Agnosticism: The Philosophical Cop-Out

RDK · Mar 29, 2009

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.

Nathaniel Branden: The Psychology of Self-Esteem said:
"Agnosticism is not a third position. It is the evasion of a position."

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.

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":

Wikipedia said:
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.

Wikipedia said:
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.

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.

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.

AltF4 · Mar 29, 2009

Something to add:

I agree that agnosticism is almost always used just as a cop-out. A way to avoid confrontational philosophical discussion.

But furthermore, I don't think that humans are capable of holding non-positions. It is human nature to "pick a side". If someone has researched religion long enough to have called their self an agnostic, then they likely already have their mind made up but are unwilling to state it so boldly.

Jam Stunna · Mar 29, 2009

What if you literally don't care? I find that I'm not compelled enough by the debate to make a declarative statement either way.

RDK · Mar 29, 2009

AltF4 said:
Something to add:
But furthermore, I don't think that humans are capable of holding non-positions. It is human nature to "pick a side". If someone has researched religion long enough to have called their self an agnostic, then they likely already have their mind made up but are unwilling to state it so boldly.

This is a good point, and something I meant to mention in the OP but for some reason forgot to. In all practicality, agnosticism is identical to atheism. They're just positionless for the sake of being positionless. Perhaps because it sounds intellectual? I don't know.

Jam Stunna said:
What if you literally don't care? I find that I'm not compelled enough by the debate to make a declarative statement either way.

There's no problem with not being interested, and thus not making a judgment. The problem is with people who openly assert that the only way to not make yourself look like an insular @asshat is to accept all possibilities equally.

Xsyven · Mar 29, 2009

There's millions of religion out there-- why bother trying to find the right one, if you have such large odds of being wrong?

I find that blind faith is much more foolish.

I was raised LDS-- after I hit puberty, and realized that God made me gay (he did, I swear), I realized that I'm obviously a flawed human. I can either live under his command a lonely, depressed, human for the rest of my life, or I can accept the fact that my church was wrong.

I think my church was wrong.

But who am I to say that there is no god at all? Having faith and an open mind that any religion could potentially be true just seems so much smarter than putting all bets in on one.

Jam Stunna · Mar 29, 2009

RDK said:
There's no problem with not being interested, and thus not making a judgment. The problem is with people who openly assert that the only way to not make yourself look like an insular @asshat is to accept all possibilities equally.

Ah, okay. I see what you mean.

RDK · Mar 29, 2009

Xsyven said:
I was raised LDS-- after I hit puberty, and realized that God made me gay (he did, I swear), I realized that I'm obviously a flawed human. I can either live under his command a lonely, depressed, human for the rest of my life, or I can accept the fact that my church was wrong.

Just think of it like this:

If god "made you" gay, that means he made murderers the way they are too.

Xsyven · Mar 29, 2009

That's not true. I can actually choose whether or not I want to kill someone. Murder includes planning, motives, murder weapons, alibis-- the whole works. However, I had no choice when it came to which gender I found attractive. It just sort of happened one day, during puberty.

Did you get to choose how tall you were?

RDK · Mar 29, 2009

Xsyven said:
That's not true. I can actually choose whether or not I want to kill someone. Murder includes planning, motives, murder weapons, alibis-- the whole works. However, I had no choice when it came to which gender I found attractive. It just sort of happened one day, during puberty.

Did you get to choose how tall you were?

That was a joke, in case you didn't catch it.

Xsyven · Mar 29, 2009

You'd be surprised how many people actually think that. =/

Zero Beat · Mar 29, 2009

I'm glad you brought this up RDK, because I had been thinking about it a while back.

I used to debate a lot with an agnostic friend of mine, and I kept noticing that the end result of him being agnostic was just so he didn't have to carry the burden of proof.

I just don't think it'll go far as a topic in the Dh because either we'll all agree to it or it'll get way off topic and into "God vs no God."

The only opposition I saw was between you and Xsyven about a trivial misunderstanding.

Amide · Mar 29, 2009

I think that some people are agnostic because they aren't sure of the existence of god. Not all agnostics love the thought of being "uncommitted."

Some people, myself included, think that even if you are 99 percent sure that any sort of deity can't exist, that you are still agnostic. That one percent could be the fact that even scientists don't know for sure about the history of the universe before the Big Bang. Long before it, and why the universe exists. But scientists agree that god doesn't exist, so I can side with that belief.

But when someone says "Oh, you're agnostic. So you have an open mind, you may be religious some day," and I tell them no, organized religion is stupid, it reminds me of how people percieve the definition of "agnostic."

(PS good final paragraph RDK =D)

Reaver197 · Mar 29, 2009

I personally dislike it when people say that "oh, if you're not 100% sure, you're agnostic". No, that is patently not the case.

Agnostic means that you do not think there is enough (or any) evidence, or that it is possible to have enough evidence, to make a judgment call in either direction for an argument.

I am of the opinion, however, that there is enough evidence to make a judgment call in the particular case of whether there is a god or not. However, as with anything, you cannot be 100% certain that you necessarily have all the evidence and/or that all the evidence is true (and, hence, the conclusion made from it). You can make a pretty reasonable assumption from the evidence, though, particularly if they're well-tested and verified ones. But the warning stands, you can have a thousand pieces of evidence supporting a theory, but all it takes is one piece of evidence to prove it wrong. Just because your computer turned on the first 100 times, does not mean it necessarily will turn on the next time.

The sureness of your stance does not affect whether you've actually taken a stance or not. It really bugs me when people go like "Oh, you're not 100% sure? Well, then, you're agnostic." It just reveals they don't really understand the definition of agnosticism.

I also must say, the way the phrase "have an open mind" is often use bothers me. A friend of mine tried to give me a tarot card reading one time, which turned out to be completely baloney. Afterwards, I told her that I just don't think shuffling and choosing random cards from a deck is at all an accurate predictor of things that are or that are to come. She, of course, then proceeded to tell me that, of course it didn't work, because I didn't believe in the cards. She told me I would need an "open mind" in order for these things to work, and not to doubt them from the start.

Though I didn't say anything, how she told me I needed an open mind kind of annoyed me. First off, I can't voluntarily believe in something. Beliefs don't have some magic switch that you can use to be like "well, I'll believe it now, and then not again later on". Secondly, the implication is that being skeptical or questioning of things before they prove themselves valid is a negative thing. The "open mind" comment was more of a veil for saying that "don't question my beliefs until they prove themselves right". But, the thing is, maybe they aren't right at all.

Yes, having an open mind is important, obviously you don't want to discard theories or evidence before they have a chance to prove themselves (or, at least receive some sort of form of appraisal). Yet, this should be done within reason. If someone floats a theory across me that flies in the face of all the evidence, I shouldn't have to give it credence for the sake of being "open minded". The most important thing is to ascertain an accurate understanding of the world, and to do that, it is important to be skeptical and critical of even your own deeply regarded beliefs. The "open mind" phrase (at least, in regards to religious/supernatural stuff) is often used in such a way as to dampen and censor questions and critiques of people's beliefs (often very shaky ones).

Overload · Mar 29, 2009

I was agnostic for the sole fact that you can't really disprove god. I ended up realizing how dumb this logic was and went atheist.

adumbrodeus · Mar 30, 2009

Firstly understand that agnosticism is composed of multiple different worldviews, only one of which you could consider a cop-out. I'll go through both of them.

Strong Agnosticism: The belief that God can neither be proven nor disproven, period. It is fundamentally taking a side in the debate about theism, and therefore cannot be considered a co-out.

Weak Agnosticism: Basically "I don't know", this is a lack of belief period. The person in question fundamentally acknowledges that either this person doesn't know enough to know whether or not God exists, or that humanity doesn't know enough as of this point to prove whether or not God exists. This, you can consider a cop-out, however I disagree.

Fundamentally weak agnosticism is being in a state of "doubting", you opening acknowledge that you are not informed enough to take a concrete side in the debate, and therefore choose a transitional "side" until you have the evidence to take a side.

Furthermore I'll note that deities are non-falsifiable, probably the strongest justifacation for the "we cannot know" position available.

AltF4 said:
But furthermore, I don't think that humans are capable of holding non-positions. It is human nature to "pick a side". If someone has researched religion long enough to have called their self an agnostic, then they likely already have their mind made up but are unwilling to state it so boldly.

Actually, a philosophy of agnositicism is developed precisely to do that, to allow people who aren't sure to have a "side", thus to allow them to explor the question in philosophical freedom. Or to legitimately not care if that is their preference.

AltF4 · Mar 30, 2009

adumbrodeus said:
Actually, a philosophy of agnositicism is developed precisely to do that, to allow people who aren't sure to have a "side", thus to allow them to explor the question in philosophical freedom. Or to legitimately not care if that is their preference.

Perhaps there really are some people who strictly do not have an opinion or belief, but I have never met one. And I certainly don't think that the percentage of "real" agnostics maps appropriately to the "claimed" agnostics. Hence it being a cop-out.

Furthermore I'll note that deities are non-falsifiable, probably the strongest justifacation for the "we cannot know" position available.

Deities "in "general" are non-falsifiable. But individual ones can be.

If your god is supposed to create a mound of iron in your backyard with his your name on it every other Thursday, this can be verified.

However, when creating religious dogma, people tend to make their gods non-falsifiable. The reasons are obvious. You wouldn't want your god to be disproven, now would you? And most people aren't intelligent to understand the ramifications of an idea being non-falsifiable. So it's effective at trapping the masses.

SuperBowser · Mar 30, 2009

For what it's worth every agnostic I've ever met irl has been of the ''don't know, don't care'' mentality.

But a belief like this is a spectrum, not a simple yes/no. I'm sure there are some people who truly can't pick a side; every person that converted from religious >>> atheist must have passed this point.

Deleted member · Mar 30, 2009

I'm not agnostic (however for the sake of the debate you can refer to me as such), because I do believe there is a God. However, I know that this stance is illogical, which is how I justify being classified as an agnostic.

A while ago I was totally on the fence. I thought about it for a long time, and I realized I did believe. I still maintain that agnosticism is the only true logical stance. We don't know if God exists or not. Assigning probabilities to that existence is 100% arbitrary.

Reaver197 said:
I personally dislike it when people say that "oh, if you're not 100% sure, you're agnostic". No, that is patently not the case.

Unfortunately, it is. You cannot have it both ways. If you contend to accept science and logic, it is contradictory to state a stance that is illogical in nature. The default is agnosticism - sorry guys.

Alt said:
But furthermore, I don't think that humans are capable of holding non-positions. It is human nature to "pick a side". If someone has researched religion long enough to have called their self an agnostic, then they likely already have their mind made up but are unwilling to state it so boldly.

I'd agree with you, but not in this situation. God is not something we can debate out and receive results, which is why you should encourage someone to accept that they do not know. Abortion, gun control, laws, ethics, etc - you can achieve tangibility. We've argued over God for centuries and nothing has come from it.

Here's a test for all you "atheists":

Do you know God does not exist?

If you answered yes:

You hold an illogical position. How do you know? Where is your proof?

If you answered no:

You are an agnostic. You do not know. Agnosticism literally means "without knowledge."

Here's why it's not a cop-out:

I doubt we will ever know the truth behind the cosmos. Why should you let God's potential existence affect you? Arguing over subtleties and semantics is pointless. Atheism is fruitless. If you want results, debate and seek to dismantle religion. Otherwise, the point is moot. We do not know. Why argue when you can be constructive?

Also, Nathaniel Branden is an idiot if he truly suggests evading a position is flawed. Do I enter my country in a war that does not concern her, or do I take one of the existing sides? Hmm.

Oracle · Mar 30, 2009

Hmmmm....
I'm not completely sure of my religious beliefs yet. I believe that there is a God, but humankind shouldn't try to interpret him because it will be wrong, as man is flawed.

AltF4 · Mar 30, 2009

Don't be coy, Delorted. You know good and well that nobody is purporting to "know" that there is no god.

But then we begin to split hairs.

Are we agnostics about what color the sky is? Are we agnostics about what 1 + 1 equals? Are we agnostics about what sound the cow makes?

No.

STRICTLY speaking we should be though! We cannot KNOW anything, right? Well in the real world this is not how it works.

Plus, Del, you're still trying to bend the definition of "agnostic". You're trying to make it out to mean "anyone who believes that god cannot ever be proven for sure". But this is not the case at all. Anyone on either side of the fence can meet this definition.

What makes an agnostic is the non-belief of gods one way or another. If you believe there is a god, you are not an agnostic. (That means you, Del) If you believe there is no god, you are not an agnostic. Agnostics do not hold an opinion or belief about the subject. Not even deep down that they don't tell anyone.

And I also whole-heartedly disagree with the assertion that nothing productive comes out of religious debates. This would be true if the existence of gods were the only aspect of the issue. But it is not. Religions always carry excess baggage with them that they impose on others. Religions also bring their hate and backwards thinking with them (Prop 8 and creationist Texas school boards, respectively) that serve as a detriment to a tolerant and intelligent society.

Deleted member · Mar 31, 2009

Did you fully read my post? I do not consider myself agnostic anymore. I do believe.

I do not care no one here claims to know - I'm simply making a point. None of you are actually atheists!

We are not agnostics about facts of life (axiomatic as they may be) because that would be ridiculous. It would also be stubborn, ignorant, and detrimental to human progress. We accept they are facts and we move on. We cannot do the same with God. On my count, this is pretty much one of the only exceptions.

But we could argue this all day, Alt. My main intent in this thread is to defend agnosticism. It's not a cop-out. Why do people demand I take a side? Don't involve me in your inane debates. I've grown out of them. They're pointless and repetitive. I've accepted I will never know, and I've built my own philosophies from that. Like I said - instead of debating God's existence, debate RELIGION. They're different. I can believe in God and not associate myself with a religion. Religions can be obstructive - simply believing in a God most certainly cannot be.

AltF4 · Mar 31, 2009

So it seems that you're just going to go and use whatever definitions you've plucked out of thin air and assert them on me? I'm not an atheist? Well, that's news to me!

Because YOUR definition (not the generally accepted one that everyone else here is using) is that you're only an atheist unless you are 100% absolutely positively sure that there are no gods at all. Guess what? That's not what atheism is.

Also, agnosticism itself IS an absurd viewpoint. Are you going to be an agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster are you? Are you really going to not hold an opinion about whether or not the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists? No. These entities are absurd. And it would be absurd to be anything but a non-believer of them.

And in what way are any other gods different than them? They are just as contrived, contradictory, and ridiculous.

But I also refute that believing in a god is 'not obstructive' as you would say. It is. Organized religions are easy targets of criticism, but the belief in a deity is far from harmless. It is not something that a mentally healthy adult should have. What would you say to a grown man who believed in the tooth fairy? Or Santa?

Why is it suddenly not a sign of mental instability when a grown man believes in an invisible man in the sky who is all powerful, all loving, but hates gay people, sides with the United States in every war, and disapproves with the manner in which you have sex?

"Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Deleted member · Mar 31, 2009

Philosophy is personal - I interpret things differently, and as such, I define things as I see them. If we agree on everything, then only one of us is thinking. I use my definitions because they're my opinions - they're not just plucked out of thin air. For example, I could argue that the word "murder" can encompass the abortion of fetuses. If you look up "murder" in the dictionary, you will not see any mention of this. That's why I am hypothetically trying to change that! (I'm being rhetorical.)

Furthermore, ANY sort of critical analysis of atheism / agnosticism yields the definitions I've proposed. Do you really think I just ignore 99% of what is currently accepted?

Instead of telling me what atheism actually is, I suggest you respond to the second half of my most recent post. This debate is not about defining terms. It's about how agnosticism is somehow a cop-out because it eschews the school-yard banter that exists in this ridiculous debate.

Are you even reading my posts? Seriously. You haven't explained why a simple belief in God is obstructive, and more annoyingly, you ranted about religion, which I'm not trying to defend.

"Wisest is he who knows he does not know." - Socrates

Reaver197 · Mar 31, 2009

DeLoRtEd1 said:
A while ago I was totally on the fence. I thought about it for a long time, and I realized I did believe. I still maintain that agnosticism is the only true logical stance. We don't know if God exists or not. Assigning probabilities to that existence is 100% arbitrary.

Assigning probabilities to the existence of whether some space is 100% arbitrary? What basis do you have to make such a claim?

Also, we can make determinations to the existence of god(s), unfortunately, it would have to be limited to simply disproving the specific claims or attributes people give to their deity of choice.

For example, if a person claimed that their god had the ability to hear what they say and discern what they think, that is a claim that brings the deity (or, at the very least, this particular attribute of the deity) into the realm of testability. Such a god would have to have some way to physically be in contact with our neurons, and the air around us. However, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence that there is such a way or even a possible method that a deity could do that, and, yet, somehow magically escape all detection, unless that deity just doesn't exist in the first place (or have that particular ability, which, in a way, somewhat voids the need to believe or care about the deity even if it did exist).

DeLoRtEd1 said:
Unfortunately, it is. You cannot have it both ways. If you contend to accept science and logic, it is contradictory to state a stance that is illogical in nature. The default is agnosticism - sorry guys.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see how this is a refutation to my point, however, that just might be me being very tired. What is it that I cannot have both ways? I'm afraid I have no idea what that's referencing to.

Also, how is my statement or stance illogical? You just say it is, but you haven't tried to show or provide any sort of proof or logical argument that shows that is the case.

DeLoRtEd1 said:
I'd agree with you, but not in this situation. God is not something we can debate out and receive results, which is why you should encourage someone to accept that they do not know. Abortion, gun control, laws, ethics, etc - you can achieve tangibility. We've argued over God for centuries and nothing has come from it.

Actually, most of the arguments (or battles, rather) over the centuries has been debates between conflicting views over opposing deities, not so much over whether deities exist or not. It's more of a recent phenomena, since it wasn't until Darwin that people were provided with a non-supernatural explanation for how complex life exists, something that up until that point was generally the trump card for believing in religions/gods.

Also, I am of the opinion that much good can come from debating over whether god(s) actually exist or not, since so many people and events are affected by the actions of people who do fervently believe there are one.

DeLoRtEd1 said:
Here's a test for all you "atheists": Do you know God does not exist? If you answered yes:

You hold an illogical position. How do you know? Where is your proof?

If you answered no:

You are an agnostic. You do not know. Agnosticism literally means "without knowledge."

Here's why it's not a cop-out: I doubt we will ever know the truth behind the cosmos. Why should you let God's potential existence affect you? Arguing over subtleties and semantics is pointless. Atheism is fruitless. If you want results, debate and seek to dismantle religion. Otherwise, the point is moot. We do not know. Why argue when you can be constructive? Also, Nathaniel Branden is an idiot if he truly suggests evading a position is flawed. Do I enter my country in a war that does not concern her, or do I take one of the existing sides? Hmm.

As for the question, it could be easily turned the other way around. How do you know that a god does exist? Why is it that, if there is a debate over the existence of something, that the stance "it does exist" be the default winner? Like wise, you have no tangible proof for the existence of a god, and no logical foundation to assert as such.

I personally would rather not to have to argue over religion or the existence of god. However, unfortunately, I believe it has been made pretty evident that religion (and the initial premise to it, the belief in supernatural deities), is on the whole a negative and subversive force in the world, and humanity could stand to gain and improve a lot if we are at least willing to accept the possibility that there isn't some guy in the sky.

Anyway, I generally view my atheism as an incidental result of my belief and support of critical thinking and the scientific process. To say it is fruitless, to me at least, seems to also imply that critical thinking and being aware of the possibility that you could be wrong, is a pointless thing as well. However, I know you probably did not mean it to that extent at all, but that is simply how I felt in response to reading that.

Also, if you're not interested in debating this topic, then I would understand if you'd rather not argue back.

Edit: poop, you posted again. Ignore that last sentence, I guess.

Zero Beat · Mar 31, 2009

I'll ask the same philosophical question I asked in another thread.

Delorted,

xZero Beatx said:
I have a question.

Can god/flying sphagetti monster exist in accordance with, and in contradiction to logic in the same way at the same time?

If he exists according to logic, then existing in contradiction to logic is illogical. No question more thoroughly binds god to the realm of the logical. He can't be everything and do whatever he wants. Or can he? I'm not trying to hijack anything, just looking for an answer which abides by logic.

You don't have to answer right away, as I don't plan on piling up on you, since you've got your hands full with ALT and Reaver, but just a friendly question to consider, once you've satisfied them hungry atheists. :laugh:

AltF4 · Mar 31, 2009

Well, I don't want to play "dog pile on the theist" in this thread.

If Reaver wants to jump in, he may. But do try to keep this thread on topic!

Deleted member · Mar 31, 2009

I'm glad to hear that, Alt - I was about to give up. I know, I know.

adumbrodeus · Mar 31, 2009

AltF4 said:
Perhaps there really are some people who strictly do not have an opinion or belief, but I have never met one. And I certainly don't think that the percentage of "real" agnostics maps appropriately to the "claimed" agnostics. Hence it being a cop-out.

Two major points,

Firstly, perhaps, but you are commenting on the philosophy of agnosticism. The fact that practitioners may fail to measure up to it's standards is not a mark against the philosophy, unless you can prove every single follower of soft agnosticism is using it as a cop-out you can't make a generalized statement about the followers of the philosophy (and good luck doing that without proving the philosophy itself is fundamentally a cop out).

For a lot of people it MAY be a cop-out, but that doesn't describe anything about the following as a whole, or the philosophy itself.

Secondly, it is taking a side. As I said before the entire point of soft agnosticism is to turn what would not normally be a side into a side in order to protect it from exactly the effect that you're mentioning, the human compulsion to take a side, to allow for free exploration of the subject matter.

Deities "in "general" are non-falsifiable. But individual ones can be.

If your god is supposed to create a mound of iron in your backyard with his your name on it every other Thursday, this can be verified.

However, when creating religious dogma, people tend to make their gods non-falsifiable. The reasons are obvious. You wouldn't want your god to be disproven, now would you? And most people aren't intelligent to understand the ramifications of an idea being non-falsifiable. So it's effective at trapping the masses.

It doesn't matter if individual deities are non-falsifiable, agnosticism talks about deities in general, not any particular deity.

I love how you automatically take the negative prospective on why deities are non-falsifiable. One would assume that people actually believe in the non-falsifiable deities, and the easily falsifiable deities got exactly that, proven false a long time ago leaving only difficult to falsify or non-falsifiable deities, who may or may not be real (such as the invisible pink unicorn).

AltF4 · Mar 31, 2009

adumbrodeus said:
Firstly...

Well, sure. Agnosticism in respect to many things is the only rational position. In fact, science demands being agnostic when studying something. When performing research, it is of vital importance to not be biased. You must not have a "pre-conceived notion" as doing so is guaranteed to sully your results. You must, then, be "agnostic" about the subject you are studying.

But this is not the kind of agnosticism that I am criticizing. Only in regards to religious views am I criticizing agnosticism.

But more directly in response, you seem to be under the impression that in orger to make a generalization, the statement must be true of ALL of the subject of the statement. But this isn't the case. I can safely call M.I.T. students "smart" as a generalization, even though there is almost surely one or two there who aren't.

My statements are a generalization. That most who claim to be agnostics are not. They only use it as a defense mechanism to avoid confrontation. I have justified this statement only anecdotally, really though. I have not ever met a "true" agnostic. But I would surely like to talk to one if you find one!

Secondly...

To "allow for free exploration of the subject matter"? I fail to see in what manner I (as an atheist) am not free in exploring this subject matter. I think that agnosticism is more characterized by an indifferent attitude toward religion. A "true" agnostic would not bother himself with religious debate. It would all seem inane to an agnostic.

There is another category (one that most engineers tend to fall into) simply called "non-religious". It is categorized by the non-issue of religion. A person in this category doesn't debate religion in online forums, doesn't go to church, and in every way doesn't concern himself at all in the slightest with supernatural claims. Some of these people, when challenged, are the most likely ones to claim to be agnostic.

But I think there is an important distinction between the agnostic and the non-religious. The non-religious is like a new born baby. They do not have a religious belief one way or the other because they have never given it any thought. The agnostic, however, would not have any belief one way or the other because they have thought on the subject at length and came to the decision to not have a belief.

adumbrodeus · Mar 31, 2009

AltF4 said:
But more directly in response, you seem to be under the impression that in orger to make a generalization, the statement must be true of ALL of the subject of the statement. But this isn't the case. I can safely call M.I.T. students "smart" as a generalization, even though there is almost surely one or two there who aren't.

My statements are a generalization. That most who claim to be agnostics are not. They only use it as a defense mechanism to avoid confrontation. I have justified this statement only anecdotally, really though. I have not ever met a "true" agnostic. But I would surely like to talk to one if you find one!

But the point you seem to be missing is that this thread is not about "agnostics" this thread is about Agnosticism.

If you're simply saying that, "most self declared agnostics do not measure up to the philosophy" as an aside, the statement is fine, if irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You however, seem to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) suggesting that this somehow indicts the philosophy of agnosticism. In order to do that, you need to prove that either the philosophy is inherently a cop-out, or that there is something inherent within the philosophy that makes it impossible to practice any other way.

So yes, you need to fulfill the "for all" criteria if you want to indict agnosticism itself, otherwise you just indict a number of agnostics.

To "allow for free exploration of the subject matter"? I fail to see in what manner I (as an atheist) am not free in exploring this subject matter. I think that agnosticism is more characterized by an indifferent attitude toward religion. A "true" agnostic would not bother himself with religious debate. It would all seem inane to an agnostic.

There is another category (one that most engineers tend to fall into) simply called "non-religious". It is categorized by the non-issue of religion. A person in this category doesn't debate religion in online forums, doesn't go to church, and in every way doesn't concern himself at all in the slightest with supernatural claims. Some of these people, when challenged, are the most likely ones to claim to be agnostic.

But I think there is an important distinction between the agnostic and the non-religious. The non-religious is like a new born baby. They do not have a religious belief one way or the other because they have never given it any thought. The agnostic, however, would not have any belief one way or the other because they have thought on the subject at length and came to the decision to not have a belief.

...

I already dealt with this point, there are many different types of agnostics, and the person you described as non-religious would fall into one of those categories. Specifically a varient of weak Agnosticism, because they believe they don't have enough information, but at the same time, they lack the motivation to gain the information.

So yes, your non-Religious is a division of Agnosticism.

Because ultimately, not to take action is still a choice. Unless you've never been exposed to religious ideals of any type (which needs a seperate category, but good luck finding one of those) then you made some sort of decision in regards to religion.

In this case, the decision is to ignor.

So, a person like this is agnostic, but never put in the effort to actually explor which point is valid.

And no, that's not necessarily what a true agnostic would think, that's what a closed-minded person would think. However, each type of Agnostic would think that different types of conversations inside that category are inane. For example, a strong Agnostic would believe that all other religious debate is irrelevant beside the "unknowable" issue.

AltF4 · Mar 31, 2009

This thread is about agnosticism and agnostics. Making statements about the subscribers (I refrain from using the word "believers") is certainly within the realm of this thread. And it was meant as an aside, actually. I briefly mentioned it in my first post in this thread, but it would but being the topic of more specific debate.

But if you want to start making assertions about what what is and is not "agnostic", then why don't we ask the man who coined the term, TH Huxley:

Richard Dawkins said:
Others, he noted,

"were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis' - had,
more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence;
while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong
conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with
Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself
presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion . . . So I
took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the
appropriate title of 'agnostic'."

Later in his speech, Huxley went on to explain that agnostics have
no creed, not even a negative one.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the
essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single
principle. . . . Positively the principle may be expressed: In
matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will
take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that
conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or
demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which
if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be
ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the
future may have in store for him."

On the basis of this, you could call me an agnostic. It seems that Huxley wanted the term merely to be an appeal to scientific withdraw from making statements about the certainty of claims.

Which is how I described agnosticism "making sense" when applied to scientific topics. It is reasonable (and indeed imperative) that one remain agnostic about the chemical composition of a new material they have discovered before the evidence is in.

Why? Because you have no data yet. Until you have evidence, the likelihood of your material being aluminum is on equal footing as it being steel.

BEFORE there is any evidence, it would be illogical to make any statement about the composition of your substance. However AFTER the evidence is in, it would not be illogical to. Indeed, if the evidence were sufficient, it would be illogical NOT to form a viewpoint.

So the ("strong") agnostic would say something along the lines of "It is impossible to have evidence for or against the existence of god, therefore I will not make any statements about his existence." In essence, the existence of god is "unknowable".

The response to this is two-fold:

1) The premise has not been demonstrated. How can one justify the claim that the existence of god is unknowable? Lots of things have been claimed "unknowable" that were later shown to not be so. So what evidence is there in that assertion?

2) There is an implicit statement being made by this form of agnosticism that is not correct. Namely that of the likelihood of existence of god. We do not "have no evidence" as is the case with my example above. We have thousands of years of evidence of failed religious prophecies. How can someone make the claim (however implicit) that god's existence is on equal footing with his non-existence?

Like I said to Delorted: You wouldn't be an agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you? That would be absurd. Being anything but atheist in regards to these entities would be insane. What makes any other deity special?

adumbrodeus · Mar 31, 2009

AltF4 said:
This thread is about agnosticism and agnostics. Making statements about the subscribers (I refrain from using the word "believers") is certainly within the realm of this thread. And it was meant as an aside, actually. I briefly mentioned it in my first post in this thread, but it would but being the topic of more specific debate.

It's within the realm of tangents, but the thread title and the OP very cleary define the thread.

RDK said:
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.

*Bolding added

That is the topic of debate, general observations about agnostics are tangents.

AltF4 said:
But if you want to start making assertions about what what is and is not "agnostic", then why don't we ask the man who coined the term, TH Huxley:

On the basis of this, you could call me an agnostic. It seems that Huxley wanted the term merely to be an appeal to scientific withdraw from making statements about the certainty of claims.

Quite simply, the term has expanded, it currently refers to all people who take the view that the existance of God is either unknown or unknowable.

Whatever Huxley meant it as initially, this is what it means now.

Source

Which is how I described agnosticism "making sense" when applied to scientific topics. It is reasonable (and indeed imperative) that one remain agnostic about the chemical composition of a new material they have discovered before the evidence is in.

Why? Because you have no data yet. Until you have evidence, the likelihood of your material being aluminum is on equal footing as it being steel.

BEFORE there is any evidence, it would be illogical to make any statement about the composition of your substance. However AFTER the evidence is in, it would not be illogical to. Indeed, if the evidence were sufficient*, it would be illogical NOT to form a viewpoint.

*Bolding added

And here is the fundamental assertion of Agnosticism, that the evidence is not sufficent.

Whether it is the evidence they were personally exposed to, the evidence available to the whole of humanity, the evidence that can be available to humanity period, or any other variation of the same, an Agnostistic believes that the evidence is not sufficent.

So the ("strong") agnostic would say something along the lines of "It is impossible to have evidence for or against the existence of god, therefore I will not make any statements about his existence." In essence, the existence of god is "unknowable".

The response to this is two-fold:

1) The premise has not been demonstrated. How can one justify the claim that the existence of god is unknowable? Lots of things have been claimed "unknowable" that were later shown to not be so. So what evidence is there in that assertion?

So, you are suggesting that God/god/gods are in fact, falsifiable? Science makes no judgement on things that aren't falsifiable, and the fact that deities have often been posited to be beyond logic makes it pretty obvious that while you can falsify a deity, you cannot falsify deities in general.

2) There is an implicit statement being made by this form of agnosticism that is not correct. Namely that of the likelihood of existence of god. We do not "have no evidence" as is the case with my example above. We have thousands of years of evidence of failed religious prophecies. How can someone make the claim (however implicit) that god's existence is on equal footing with his non-existence?

Because, failed religious prophecies only relate to the religion in question (or they could not have failed).

The truth value of one religion relates in no way to the billion or so others.

Like I said to Delorted: You wouldn't be an agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you? That would be absurd. Being anything but atheist in regards to these entities would be insane. What makes any other deity special?

Unless there's something falsifiable about those deities that I was not aware, what makes being agnostic about the invisable pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster absurd?

They both strike me as non-falsifiable and thus tossed in the the closet of potential dieties in agnosticism.

RDK · Mar 31, 2009

adumbrodeus said:
And here is the fundamental assertion of Agnosticism, that the evidence is not sufficent.

Whether it is the evidence they were personally exposed to, the evidence available to the whole of humanity, the evidence that can be available to humanity period, or any other variation of the same, an Agnostistic believes that the evidence is not sufficent.

And that's what's absurd about agnosticism. Even giving consideration to something that, in all seriousness, has no compelling evidence is a waste of time and energy.

The example of the FSM has been used a billion times already, but you seem to be missing the point: it's useless to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of the FSM, because the evidence for such a thing existing equals the evidence for any other kooky deity that I can randomly create in my head. Taking the time to acknowledge each and every possibility equally is both impossible and impractical, simply because there is no compelling evidence for any of them.

The only morally justifiable default is temporary atheism. In the light of actual evidence, things may very well change, but until then a healthy skepticism is the only rational choice.

adumbrodeus said:
Unless there's something falsifiable about those deities that I was not aware, what makes being agnostic about the invisable pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster absurd?

They both strike me as non-falsifiable and thus tossed in the the closet of potential dieties in agnosticism.

Back before scientists discovered the effects of dark matter on the universe, the guy who proposed the idea of dark matter was probably laughed out of university by his peers. Were they ultimately wrong about dark matter? Yes. But does this mean that they weren't justified in casting a judgment on something that was, at the time and in those circumstances, absurd and without evidence? No.

If sufficient evidence is not given, then consideration shouldn't even be a part in the equation. Science deals with observation. If something can't even be observed and falsified, why should it have any effect at all on practical reality?

AltF4 · Mar 31, 2009

adumbrodeus said:
Quite simply, the term has expanded, it currently refers to all people who take the view that the existance of God is either unknown or unknowable.

Whatever Huxley meant it as initially, this is what it means now.

Source

There are two very different aspects to this definition that are not made clear nor distinct by that definition you procured.

"all people who take the view that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable."

Having the view that the existence of god is unknown is quite reasonable. No objections here. Nobody is 100% sure, as it is impossible to be 100% sure about anything.

Having the view that the existence of god is unknowable is different. This is an assertion. And one that must be demonstrated using evidence. You cannot go blindly making assertions.

Note that this is NOT the same thing as the existence of god being unfalsifiable.

If there is a god, it is certainly within his power to reveal himself and settle the debate once and for all. The existence of god is capable of being confirmed.

And (depending on what particular god you're talking about) god could also be falsifiable. One can falsify something without needing to observe it, mind you. One needs only provide a contradiction in the logic of the deity.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn can be stated as a fully fledged scientific theory. It is capable of being confirmed, and it is capable of being falsified. In fact, it can be falsified. The ideas of "pink" and "invisible" are mutually exclusive. An entity cannot simultaneously possess both attributes. Thus the IPU is falsified.

(also note that refusing to accept that your deity has been falsified does not change that fact that it has been. One could surely continue to believe in the IPU, despite it being falsified. But this does not change the fact that it has been.)

[quote[Because, failed religious prophecies only relate to the religion in question (or they could not have failed).

The truth value of one religion relates in no way to the billion or so others.[/quote]

Oh, but it does. It surely does.

You see, you're only seeing things in terms of "100% true" and "100% false". But this is not how science works. There are degrees of likelihood along the way. There are degrees of certainty with which we make a statement.

If you were looking for the existence of water on other planets than Earth, the results of the first 1000 surely do make an impact on the result of the 1001th.

If you found not a trace of water in 75% of the planets you searched, that says something about the likelihood of there being water on the 1001th planet.

If you would lots of water on 100% of all 1000 planets you've studied, that says something about the likelihood of the 1001!

Now if there have been thousands upon thousands of gods, goddesses, demons, witches, angels, demigods, and deities of many varieties that we today call "ridiculous"... any reasonable person would use this as indication that the gods that just so happen to be popular today are just as likely as the ones that we now call "ridiculous".

Unless there's something falsifiable about those deities that I was not aware, what makes being agnostic about the invisable pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster absurd?

They both strike me as non-falsifiable and thus tossed in the the closet of potential dieties in agnosticism.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (have you really not heard of these examples?) is used as an example of a deity that is self-contradictory. (IE: the christian god) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an example of a deity that is unfalsifiable.

The FSM was specifically concocted to prove a point. Nobody in their right minds should actually believe in it. (Though many do sarcastically claim to, just for the sake of satire)

And yes, if you call yourself anything but a non-believer (aka: atheist) of the FMS, I'm calling you absurd.

EDIT: Oh, it appears that RDK posted as well. I apologize for the apparent "dog piling". I have been trying to avoid it.

Reaver197 · Mar 31, 2009

RDK said:
Back before scientists discovered the effects of dark matter on the universe, the guy who proposed the idea of dark matter was probably laughed out of university by his peers. Were they ultimately wrong about dark matter? Yes. But does this mean that they weren't justified in casting a judgment on something that was, at the time and in those circumstances, absurd and without evidence? No.

If sufficient evidence is not given, then consideration shouldn't even be a part in the equation. Science deals with observation. If something can't even be observed and falsified, why should it have any effect at all on practical reality?

Sorry for the slight tangent, but I just wanted to point out that there is still the possibility that there might not actually be such a thing as dark matter.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist

Edit: Bahs, I'm an excellent reader. The article deals with dark energy, not dark matter.

Zero Beat · Apr 1, 2009

He posts in red said:
Science deals with observation. If something can't even be observed and falsified, why should it have any effect at all on practical reality?

I'll play devil's advocate, right back at you, good friend. There's plenty of stuff we can't observe. Watch :-p.

**** like this deserves its own topic >_<.

The problem with dark matter is that it is undetectable by ANY electromagnetic radiation equipment that we have so far. Can't see it in the visible range, can't detect it at the low or high end of the spectrum using xrays, radiation, et cetera.

Electromagnetism[electromagnetic force, whatever floats your boat], while being a fundamental force, just doesn't interact with "dark matter"[The name itself isn't to be taken so bluntly-_-] So that throws out one of our more sophisticated ways out the window. Which is why we have such a hard time telling exactly what it is in detail.

As far as I can remember, the only interaction to any of the fundamental forces is to that of gravity, although I could be wrong. If it can interact with gravity, it can be measured. Yes, you can measure things that are presumably, "not there."

Let's look at an example.

orbital velocity : the minimum velocity at which a body must move to maintain a given orbit.
orbital velocity
n.
The velocity at which a body revolves about another body.
The minimum velocity required to place or maintain a satellite in a given orbit.

When Astronomers have tried to examine the orbital velocity of the material at the center of our galaxy, they keep finding more mass than can be accounted for any given wavelength in the spectrum. Now, I haven't finished reading the article but they haven't mentioned gravity so far<_<. They just keep blabbering about cosmological principles.

Representation at a larger scale:

When looking at galaxies and their speeds within a galaxy cluster, the total mass of the cluster is given. As it turns out, the inferred(bad word?) total mass of the cluster seems to be many times larger than the visible mass of galaxies, within that particular cluster. This phenomenom is what we call dark matter.

Sorry for the hi-jack

. Although see? Now we're not agnostics about whether dark matter is or isn't!

RDK · Apr 1, 2009

xZero Beatx said:
I'll play devil's advocate, right back at you, good friend. There's plenty of stuff we can't observe. Watch :-p.

**** like this deserves its own topic >_<.

The problem with dark matter is that it is undetectable by ANY electromagnetic radiation equipment that we have so far. Can't see it in the visible range, can't detect it at the low or high end of the spectrum using xrays, radiation, et cetera.

Electromagnetism[electromagnetic force, whatever floats your boat], while being a fundamental force, just doesn't interact with "dark matter"[The name itself isn't to be taken so bluntly-_-] So that throws out one of our more sophisticated ways out the window. Which is why we have such a hard time telling exactly what it is in detail.

As far as I can remember, the only interaction to any of the fundamental forces is to that of gravity, although I could be wrong. If it can interact with gravity, it can be measured. Yes, you can measure things that are presumably, "not there."

Let's look at an example.

orbital velocity : the minimum velocity at which a body must move to maintain a given orbit.
orbital velocity
n.
The velocity at which a body revolves about another body.
The minimum velocity required to place or maintain a satellite in a given orbit.

When Astronomers have tried to examine the orbital velocity of the material at the center of our galaxy, they keep finding more mass than can be accounted for any given wavelength in the spectrum. Now, I haven't finished reading the article but they haven't mentioned gravity so far<_<. They just keep blabbering about cosmological principles.

Representation at a larger scale:

When looking at galaxies and their speeds within a galaxy cluster, the total mass of the cluster is given. As it turns out, the inferred(bad word?) total mass of the cluster seems to be many times larger than the visible mass of galaxies, within that particular cluster. This phenomenom is what we call dark matter.

Sorry for the hi-jack. Although see? Now we're not agnostics about whether dark matter is or isn't!

To this I would probably say that while things like orbital velocity cannot be observed themselves, the effects of said principles can be. If I were to apply the same line of thinking to a deity, the so-called "effects" of said deity could be ascribed to any number of different things that could arguably show more cause than the made-up deity.

That being said, I have to say I understood about 0.1% of your post. Physics isn't my strong suit.

Although see? Now we're not agnostics about whether dark matter is or isn't!

As long as my point is proven. :D

Zero Beat · Apr 1, 2009

To this I would probably say that while things like orbital velocity cannot be observed themselves, the effects of said principles can be. If I were to apply the same line of thinking to a deity...

First of all, you cannot just "apply" something out of thin air into a deity, since deities, up to date, are not affected by gravity, they are supernatural, meaning, outside of reality. Thus, they cannot be measured using gravitational potential energy. Unlike dark matter.

Besides, this line of thinking is based on results, not speculation or superstitious beliefs.

Let's give a visual representation:

PRO PAINT SKILLS.

This gives a nice image of the center of our galaxy. What is visible is called ordinary baryonic matter, . This type of matter, according to the WMAP, makes up roughly 4% of the universe, 23% of the universe is mass, and 73% is dark energy(another topic-_-).

Basically, when you run the math(which is beyond me, for now) using the formula for gravitational potential energy[U= -GMm/r], the space that is taken up by the center of our galaxy is many times larger than what's previously shown, if outlined based on the measureable results.

Words/formulas to know:
WMAP: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, The WMAP mission has provided the first detailed full-sky map of the microwave background radiation in the universe.

Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. / The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space.

WMAP: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, The WMAP mission has provided the first detailed full-sky map of the microwave background radiation in the universe

U= -GMm/r :
G is the gravitational constant
M is the mass of the attracting body
m is for mass
r is the distance between their centers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the difference between applying orbital velocity to a deity which has never been proven in reality, vs something that while it isn't visible, it can actually be measured and yield results because it's within reality and its existing conditions?

adumbrodeus · Apr 2, 2009

RDK said:
And that's what's absurd about agnosticism. Even giving consideration to something that, in all seriousness, has no compelling evidence is a waste of time and energy.

Exploration of something that you have not yet encountered compelling evidence for is a waste of time?

Proving cannot be compelling evidence is a waste of time?

The former is a strategy to learn more about an interesting question, the latter has a positive position which can be defended in argumentation, so why is either a waste of time?

The example of the FSM has been used a billion times already, but you seem to be missing the point: it's useless to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of the FSM, because the evidence for such a thing existing equals the evidence for any other kooky deity that I can randomly create in my head. Taking the time to acknowledge each and every possibility equally is both impossible and impractical, simply because there is no compelling evidence for any of them.

The only morally justifiable default is temporary atheism. In the light of actual evidence, things may very well change, but until then a healthy skepticism is the only rational choice.

No, I'm not missing the point of the FSM.

Reread what I said, I am not arguing that the FSM attempts to illustrate something else, I'm saying that it's a poor example, because it's non-falsifiable, so even though it's meant as a joke, it's a potential deity.

And yes, that DOES mean that any deity you can think up, so long as it's non-falsifiable, gets thrown in the "possible" pile.

Which is the entire reason that agnosticism as a philosophy doesn't really deal with individual religions, it deals with whether or not some deity or deities exists, not an individual acknowledgement of each religion's deity/deities.

So not really, the multitude of potential deities has nothing to do with whether or not at least one deity exists.

Back before scientists discovered the effects of dark matter on the universe, the guy who proposed the idea of dark matter was probably laughed out of university by his peers. Were they ultimately wrong about dark matter? Yes. But does this mean that they weren't justified in casting a judgment on something that was, at the time and in those circumstances, absurd and without evidence? No.

If sufficient evidence is not given, then consideration shouldn't even be a part in the equation. Science deals with observation. If something can't even be observed and falsified, why should it have any effect at all on practical reality?

You're missing a very fundamental point, science has no commentary on things that are not falsifiable.

No comment, not "treat it like it doesn't exist until proven otherwise" like with dark matter, simply no comment.

Non-falsifiable things are fundamentally outside the purview of the scientific method, and to attempt to fit them into it is no different than attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole, it's not built to account for them, and really there IS NO MECHANISM for dealing with such things.

AltF4 said:
There are two very different aspects to this definition that are not made clear nor distinct by that definition you procured.

"all people who take the view that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable."

That's the differentiation between weak and strong agnosticism, which I did mention earlier.

Having the view that the existence of god is unknowable is different. This is an assertion. And one that must be demonstrated using evidence. You cannot go blindly making assertions.

Note that this is NOT the same thing as the existence of god being unfalsifiable.

Ah, but the point is that it follows from the existence of god being unfalsifiable.

If there is a god, it is certainly within his power to reveal himself and settle the debate once and for all. The existence of god is capable of being confirmed.

The key assumption here is naturalistically + pre-existing event, and that's the assumption that you have to follow with everything.

Why?

Because a sufficiently powerful deity could change the fundamental nature of the universe, and thus render all irrelevant.

So positing some future divine interference is out as a confirmation method is out.

And (depending on what particular god you're talking about) god could also be falsifiable. One can falsify something without needing to observe it, mind you. One needs only provide a contradiction in the logic of the deity.

Ah, but agnosticism doesn't deal with any individual god, it deals with whether any god or gods exist period.

The individual truth value of a deity has no meaning here.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn can be stated as a fully fledged scientific theory. It is capable of being confirmed, and it is capable of being falsified. In fact, it can be falsified. The ideas of "pink" and "invisible" are mutually exclusive. An entity cannot simultaneously possess both attributes. Thus the IPU is falsified.

Fair enough, I was under the assumption that the IPU had a harmonization attribute (such as ability to choose to appear as either of the two at any given time, or being beyond logic), but that's not relevant.

(also note that refusing to accept that your deity has been falsified does not change that fact that it has been. One could surely continue to believe in the IPU, despite it being falsified. But this does not change the fact that it has been.)

Ah, but I'm not talking about deities that were falsified, I'm talking about ones that weren't but people claim are falsified.

Oh, but it does. It surely does.

You see, you're only seeing things in terms of "100% true" and "100% false". But this is not how science works. There are degrees of likelihood along the way. There are degrees of certainty with which we make a statement.

If you were looking for the existence of water on other planets than Earth, the results of the first 1000 surely do make an impact on the result of the 1001th.

If you found not a trace of water in 75% of the planets you searched, that says something about the likelihood of there being water on the 1001th planet.

If you would lots of water on 100% of all 1000 planets you've studied, that says something about the likelihood of the 1001!

Now if there have been thousands upon thousands of gods, goddesses, demons, witches, angels, demigods, and deities of many varieties that we today call "ridiculous"... any reasonable person would use this as indication that the gods that just so happen to be popular today are just as likely as the ones that we now call "ridiculous".

Firstly, this isn't science, the scientific method has no commentary on things that are non-falsifiable. Period.

Now then… uh, no.
A philosophy having any effect on the philosophy that is completely contradictory is inane. It's no different than saying that the economic failures of communism somehow illustrates that objectivism and secular humanism are untenable philosophies because they are all non-religious philosophies.

In that sense, it's a failure of categorization, if you want to make generalizations about something within a category, those generalizations have to be directly related to why they are categorized together.

You can't, for example, take the set of prime numbers and because one of them is evenly divisible by 2, say that the entire set, or even assume that there is anything beyond that is divisible by two (the prime number I'm referring to is of course, 2 itself). Of course, that's because the rational for grouping that set of numbers together has nothing to do with being evenly divisible by 2.

It's the same with deities, the rational for grouping them is because they're deities, it has nothing to do with any individual attribute of the deities beyond that fact, and making generalizations based on any other factor is illogical, all you can do is make subsets and make generalizations based on shared attributes that you based the subsets on.

As for water, it suggests that being a planet has something to do with having water, it suggests a union of attributes. The issue is that once you find a planet that doesn't have water, you have to recognize that certain attributes cause planets to have water, and from there, the liklyhood only applies to planets that have those attributes.

You would have a case in that regard if we hadn't already reached that point with deities, but we have, and those attributes include being falsifiable, and have a shared falsifiable attribute that has been falsified.

So, no, you cannot make generalizations about degrees of likelyhood except based on attributes shared in common by the set.

AltF4 · Apr 2, 2009

I dislike posting in the "quote-reply" format. So, I'll just respond normally with what I think is important, rather than chasing every loose end.

Firstly, we have to define very clearly what we're debating about. Are you trying to contend that agnosticism is a rational viewpoint for "deities in general"? In which case, you're going to have to define what "deities" are. You yourself emphasized the importance of maintaining attributes among sets. So what attributes do your deities have in common? How can you clearly define them?

I trust that you will find that this is an impossible task. There is no single classification for deities. They are each completely different. It only makes sense to talk about deities in "broad generalizations" or individually.

But then the topic becomes entirely concerning likelihood and probability. If all you're trying to argue is "Deities in general (whatever that means, it has yet to be defined) could possibly exist, and they could possibly not." Then sure. Of the infinite variety are forms of deities, it is possible that one or more of them exists. Everyone should be willing to concede this point. This is not the central tenant of being an agnostic.

(Though, Huxley would disagree)

Let's split up the topic into the so-called "weak and strong" agnosticism.

Weak merely says that god's existence ("god" being shorthand for "all deities in general") is unknown. Well duh. There is nothing special in this assertion. One could very well be a weak agnostic AND an atheist. Or simultaneously a weak agnostic AND a theist.

So this is a meaningless category.

A "strong" agnostic makes a claim. That claim is that the existence of god is unknowable. Yet there has still been no evidence to support this claim. And no. It does not follow from being unfalsifiable.

Unfalsifiable is the inability to prove something's false-hood.
Unknowable is the inability to prove something's truth.

Now, strictly speaking EVERYTHING is unknowable. But in practice, this isn't true. There is a certain degree of likelihood that we pass, and then conclude that something is "true". That is the "truth" that I am referring to. True in the sense that the sky is blue. Sure it's possible that you've been systematically tricked and deceived your entire life, and the sky is actually green. But this is so unlikely, we just call the sky being blue "fact".

So now. Let's talk of likelihood.

You are missing one main contention with how probability works. The results of one event CAN alter the probability of another completely separate event. It has to do with the problem of incomplete knowledge.

Let's consider coin tosses. Coin tosses are an excellent example of independent trials. One coin toss does not affect the others. Each event is "independent".

Before tossing the coin (suppose that one has never tossed coins before) we do not know the probability of it landing heads or tails. We have NO idea whether is will land heads or tails, nor do we even have any idea about the likelihood of it landing heads or tails. it would be wise to be an "Agnostic" to the first coin toss. For we have no information to base a judgment on.

So we continue to toss coins for a while.

Suppose that after 200 coin tosses, it has only ever landed heads.

This says something very strong about the likelihood of the 201st toss. We must start to conclude that there is something forcing the coin to land on heads, and that the coin will almost surely never land on tails.

But note that each coin toss was an independent event. Each coin toss had a certain probability of being true. But this probability was not known to the experimenter. This probability is being revealed to the experimenter with each coin toss.

You can see the clear analog to that of gods. If someone kept coming to me and saying "Hey, look! Here's this cool god I believe in!" and then it were shown that this god is illogical (IE: falsified) the likelihood of each being true would keep dropping. Even if these gods are completely separate from one another.

It's like the boy who cried wolf. After a while, you stop believing the little boy. (Except, of course, in the story the wolf really did wind up coming!

)

(EDIT: wow, that wound up being a lot of writing!)

Agnosticism: The Philosophical Cop-Out

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Writer of Fortune

Smash Hero

And how!

Writer of Fortune

Smash Hero

And how!

Smash Hero

And how!

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

BRoomer

Smash Lord

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Master

BRoomer

Deleted member

Guest

BRoomer

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Lord

Cognitive Scientist

BRoomer

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Legend

BRoomer

Smash Legend

BRoomer

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Lord

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Hero

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Legend

BRoomer

Information

Network