a theist. "Doubting theists are not theists" is trivially/logically/definitionally false: you said it yourself, they're a doubting theist. So they're a theist... one with doubts.

And yes, we are talking about specific cases, including the example of evangelical literalist Christianity. Because, as I mentioned, some cases of theism may warrant atheism, while others do not: wrt the literalist young earth variety of Christianity, agnosticism is not warranted- atheism is. There's no reason to think either theism, atheism, agnosticism must be most rational or warranted across the board, and every reason to think it will vary from case to case, which is the more appropriate position for a given variety of theism or god-concept.

No, nothing about the definition of theist or atheist says anything about their level of commitment, certitude, or open-mindedness. These terms denote a certain belief (or disbelief): either in, or against, the existence of God. One can hold that belief with varying levels of commitment, certitude, or closed/open-mindedness, without being any more or less a theist or atheist.

If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists

This is a self-contradiction. A doubting theist is still a theist. "Doubting theists are not theists" is trivially/logically/definitionally false: you said it yourself, they're a doubting theist. So they're a theist... one with doubts. — Seppo

Where did you get the doubting theist definition from? Where does it say theist are people who doubt?
Just screaming out "This is self-contradiction" is not making sense.

And yes, we are talking about specific cases, including the example of evangelical literalist Christianity. Because, as I mentioned, some cases of theism may warrant atheism, while others do not: wrt the literalist young earth variety of Christianity, agnosticism is not warranted- atheism is. There's no reason to think either theism, atheism, agnosticism must be most rational or warranted across the board, and every reason to think it will vary from case to case, which is the more appropriate position for a given variety of theism or god-concept. — Seppo

We are talking about the OP. Not every religion in the world. If you want to extend it to this far, then I tell you read the OP again. It is not clear which religion he is talking about. It is vague. We must assume that the OP is talking about general God in philosophy of religion. If you want to talk about a particular religion, then you must start a separate topic for the religion.

@OP

Okay, you're agnostic; but do you believe in g/G or not? — 180 Proof

:chin:

Its explicitly a self-contradiction. "A doubting theist is not a theist" is like saying "a doubting racecar driver is not a racecar driver". If they're a doubting theist, then it follows necessarily that they're a theist. And there is no definition of "theism" or "atheism" that says anything about varying levels of commitment or certitude. Theism is a view or belief. People can hold beliefs, to varying degrees of commitment or certitude, or with varying levels of open-mindedness to reconsidering that view, and theism/atheism is no exception. You're conflating things that are completely separate- whether one is a theist, and how committed, certain, or open-closedminded they are about their theism.

Its explicitly a self-contradiction. "A doubting theist is not a theist" is like saying "a doubting racecar driver is not a racecar driver". If they're a doubting theist, then it follows necessarily that they're a theist. And there is no definition of "theism" or "atheism" that says anything about varying levels of commitment or certitude. Theism is a view or belief. People can hold beliefs, to varying degrees of commitment or certitude, or with varying levels of open-mindedness to reconsidering that view, and theism/atheism is no exception. You're conflating things that are completely separate- whether one is a theist, and how committed, certain, or open-closedminded they are about their theism. — Seppo

I think you are self-contradicting yourself grossly. In no reference of history, theist is the people who doubt. Theist is people who believes. Not doubt.
He can doubt of course he can, but then from the moment he is not a theist.

And I never said anything about "every religion in the world". We're talking about theism. And theism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of views that differ greatly in the content of their claims, and the available evidence for/against those claims.

Given this diversity, its not clear whether (and actually fairly implausible to suppose that) the most appropriate position wrt one form of theism (say, evangelical young earth Christianity) will also be the most appropriate position wrt another completely different form of theism (deism, for instance). Chances are, what is the most appropriate will differ from case to case, such that e.g. atheism is the most appropriate response to one type of theism, while agnosticism is more appropriate to others.

And I never said anything about "every religion in the world". We're talking about theism. And theism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of views that differ greatly in the content of their claims, and the available evidence for/against those claims.

Given this diversity, its not clear whether (and actually fairly implausible to suppose that) the most appropriate position wrt one form of theism (say, evangelical young earth Christianity) will also be the most appropriate position wrt another completely different form of theism (deism, for instance). Chances are, what is the most appropriate will differ from case to case, such that e.g. atheism is the most appropriate response to one type of theism, while agnosticism is more appropriate to others. — Seppo

You didn't have to bring out Christianity into this thread. Or were you intending to confuse?

I'm not the only saying "some kinds of theists aren't theists". This is an explicit self-contradiction, you say they are a theist while also denying they are a theist.

I mean c'mon, this is literally freshman level logic here. A doubting theist is a theist. If they aren't a theist, then they're not a "doubting theist". Are you even thinking about what you're saying at this point?

Christianity is one form of theism. If we're talking about theism, its obviously perfectly fair to talk about specific examples of types of theism. This isn't rocket science.

I'm not the only saying "some kinds of theists aren't theists". This is an explicit self-contradiction, you say they are a theist while also denying they are a theist.

I mean c'mon, this is literally freshman level logic here. A doubting theist is a theist. If they aren't a theist, then they're not a "doubting theist". Are you even thinking about what you're saying at this point? — Seppo

What? Are you a good bad man? Is it not self-contradictory? Does it sound freshman level logic enough to you?

Christianity is one form of theism. If we're talking about theism, its obviously perfectly fair to talk about specific examples of types of theism. This isn't rocket science. — Seppo

Yeah I am saying that it was not relevant.

Yes, whether a doubting theist is a theist or not is definitely freshman level logic: this is a logical truism, a tautology. Replace "theist" with any other word. If you can't understand such an elementary point of logic, I'm not sure what you're doing on a philosophy board.

Do you honestly not see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"? :roll:

Yes, whether a doubting theist is a theist or not is definitely freshman level logic: this is a logical truism, a tautology. Replace "theist" with any other word. If you can't understand such an elementary point of logic, I'm not sure what you're doing on a philosophy board.

Do you honestly not see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"? :roll: — Seppo

theist
/ˈθiːɪst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
"I am a hardcore theist and the person most close to me is my God"
adjective
denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
"most atheists were were raised in a theist tradition"

Where does it say doubt? Where does it even suggest doubting?

I'm saying it is relevant, and gave an argument why; different forms of theism warrant different responses.

If you can't rebut the argument, or provide a counter, then merely saying its irrelevant doesn't mean anything.

Exactly. Nothing about one's level of commitment, certitude, or open-mindedness; theism is belief in the existence of God. And belief can admit of differing levels of commitment, doubt, certitude, or open-mindedness. A doubting materialism is still a materialist, just like a doubting racecar driver is still a racecar driver and a doubting theist still a theist.

But answer the question: do you see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"?

But answer the question: do you see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"? — Seppo

You said theist doubts. Not me.

I said theists can doubt.

Do you see that the phrase "doubting theist" includes the word "theist", or not? Simple yes or no will do.