We are all agnostic

[wollery]

Okay, it's unusual for me to start a thread.

It's also unusual for me to rant, but that's what I'm going to do.

First, some background - this is something that has grated with me for a long time, but I've never really addressed it. This post started to form in my head several weeks ago when a strong atheist (I can't remember who and it doesn't really matter) posted their opinion that agnostics are wimpy fence-sitters, really no better than apologists for the religious. That post annoyed me, but I didn't respond, largely because I was annoyed, and I've found, during my years on this forum, that posting when angry is a bad idea, and partly because I couldn't think of the right way to phrase my response. But it stayed with me, and for some reason I was thinking about it this morning on my way to work. So I decided to post this.

I'll admit that I'm a pretty mild mannered person, and fairly middle of the road in most respects. I don't really hold any extreme positions, and I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. I believe that's just good skepticism, and a reasonable, sensible approach to thinking about any subject.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is an oft cited fact that all humans are born atheist, but that isn't the whole fact. We are also born agnostic, in almost every respect. As babies we have no knowledge of anything, beyond our own immediate needs. I never grew out of either state as regards religion. I have never believed in any god, nor have I ever known whether or not there is a god. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. In the past I have described myself as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know and I don't care. The truth, however, is that I do care. I care when people accuse me, even indirectly, of being a fence-sitter. It is something that I have thought long and deeply about over many years, and my position is absolutely not fence-sitting. It is a simple statement of fact.

I don't know.

I don't, and I am pretty sure that it is not possible to know. There have been many threads on this board along the lines of "What would convince you that god exists?" The answer is almost always a pretty unanimous, "nothing". There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that anything offered as proof could be explained either as a natural phenomenon, or the workings of a highly technologically advanced alien civilization. If, for instance, the stars rearranged themselves to say, "I am the lord thy god" in Aramaic, it could be god, or it could be a joke on the human race made by aliens with the ability to move stars by manipulating gravitational fields.

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know.

As Dogdoctor used to say in his sig line, I have started to think of myself as a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either.

So, as I said before, Agnosticism is not a position of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting, it is a statement of fact.

Feel free to argue about it. Lambaste me all you like. The truth is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of god, so it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

[Cosmo]

The main problem I've found with agnosticism over the years is that, like so many other things, popular misconceptions about its definition have, for many, replaced its real definition. People seem to think that agnosticism is a sort of "third option" when presented with a choice between self-identifying as theist or atheist.

In truth, given these words as defined in the dictionary (theism: belief in one or more gods, atheism: not theism - lack belief in one or more gods), there is no logical middle ground. Everyone who has ever lived, including newborn babies, is either atheist or theist.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by wollery

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I don't know about that.

[Pardalis]

Of course, philosophically, anyone who is honest has to admit that our knowledge isn't complete, and will never be complete 100 %

But, realistically, if something isn't proven therefore it is assumed to be non-existing until proven otherwise. Therefore atheism is the correct position.

I used to call myself agnostic not too long ago, but I increasingly find it an unpleasant, wishy-washy and ultimately useless position.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Of course, philosophically, anyone who is honest has to admit that our knowledge isn't complete, and will never be complete 100 %

But, realistically, if something isn't proven therefore it is assumed to be non-existing until proven otherwise. Therefore atheism is the correct position.

As is agnosticism.

As I said, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

I used to call myself agnostic not too long ago, but I increasingly find it an unpleasant, wishy-washy and ultimately useless position.

In what way is a simple statement of fact about your knowledge "an unpleasant, wishy-washy and ultimately useless position."?

[Wowbagger]

Sounds like you need this bumper sticker, I've seen around:

Militant Agnostic:
I Don't Know, and Neither Do You!


But, I do agree with you. (The "militant" part of that was only a joke.)

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by wollery

As is agnosticism.

I don't think so, IMHO. If something hasn't been proven to exist, it is useless to assume it does. It's a waste of time, basically.

(sorry I added stuff to my post after you posted your reply)

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

I don't think so, IMHO. If something hasn't been proven to exist, it is useless to assume it does. It's a waste of time, basically.

I agree, in that I also feel that believing in god is a pointless waste of time, but I disagree that admitting that you don't know is a waste of time. You don't know, so why not admit that? And why say that admitting that is wishy-washy? How can the simple truth ever be wishy-washy?

Quote:

(sorry I added stuff to my post after you posted your reply)

No problem, I also edited.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by wollery

I agree, in that I also feel that believing in god is a pointless waste of time, but I disagree that admitting that you don't know is a waste of time. You don't know, so why not admit that? And why say that admitting that is wishy-washy? How can the simple truth ever be wishy-washy?

I think there's a difference, atheism is more a practical position, as agnosticism is more philosophical, like a state of mind. Agnosticism is a non-position, so if you're asking for an opinion, as say for a debate, then one should take the atheism stance, while still retaining an agnostic philosophy, in case any evidence shows up (which won't happen).

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

I think there's a difference, atheism is more a practical position, as agnosticism is more philosophical, like a state of mind. Agnosticism is a non-position, so if you're asking for an opinion, as say for a debate, then one should take the atheism stance, while still retaining an agnostic philosophy, in case any evidence shows up (which won't happen).

All well and good, except that agnosticism isn't really a philosophical position, and does not leave the door open "in case any evidence shows up", for the simple reason that no evidence could show up which would prove the proposition either way.

At the risk of repeating myself, agnosticism is a simple statement of fact. I don't know. How is that in any way philosophical?

[Arthur Denton]

I'm agnostic.

It started with the understanding of the fact that that man in a nice robe preaching couldn't be always telling the truth. I was raised a catholic, in a really devout family, where every person I can recall goes to the church every month. That's the truth today. I'm the exception, you can say. To my amazement, to my fury, to my outrage, I'm often told to offer a prayer for this or for that, and that god is willing and looking out for me. I have an agreement with myself, for the greater good, not to enter in shock with my family over this matter. In fact I'm confronted almost every day with it, and that bothers me, but I'm over the fence (borrowing your words), in that matter, just because I'm trying not to make a big deal out of it. It's their choice, not mine, and I can pretend for a little bit more.

I'm not exactly a skeptic.

Skepticism for me is a whole new thing. Actually, I doubt things often, but that's not exactly being skeptic. I only realize that now, after joining the forums and checking out JREF seriously. That makes me, so far, over the fence as well, because I lack argument often, even though I'm lurking - and very happy - lurking. I'm not a lurker, though... So, I often poke people.

I'm sorta theist.

I think that eventually we will find beings that we won't be able to explain, and that won't care about us, nor nurture us, nor nothing, and we'll call them gods, and that's how they will want to be treated. Now, I also believe that there is a creator - which may not be alive, it may just be something. We can be a cosmic fart, for all that matters, but I think that we can call that "event" creator the boss, or god. Now, remember: god, not God. It's just an event, it created, never cared, or at least, amused himself with the universe, but left it. We're no more important than vermin and dust, we're just a byproduct of some huge thing. I'm not going to shove that over you though. Also, since I've changed of opinion often in the last few years about god (who knows me can tell you about that, I guess) makes me not the more reliable person to engage a god conversation. That's why I tell you I'm sorta theist.

I'm completely and strongly opposed to any god organization.

By that I mean that I dislike churches, truthers, bible followers, muslim mosques, in fact, pretty much every of those religious tradition organizations that attempt to put us under arrest with their self absorbed truths. When I feel, sometimes, a slight fear of doing this or that due to my christian background, I often get really pissed off when I realize I'm actually cautious about a subject because of religion. It was a long time ago, but it was during the formation of my capacity to argue that I was taught the absolute truths and the sin lists, which IMO are endless.

That said...

I honestly think that if you cross the street today, and talk to the christian that passes by your side, I mean actually, if you chat with him and you tell him, "man, we're all agnostic, actually" you will actually hurt him.

Originally Posted by http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Well, in their heads, they are actually in touch with god. The argument you use is actually really good. Nobody can prove god exist, one can only provide anecdotes on how god helped but never with actual evidence of the facts. The sheer list of miracles that the church digs when creating saints is supposed to be a list of facts that ascends someone nearer to the grasp of the gods but, in fact, proves how backwards we are in terms of medicine and how easily it is to accept that god did it because god is good, no questions asked. Send in the physicians you want. Just because something new or unusual happened, they'll promote someone to the state of saint. (on a pseudo chess notation - e-8(S)! i.e. pawn e-8, promoted to saint, check!)

To sum my statement in the last paragraph, just because the very foundations of their religion is blind faith, they'll be offended and deny the argument. They'll attempt ad ignoratium, i.e. you can't talk about it because you're ignorant about god, or maybe, inconsistency, using solely their faith as option, or even the classic argument from authority. They'll feel offended. Presto. And they may even point you something like this:

Originally Posted by http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'.

I'm quite intrigued about this thread. Let's see what comes up next

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The main problem I've found with agnosticism over the years is that, like so many other things, popular misconceptions about its definition have, for many, replaced its real definition.

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by wollery

At the risk of repeating myself, agnosticism is a simple statement of fact. I don't know. How is that in any way philosophical?

Yeah but one can only go so far with that, I think. "I don't know", as a position, is kind of a debate killer. You end up playing devil's advocate and both teams at the same time, whereas atheism demands evidence. At the end of the day one side has to be right, but to say at the end that we don't and we can't know, then you've spent your time debating for nothing.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

Indeed, hence my statement, "We are all agnostic".

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

You've got a good point. Agnosticism is more "we can't know" than "we don't know". "We can't know" is much more frustrating.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Yeah but one can only go so far with that, I think. "I don't know", as a position, is kind of a debate killer. You end up playing devil's advocate and both teams at the same time, whereas atheism demands evidence. At the end of the day one side has to be right, but to say at the end that we don't and we can't know, then you've spent your time debating for nothing.

I don't believe there is a debate, since it all boils down to either side positing that they believe their side is right, when in fact neither side has any real evidence. That's just a pointless argument with no possible conclusion.

Saying "I don't know" isn't playing devil's advocate, it's admitting to the truth.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by wollery

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I agree with most of your OP. I have nothing wrong with your definitions or your position.

But I'm not so sure that we can simply assert that everyone is agnostic. Certainly, that everybody should be agnostic, but there are people out there who believe that they really do know one way or the other about things. Whether they do or not is immaterial - it is their belief regarding knowledge that defines them as gnostic or agnostic, and from that you can see that there are definitely gnostic theists (and indeed gnostic atheists) out there.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally Posted by wollery

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

I think it's a matter of definitions. The commonly accepted definition of Atheist is "someone who holds no beliefs in a god or gods". Looks like you are at least implying that Atheist is "someone who has proof that god doesn't exist". That's a wrong approach IMO, because if someone were to have proof of the non existence of god, then we all should be atheists. So in the end, Atheism, as well as Theism, is a matter of belief. What differentiate both beliefs is that one in evidence-supported (note I didn't say proof-supported), while the other is not.

On the other hand, if we define Agnostic as "someone who has no opinion either way because he/she doesn't know", then Atheism and Agnosticism can be considered not mutually exclusive positions, because one is a matter of belief and the other is a matter of opinion of something as a fact.

Good thread, BTW. It made me revise my ideas.

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by wollery

Okay, it's unusual for me to start a thread.

It's also unusual for me to rant, but that's what I'm going to do.

First, some background - this is something that has grated with me for a long time, but I've never really addressed it. This post started to form in my head several weeks ago when a strong atheist (I can't remember who and it doesn't really matter) posted their opinion that agnostics are wimpy fence-sitters, really no better than apologists for the religious. That post annoyed me, but I didn't respond, largely because I was annoyed, and I've found, during my years on this forum, that posting when angry is a bad idea, and partly because I couldn't think of the right way to phrase my response. But it stayed with me, and for some reason I was thinking about it this morning on my way to work. So I decided to post this.

I'll admit that I'm a pretty mild mannered person, and fairly middle of the road in most respects. I don't really hold any extreme positions, and I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. I believe that's just good skepticism, and a reasonable, sensible approach to thinking about any subject.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is an oft cited fact that all humans are born atheist, but that isn't the whole fact. We are also born agnostic, in almost every respect. As babies we have no knowledge of anything, beyond our own immediate needs. I never grew out of either state as regards religion. I have never believed in any god, nor have I ever known whether or not there is a god. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. In the past I have described myself as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know and I don't care. The truth, however, is that I do care. I care when people accuse me, even indirectly, of being a fence-sitter. It is something that I have thought long and deeply about over many years, and my position is absolutely not fence-sitting. It is a simple statement of fact.

I don't know.

I don't, and I am pretty sure that it is not possible to know. There have been many threads on this board along the lines of "What would convince you that god exists?" The answer is almost always a pretty unanimous, "nothing". There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that anything offered as proof could be explained either as a natural phenomenon, or the workings of a highly technologically advanced alien civilization. If, for instance, the stars rearranged themselves to say, "I am the lord thy god" in Aramaic, it could be god, or it could be a joke on the human race made by aliens with the ability to move stars by manipulating gravitational fields.

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know.

As Dogdoctor used to say in his sig line, I have started to think of myself as a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either.

So, as I said before, Agnosticism is not a position of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting, it is a statement of fact.

Feel free to argue about it. Lambaste me all you like. The truth is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of god, so it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I have to say that I have been struggling with this debate myself. I have wanted to sound off on it at times, but there are many more knowledgeable posters here and I never felt that I could contribute anything worthwhile. But if you, who I respect, are willing to give it a go, so will I.

I always thought that you could never know, that you could never prove that there wasn't a god. Then I read Dawkin's God Delusion. And after that I thought that science could say something about the likelihood of a god.

Of course it depends on how you define "god". If I have this correct, the Deists believe god was around in the beginning, kicked things off, and then went out for a smoke and hasn't come back. Kind of a absentee father, if you will. I can't argue against that, but I could say the same thing about the tooth fairy and would be unable to refute it.

The Christians make a lot of claims for their god. Benevolent. Omniscient. Omnipotent. Created the universe and everything in it. Biblical flood. Communion wafer into flesh...etc. All kinds of things for which there is no evidence.

If we are talking about that kind of guy, a big bearded white-guy sitting on a cloud somewhere, then I think science can say something about it.

Like anything in science, we don't know it with 100% assurance, but there are some things that we can assign a probability that nearly approaches 100%. The Law of Gravity, Theory of Relativity...etc.

Dawkins described two different types of agnosticism; Temporary Agnosticism in Principle (TAP) and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP). He (and I) believe that the existence of god falls into TAP. Either god exists or he doesn't and eventually science is going to find the answer. While we may not know the answer now, we can assign it a probability based on evidence that we have on hand presently.

I always think of cold fusion as an example. Some scientists says that it exists while most do not. I believe that there are still scientists out there that continue to test the idea but, to date, without any solid evidence to support it. Now I could say that 2,000 years ago cold fusion was unquestioned reality and that everyone powered their homes with bath water, but there is no longer any evidence to support it other than this book that I found in a cave. Don't ask me to prove it because it only works if you pray really hard and are truly repentant.

I don't know, I might be all wrong, but I think that science can say something about an active, christian (Islamic, Hindi, Roman) god.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by wollery

I don't believe there is a debate, since it all boils down to either side positing that they believe their side is right, when in fact neither side has any real evidence.

For the deist and atheist, "God exists" is a claim, a scientific claim, as Dawkins would put it, it's a statement of fact, therefore it can and should be debated. One side pretends it can be known, the other asks for the evidence. It the evidence presented fails, then we have to disregard it. Why should we assume it could still be true if the believers can't defend their claim?

For the agnostic, "God exists" is a theory, it's more :God could exist". But since the agnostic stance is "we can't know", then there is no use for a debate. The theory invalidates itself because it doesn't even have a leg to stand on. So if there's no debate, then there's no theory.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Patricio Elicer

I think it's a matter of definitions. The commonly accepted definition of Atheist is "someone who holds no beliefs in a god or gods". Looks like you are at least implying that Atheist is "someone who has proof that god doesn't exist". That's a wrong approach IMO, because if someone were to have proof of the non existence of god, then we all should be atheists. So in the end, Atheism, as well as Theism, is a matter of belief. What differentiate both beliefs is that one in evidence-supported (note I didn't say proof-supported), while the other is not.

On the other hand, if we define Agnostic as "someone who has no opinion either way because he/she doesn't know", then Atheism and Agnosticism can be considered not mutually exclusive positions, because one is a matter of belief and the other is a matter of opinion of something as a fact.

Good thread, BTW. It made me revise my ideas.

Well, there are two basic atheistic views, strong atheism, which is essentially the statement "God does not exist", and weak atheism, often confused with agnosticism, which is the statement "I don't believe in god". The difference is subtle, but important.

My point is that the strong atheistic position is just as logically untenable as the theistic position, i.e. absolute knowledge is not possible, so as much as a strong atheist may state that they are certain that god does not exist, in reality it is just as much a statement of belief as the theists make.

This is what I mean when I say that we are all agnostic. It isn't a statement of belief, but one of knowledge, and whilst theists and strong atheists alike say with absolute certainty that they know their stance is correct, they in fact don't, they just believe it, and since they actually lack genuine knowledge they are, by default, agnostic, even if they don't know that they are.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Patricio Elicer

On the other hand, if we define Agnostic as "someone who has no opinion either way because he/she doesn't know", then Atheism and Agnosticism can be considered not mutually exclusive positions, because one is a matter of belief and the other is a matter of opinion of something as a fact.

Whether you know one way or another is entirely irrelevant to this distinction. You can be uncertain all you like - heck, you can be a newborn baby and never even have considered the question - but you are still an atheist or theist. Again, there is no logical middle ground.

[Pardalis]

You have to keep in mind that the idea of god wouldn't exist outside religion. It's the religious who posit that it exists. If it wasn't for them the question wouldn't exist, or at least it would only exist as an untestable theory, and therefore would be irrelevant.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

For the deist and atheist, "God exists" is a claim, a scientific claim, as Dawkins would put it, it's a statement of fact, therefore it can and should be debated. One side pretends it can be known, the other asks for the evidence. It the evidence presented fails, then we have to disregard it. Why should we assume it could still be true if the believers can't defend their claim?

For the agnostic, "God exists" is a theory, it's more :God could exist". But since the agnostic stance is "we can't know", then there is no use for a debate. The theory invalidates itself because it doesn't even have a leg to stand on. So if there's no debate, then there's no theory.

Well, not exactly. Don't get hung up on the christian definition of god, or any specific definition of god.

The answer to the question "could god exist" is most definitely yes, but that isn't the important question. The important question is, as you stated at the start of your post, "does god exist", to which the answer, if you are honest, is, "I don't know". You can add, "but I don't think so", or "but I seriously doubt it", if you want, but in the end you cannot answer the question absolutely one way or the other.

As for the existence of god being a scientific question, I agree that "god exists" is a theory, but I disagree that it presents a scientific question, since god, by definition, can be outside the laws of the physical universe, and thus untestable by the scientific method. If god made the Universe then it must "predate" it, and is therefore not bound by its laws. God, if it exists, may be bound by some laws, but good luck with defining what they might be.

Please answer this simple question - do you know for certain whether or not god exists?

If the answer is no, then you are agnostic.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by wollery

The answer to the question "could god exist" is most definitely yes, but that isn't the important question. The important question is, as you stated at the start of your post, "does god exist", to which the answer, if you are honest, is, "I don't know". You can add, "but I don't think so", or "but I seriously doubt it", if you want, but in the end you cannot answer the question absolutely one way or the other.

The ignostic can, and does. Same with the strong/gnostic atheist and strong/gnostic theist. These people are all absolutely certain of their positions and I think it's disingenuous for you to imply they are being dishonest, either with themselves or with you.

Quote:

Please answer this simple question - do you know for certain whether or not god exists?

If the answer is no, then you are agnostic.

You're implying that few (any?) people would answer yes, but see above - at least 3 wide classes of people off the top of my head would answer yes here.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by wollery

As for the existence of god being a scientific question, I agree that "god exists" is a theory, but I disagree that it presents a scientific question, since god, by definition, can be outside the laws of the physical universe, and thus untestable by the scientific method. If god made the Universe then it must "predate" it, and is therefore not bound by its laws. God, if it exists, may be bound by some laws, but good luck with defining what they might be.

If god is outside of time, and space, and our capacity to know, then why is it even a question whether it exists or not? Something outside of space and time by definition doesn't "exist".

Quote:

Please answer this simple question - do you know for certain whether or not god exists?

If the answer is no, then you are agnostic.

My answer would be "No, is there any reason I should think it exists?"

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Whether you know one way or another is entirely irrelevant to this distinction. You can be uncertain all you like - heck, you can be a newborn baby and never even have considered the question - but you are still an atheist or theist. Again, there is no logical middle ground.

Yes, knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive notions. Belief ends at the precise point where knowledge starts. So you can be an atheist or theist, and yet you can be agnostic (provided agnosticism is related to knowledge).

I tend to agree with Wollery, my conflict is with the "strong" positions either way.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by wollery

Please answer this simple question - do you know for certain whether or not god exists?

I am willing to go on record as saying that I am certain that no god exists (for commonly accepted definitions of god, including a deistic one). For me, certainty is something that can arise from a lack of evidence, particularly when one has diligently searched for evidence.

Where I see the question as open is that although I may be certain today, I do understand the circumstances can change (although I doubt they will). I could suffer a specific type of stroke or epileptic seisure, and wake up tomorrow a committed theist.

To me, the untenable position isn't certainty, but certainty in the face of evidence to the contrary. Like you, I cannot think of anything non-neurological that would convince me that god exists, which is why I do consider myself a strong atheist. It is also why I do not have a philosophical problem with strong theists, I simply think that their brains are "wired" differently. Their evidence is not necesarily wrong, but it is something that cannot be shown to me.

As a side note, your use of agnosticism seems to imply that one cannot know something, which to me, implies that one cannot know anything with certainty, which sounds like the first step on the road to solipsism. I don't think that is what you meant, but that is the first thing I thought of reading your OP.

To me, a better use of agnosticism would mean that one can think of something that would convince them one way or another, but that evidence is not yet forthcoming. In other words, the necessary knowledge is not available, but possible. It can exist, but we do not have it. If knowledge as to the truth or falsity of an idea can never be available, the idea itself shouldn't be discussed in terms of gnosticism or agnosticism IMHO.

[Richard Masters]

Originally Posted by wollery

Okay, it's unusual for me to start a thread.

It's also unusual for me to rant, but that's what I'm going to do.

First, some background - this is something that has grated with me for a long time, but I've never really addressed it. This post started to form in my head several weeks ago when a strong atheist (I can't remember who and it doesn't really matter) posted their opinion that agnostics are wimpy fence-sitters, really no better than apologists for the religious. That post annoyed me, but I didn't respond, largely because I was annoyed, and I've found, during my years on this forum, that posting when angry is a bad idea, and partly because I couldn't think of the right way to phrase my response. But it stayed with me, and for some reason I was thinking about it this morning on my way to work. So I decided to post this.

I'll admit that I'm a pretty mild mannered person, and fairly middle of the road in most respects. I don't really hold any extreme positions, and I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. I believe that's just good skepticism, and a reasonable, sensible approach to thinking about any subject.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is an oft cited fact that all humans are born atheist, but that isn't the whole fact. We are also born agnostic, in almost every respect. As babies we have no knowledge of anything, beyond our own immediate needs. I never grew out of either state as regards religion. I have never believed in any god, nor have I ever known whether or not there is a god. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. In the past I have described myself as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know and I don't care. The truth, however, is that I do care. I care when people accuse me, even indirectly, of being a fence-sitter. It is something that I have thought long and deeply about over many years, and my position is absolutely not fence-sitting. It is a simple statement of fact.

I don't know.

I don't, and I am pretty sure that it is not possible to know. There have been many threads on this board along the lines of "What would convince you that god exists?" The answer is almost always a pretty unanimous, "nothing". There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that anything offered as proof could be explained either as a natural phenomenon, or the workings of a highly technologically advanced alien civilization. If, for instance, the stars rearranged themselves to say, "I am the lord thy god" in Aramaic, it could be god, or it could be a joke on the human race made by aliens with the ability to move stars by manipulating gravitational fields.

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know.

As Dogdoctor used to say in his sig line, I have started to think of myself as a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either.

So, as I said before, Agnosticism is not a position of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting, it is a statement of fact.

Feel free to argue about it. Lambaste me all you like. The truth is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of god, so it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I agree in general, agnosticism doesn't have to be "fence-sitting". However, I'm sure a lot of people believe that they have a connection with God.

Take schizophrenics, for example. Schizophrenics with God delusions (1/4 of schizophrenics, I think) really believe that they are either speaking to a divine being, or that they are either a reincarnation or a manifestation of said divine being.

As for more typical people, there is a tendency to attribute events to the supernatural. Ramachandran has studied this and it's very much worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4B5BYbjf8

One neuroscientist suffered damage to the left brain, through a stroke, and has shared her experience with others at a TED conference.

Drug users sometimes experience similar phenomena, presumably by affecting the brain in analogous ways.

Near-death experiences can be explained similarly.

So I don't find it unusual that normal people can find themselves in similar situations without extremely unusual neurotransmitter levels, or slightly unusual neuronal pathways.

I would say that these experiences are "real" and these people will consider themselves theists or religious, without being dishonest in the least.

As for myself, I consider myself agnostic, but with a materialist and atheist slant. That's definitely not fence-sitting, but I still contend that most people do not know for sure.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The ignostic can, and does. Same with the strong/gnostic atheist and strong/gnostic theist. These people are all absolutely certain of their positions and I think it's disingenuous for you to imply they are being dishonest, either with themselves or with you.

I didn't say that they were being dishonest, even with themselves, but they are wrong. They can believe that they know it, but no matter how hard they believe that they have this knowledge they simply do not. Knowing something and believing it are two entirely different things.

Quote:

You're implying that few (any?) people would answer yes, but see above - at least 3 wide classes of people off the top of my head would answer yes here.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I know that there are many people who would answer yes to that question. That doesn't mean that do actually have such knowledge, just that they believe they have it.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

If god is outside of time, and space, and our capacity to know, then why is it even a question whether it exists or not? Something outside of space and time by definition doesn't "exist".

It doesn't exist within our 4-dimensional spacetime. That's not the same as the blanket statement, "it doesn't exist".

Quote:

My answer would be "No, is there any reason I should think it exists?"

None at all, but that isn't the question.

[bpesta22]

Why does "know" have to be the burden of proof for belief (or non belief) to be rational?

We can't know anything, especially if a negative is true. We don't require "know" for anything else we rationally believe in or dont, so why require it for god belief.

My problem with agnosticism is it assumes that we must know x before belief in x is warranted. It seems like agnostics are just atheists confused about the burden of proof needed for belief to be rational.

I hope this reply doesn't come across bad, esp. given I just made a thread about IQ and atheism v. agnosticism.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by wollery

I didn't say that they were being dishonest, even with themselves, but they are wrong. They can believe that they know it, but no matter how hard they believe that they have this knowledge they simply do not. Knowing something and believing it are two entirely different things.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I know that there are many people who would answer yes to that question. That doesn't mean that do actually have such knowledge, just that they believe they have it.

With which criteria are you evaluating whether someone else knows something?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I am willing to go on record as saying that I am certain that no god exists (for commonly accepted definitions of god, including a deistic one). For me, certainty is something that can arise from a lack of evidence, particularly when one has diligently searched for evidence.

It's a sometimes overused statement, but, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quote:

Where I see the question as open is that although I may be certain today, I do understand the circumstances can change (although I doubt they will). I could suffer a specific type of stroke or epileptic seisure, and wake up tomorrow a committed theist.

Which would still not mean that you actually know that god exists.

Quote:

To me, the untenable position isn't certainty, but certainty in the face of evidence to the contrary. Like you, I cannot think of anything non-neurological that would convince me that god exists, which is why I do consider myself a strong atheist. It is also why I do not have a philosophical problem with strong theists, I simply think that their brains are "wired" differently. Their evidence is not necesarily wrong, but it is something that can be shown to me.

But there is no evidence, either to the contrary or in support of.

Quote:

As a side note, your use of agnosticism seems to imply that one cannot know something, which to me, implies that one cannot know anything with certainty, which sounds like the first step on the road to solipsism. I don't think that is what you meant, but that is the first thing I thought of reading your OP.

Not really. God has so many definitions (and it's always possible to make up a new one) that you cannot show that all of them are impossible. As such, I do mean that we can't know with certainty about god's existence or lack thereof. I don't think that translates to "we can't know anything". I do think that solipsism is at least a self-consistent philosophy, but it isn't one I adhere to, I'm a materialist. However, I think this is a debate for a different thread.

Quote:

To me, a better use of agnosticism would mean that one can think of something that would convince them one way or another, but that evidence is not yet forthcoming. In other words, the necessary knowledge is not available, but possible. It can exist, but we do not have it. If knowledge as to the truth or falsity of an idea can never be available, the idea itself shouldn't be discussed in terms of gnosticism or agnosticism IMHO.

And now we're arguing over the definition of the word "agnostic".

[wollery]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Why does "know" have to be the burden of proof for belief (or non belief) to be rational?

I'm not saying that it does. I hold many beliefs, most are (I hope) rational, some are probably not. That isn't my argument at all. I'm saying that belief and knowledge are two different things, and not mutually exclusive. I can believe something is true without knowing it for sure.

Quote:

We can't know anything, especially if a negative is true. We don't require "know" for anything else we rationally believe in or dont, so why require it for god belief.

I don't.

Quote:

My problem with agnosticism is it assumes that we must know x before belief in x is warranted. It seems like agnostics are just atheists confused about the burden of proof needed for belief to be rational.

No, absolutely not. Feel free to believe whatever you want to, just don't confuse that belief with knowledge on the subject.

Quote:

I hope this reply doesn't come across bad, esp. given I just made a thread about IQ and atheism v. agnosticism.

Not in the least, it's an interesting post.

[Richard Masters]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

It seems like agnostics are just atheists confused about the burden of proof needed for belief to be rational.

I don't think so. Agnostics hold Theists and Atheists to the same standard. That Theists are irrational does not mean that Atheists are correct in stating a negative belief. That's a false dilemma.

A null hypothesis does not say "God exists" (Theist position) or "God does not exist" (Atheist position). To start with such a hypothesis invites circularity and destroys the purpose of burden of proof.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

But, realistically, if something isn't proven therefore it is assumed to be non-existing until proven otherwise.

Neutrinos? Germanium? We've never found another earthlike planet orbiting a sol like star. It would be unreasonable to assume they do not exist (and we've never found a planet with 2 earth mases anywhere or indeed 4 although PSR B1257+12 C comes pretty darn close).

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

With which criteria are you evaluating whether someone else knows something?

Evidence.

Just that. If you know something then surely you must be able to prove it. If not then you simply believe that you know it.

I know that the Universe is expanding because there are mountains of hard evidence to prove it. I can show this evidence to other people.

Theists "knows" that god exists, but cannot provide any hard evidence to prove it. This then is belief, no matter how much they think they know it.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by wollery

Evidence.

Just that. If you know something then surely you must be able to prove it. If not then you simply believe that you know it.

I know that the Universe is expanding because there are mountains of hard evidence to prove it. I can show this evidence to other people.

Theists "knows" that god exists, but cannot provide any hard evidence to prove it. This then is belief, no matter how much they think they know it.

This is merely your subjective opinion.

Theists point to babies, the solar system, your immune system, and burned toast as rock-hard evidence that their particular god exists. It is completely irrelevant whether you also view these things as evidence in favor of their god - all that matters is that they do view them that way. As such, their belief in god (and the supporting evidence they claim) fits your definition for knowledge.

In reality, the best we can do is claim that their evidence does not fit the scientific definition of evidence - but the scope and definition of scientific knowledge is of no interest to them. They know that god exists.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally Posted by wollery

I'm saying that belief and knowledge are two different things, and not mutually exclusive.

But in the strict meaning of both words, they are. Ok, we often say "I believe in X", whereas the exact wording should be "I know X" when we had the knowledge about X.