So, this appears to be PARTIALLY Bayesian but not exclusively.

Well, I’d have to find what’s missing from this. That’s not an easy task without a master list of connectors. Here’s what we have:
should not believe
are no
don’t believe
can’t know
don’t know
doesn’t matter
are unknowable and I don’t believe
are unknowable but I do believe
What is

So, this appears to be PARTIALLY Bayesian but not exclusively.
That was just a guess. I’m going to break it down to find out what’s missing.
1st: Should:
“Recommendation or moral obligation”
So, antitheism is Proscriptive.
are no
can’t know
are unknowable (and I don’t believe)
are unknowable (but I do believe)
Are variations of the same statement, particularly “can’t know / are unknowable”. These are absolutes.
So, hard atheism, hard agnosticism, agnostic atheism and agnostic theorism are saying the same thing with relation to existence.
“Don’t know”, “doesn’t matter”, “what is” are statements of lack of knowledge or lack of caring about knowledge which can collapse into the same thing.
So, “soft agnosticism”, “apathetic agnosticism” and “Ignosticism” are identical with relation to knowledge lack.
This leaves:
“Soft atheism: “I don’t believe in god/s.”
which lies in contrast to theism: “I believe in god/s”.
Ietsism is fascinating not just that it exists as a concept but that it has a name that you don’t find in the USA when many in the USA actually to subscribe to this. It’s Dutch:
“Ietsism is the belief of a higher power, but with no subscription to any particular religion.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× five = 5

Leave a Reply