3.0 - Systems of Thought
3.1 - Religion
A solid general definition of religion is that it is a positive belief system unsupported by objective fact, pursued with conviction. Within such a broad framework, philosophically speaking, diverse practices such as Christianity, Buddism, Wicca, Astrology, and Hinduism reside without problems; in addition, basic atheism (defined below) falls out, as one would expect.
3.1.1 - Theism
This word means belief in a god or gods. For example, Catholics and Muslims are theists because they believe in a god; however, Buddists are not theists, as they do not believe in a god or gods. We can say that Buddists are religious, in that they have a positive system of belief that they follow with conviction; but this remains distinct from being theist.
3.1.2 - Atheism
Atheism is a word composed of the root a, which means "without", and the word theism, which means "belief in a god or gods."
So, literally, atheism means "without belief in a god or gods."
As such, basic atheism is a position lacking conviction — it is not a belief in something, but rather, a lack of belief.
Some atheists will go further than simply saying they are without belief in a god or gods; they'll tell you that they believe that there is no god or gods. This additional position is based on atheism but cannot define all atheism, as it adds a very specific (and optional) element of belief. This position is known as positive atheism or naive atheism.
In addition, naive atheism meets our definition for a religion, as it is a position of conviction for a positive belief unsupported by objective fact, unlike basic atheism.
3.1.3 - Agnosticism
This position is often (and vaguely) characterized as the "I don't know" position. More specifically, it is the position that the supernatural, including deities of any nature, is inherently unknowable. In other words, this position depends upon, and stems from, the state of knowledge about the subject matter.
With this in mind, we can easily determine that agnosticism is not, in fact, a third position apart from the polar opposite positions of theism and atheism.
The reason why is that knowledge is not in any way a determining factor with regard to holding a belief, or not.
This can be proven as follows:
If the Catholics are right, then the Muslims are wrong. Or vice-versa. This proposition is true because many areas within these two example belief systems are at logical (polar) odds with one another. Of course, they may also both be wrong. But they can't both be right because of the contradictions in their tenets.
Now: Both Catholics and Muslims have sect members that evidence great faith; they believe with, it is no exaggeration to say, every fibre of their beings.
But we can be absolutely certain that one (or both) of them are working from an incorrect set of facts (knowledge), because we can be absolutely certain that at least one (or both) religions has the facts wrong.
Therefore, the religion that is wrong, or both if they are both wrong, maintain belief — great faith — without knowledge, and this unequivocally establishes that knowledge is not a prerequisite for belief. Likewise, knowledge is not a prerequisite for lack of belief. These in turn demonstrate why agnosticism does not establish a position apart from theism and atheism.
In summary, agnosticism does not, in any way, supplant or extend the polar opposites of the theist/atheist stance pair. This has a very interesting consequence: It means that everyone is either theist, or atheist. Agnosticism does not legitimately define a middle ground.
3.1.4 - Superstition
Superstition is a belief in the supernatural. Super is a root meaning above, and natural means of or from nature. So you can read supernatural as above nature.
The implication is that supernatural events do not depend upon, or are not subject to, natural law; and also that these events do not occur in nature, but somehow outside of nature.
Science rejects defining any event that truly occurs (in other words, is part of objective reality) as supernatural. The presumption that underlies science is that everything is a part of nature, and as such, everything depends on natural law.
Science readily admits to the idea that the laws in question may not yet have been determined, but insists that they can, under some natural set of circumstances, be determined and described. In fact, that is the business of science: To determine what those laws are, as best as can be done using the current state of other scientific knowledge to work with.
Have a comment for me? Click here.