In my post #280, I had clearly shown you, via evidence clearly demonstrated, how
(a) You were mistaken in your initial interpretation of Huxley’s Agnosticism.
(…) It is you who started out quoting Huxley’s definition, and claiming primacy for his definition of that word by weight of his “semantic authority” and even his “copyright”.
No. I repeat: I accept only Huxley’s definition of agnosticism included in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Summarizing: Agnosticism is the philosophical and religious attitude of those who claim that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. Huxley wrote, “I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man.” (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).
You insist on including Huxley’s scientism/positivism in the definition. I disagree. Huxley positivism is the basis of Huxley’s agnosticism not a definitional characteristic of the word. If you include positivism as a feature of “agnosticism” you need invent another word to those that neither affirm nor deny that God exists but are not positivist. This is unnecessary and confusing, because these people are also usually called “agnostic”. In philosophy, at least. I have not seen your answer to this objection in you long comment. Perhaps I have lost it. You write too much.
I’m saying that the Agnostic’s declaration that he will not have faith in that which is not backed by evidence is not a claim per se. It is simply a declaration of intent. As such, there is no question of backing it up, with evidence or otherwise, unlike a “claim”.
You know : like if I say “I will not steal”, that declaration of intent needs no ‘backing up’. (...)
You appreciate this, right?
Absolutely not. We are not speaking of moral intentions of an individual. We are speaking of how to know. This is the classical difference between practical rules and rules of knowledge. The burden of proof is not a practical rule but a condition for knowledge of truth. In this case, God’s existence. Moral purposes need no prior demonstration. Truth claims, yes.
With respect, I repeat that this remains a non sequitur. To use what appears to me a pertinent analogy : There are creationists who consider themselves scientists, and who imagine that their creationist ideas are fully backed by “science” ; and yet, a criticism of creationism cannot in any way or form be considered to be a criticism of science itself, can it? Similarly, a discussion of fideism remains just that, a discussion of fideism : it is not, and cannot be considered to be, a critique or a discussion of agnositicism.
Nobody has suggested that a criticism against “agnostic” fideism would be a criticism against “agnosticism” as a whole. I never spoke of criticism but definitions only. In any case, the criticism against fideism would affect this particular kind of agnosticism, not Huxley’s agnosticism which is very different as I have explained in my previous comment. A criticism against Lance Amstrong is not a criticism against Jacques Anquetil.
NOTE: I put into quotation marks “agnostic” fideist because it is a forced use of the word and needs some precisions. I think you had see.
If you claim that black holes exist, then you will be called upon to give evidence for it. (Evidence by way of direct observation, and if not that, then at least reasoning backed by math to show that it is at least possible and perhaps probable.) But equally, if you were to stand up and declare that there are no black holes, declare that black holes do not exist : even then, you will be required to back your declaration up with evidence and/or reasoning (and math). (...)
To use another analogy : If you claim that pocket universes exist, then you will be required to show evidence (or at least, to show your reasoning and your math to back up your claim that such may be possible/probable). On the other hand, if you declare that there are no pocket universes at all, then absolutely, you will be required to show evidence for your declaration, by way of either direct observation (or, lacking that, at least by way of reasoning and math to show that what you are saying carries weight).
The example of black holes is not correct. If some scientist has a scientific theory about black holes, he would need some evidence about the existence of black holes and this evidence would be debatable in terms of scientific theories. Even as a hypothesis there will be some arguments to present. A scientist never would affirm that cosmic unicorns exist and then claim: “Prove that cosmic unicorns don’t exist”. He would be the laughingstock of his colleagues.
You can test this right now by starting fresh threads declaring that “Black holes do not exist”, or that “Pocket universes do not exist”. (...)
Why on earth would the same standards not apply to your pink dragons? Or to Gods? Why on earth this special pleading for pink dragons and Gods?
I have no idea of what is a “pocket universe” but if this is a debatable thing I suppose that someone has presented it in such a way that we can know where is a “pocket universe” and what is doing. If this is not the case I would say that it is a big silly thing. And the same is valid for gods and pink dragons. Unless we are speaking of a Sci-Fi novel, of course.
