I've been waxing a lot of philosophy lately, and have come across several compelling arguments against agnosticism (at least in my humble opinion). Hopefully it'll cause some of you spineless agnostics to come out of the woodwork and explain exactly why you adopted this particular worldview. I'm looking at you, Delorted.
Problems begin to arise when the argument for agnosticism is stretched to justify just about any belief in the absurd or abnormal. Keeping an open mind is always key when discussing philosophical ideas and concepts, but the staunch piousness of agnostics that attempt to equalize every potential deity with every other (which is, let's be honest, what agnosticism boils down to) borders on the pig-headedness displayed by most creationists.
If you employ the logic used in agnostic reasoning for believing in a deity that one has no reason to believe in, then said reasoning can readily stretch to any other deity imaginable.
Are there any objective reasons to believe in God? If the only reasons to believe in God are subjective, then all other subjectively derived claims are worthy of equal "airtime".
Consider the example of the Allmighty Face-Sucking Jellyfish. You claim that a superhuman deity may or may not be responsible for the existence of the universe. I claim that the Allmighty Face-Sucking Jellyfish is the cause of the universe. You retort that this is surely ridiculous, as I most likely just pulled this deity at random from out of my head.
Before we go further, and just so there's no confusion, here's the definition of "agnosticism" and "deism":
Unless you can produce an image of said god, the jellyfish is no more silly than the guy who was born of a virgin, the one who rode on a flying horse, or the one who has eight arms. If we denounce the idea of the god called a jellyfish as a "random made-up entity" then they are all to be considered "randomly made-up".
Scientific theories are selected not on the basis of their truth, but because they are the strongest; the most plausible and justified for the time being. It is classic natural selection: selection of ideas. The strongest theories resolve more problems than their competitors--they simplify and define the frame of further research in a given field, all the while allowing for predictions to be made. If future predictions are contradictory to a given theory, the theory is either scrapped or modified to include said predictions.
That being said, why do we believe in something that we have absolutely no evidence for? If anything, it's an unnecessary expenditure of energy. Life is too short to sit around wondering whether or not some perverted deity is watching me while I take a dump, looking over my shoulder while I'm banging a hooker, or tallying up all the actions I take that go against his unattainable standard of morality.
TL ; DR: If you're going to have unnecessary faith in something, I recommend the number "42". It's as good a number as any else.
The main point of this thread is to make the assertion that agnosticism is, in regards to belief in a supernatural deity or power, completely unfounded and unnecessary. Just as I am not an "agnostic" about whether or not the Earth is round or flat (I myself have not traveled the world or viewed the Earth from space in order to personally glean enough information to prove it), there is no sufficient reason to take up an agnostic stance towards potential deities. If there is no sufficient reason given, then we are rationally justified in selecting atheism."Agnosticism is not a third position. It is the evasion of a position."
Problems begin to arise when the argument for agnosticism is stretched to justify just about any belief in the absurd or abnormal. Keeping an open mind is always key when discussing philosophical ideas and concepts, but the staunch piousness of agnostics that attempt to equalize every potential deity with every other (which is, let's be honest, what agnosticism boils down to) borders on the pig-headedness displayed by most creationists.
If you employ the logic used in agnostic reasoning for believing in a deity that one has no reason to believe in, then said reasoning can readily stretch to any other deity imaginable.
Are there any objective reasons to believe in God? If the only reasons to believe in God are subjective, then all other subjectively derived claims are worthy of equal "airtime".
Consider the example of the Allmighty Face-Sucking Jellyfish. You claim that a superhuman deity may or may not be responsible for the existence of the universe. I claim that the Allmighty Face-Sucking Jellyfish is the cause of the universe. You retort that this is surely ridiculous, as I most likely just pulled this deity at random from out of my head.
Before we go further, and just so there's no confusion, here's the definition of "agnosticism" and "deism":
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself.
That being said, let's return to the example. You say "silly jellyfish", I say "silly guy who was born of a virgin". Both equally silly, no? In keeping with an agnostic mindset, both of these are equally viable for no other reason than neither have sufficient evidence to support them. It's taking "keeping an open mind" too far.Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian,[1] Islamic and Judaic teachings.
Unless you can produce an image of said god, the jellyfish is no more silly than the guy who was born of a virgin, the one who rode on a flying horse, or the one who has eight arms. If we denounce the idea of the god called a jellyfish as a "random made-up entity" then they are all to be considered "randomly made-up".
Scientific theories are selected not on the basis of their truth, but because they are the strongest; the most plausible and justified for the time being. It is classic natural selection: selection of ideas. The strongest theories resolve more problems than their competitors--they simplify and define the frame of further research in a given field, all the while allowing for predictions to be made. If future predictions are contradictory to a given theory, the theory is either scrapped or modified to include said predictions.
That being said, why do we believe in something that we have absolutely no evidence for? If anything, it's an unnecessary expenditure of energy. Life is too short to sit around wondering whether or not some perverted deity is watching me while I take a dump, looking over my shoulder while I'm banging a hooker, or tallying up all the actions I take that go against his unattainable standard of morality.
TL ; DR: If you're going to have unnecessary faith in something, I recommend the number "42". It's as good a number as any else.