agnosticism confuses me

[andyandy]

But it's not a neutral question. As Dawkins (him again!) discusses at great length, agnosticism seems to assume that the two propositions - "There is a God" and "There isn't a God" are equally likely"

.

no no no no no no no!

 

[Tricky]

So, every god that has ever been described and every god anyone can imagine has been overwhelmingly shown to be nonexistent but we have no knowledge? That is bizarre.

You have no knowledge of the ones that haven't been described. you probably have no knowledge of some of the ones that have been described but you've never heard of. Somehow I doubt that you are an expert in world religion.

What you are describing is what I call "evidence". For each one that has been described to me, I have fairly good evidence that it doesn't exist, mostly in the form of having nothing verifiable and objective that supports their existence. Sometimes because they contain internal contradictions. That's evidence.

I think your believe is mistaken. Do we not know that 2 + 2 = 4?

I believe you probably missed this too.

Oh yeah, I know we like to round up, so in common speech I will say "we know" and "it is a fact", but if we are being precise, then nothing but mathematical proofs are demonstrable with 100% certainty.

It has even been said (and I can't vouch for the validity, not being a mathematician) that mathematical proofs are nothing but tautologies. They are "proof" because they are defined that way. The "proof" of 2 + 2 = 4 is that 4 -2 = 2. We have precise definitions of most mathematical terms. We do not have precise definitions of all concepts of god. Heck, we can't even get Christians to give us a precise definition of just their one God.

I also think this is not a belief you actually hold. I think this is something you like to argue because, although it is completely unimportant in any meaningful way, it is hard for someone to quickly disprove. If you really did believe it, I would expect that you would do things like drive your car into crowds of children because you "didn't know" it would kill some and injure others. I do not see you drinking drain cleaner because you "didn't know" it was bad for you. I don't see you advocating teenage boys play Russian Roulette because no one "knows" if a bullet in the temple will actually kill them.

Of course I don't believe there is a god. I'm an avowed atheist. I'm also a believer in evidence. I would not drive my car into crowds because I have plenty of evidence that it would hurt and maybe kill them (something I'm averse to).

So stop this silly little straw man. All I have ever said is that we can't know with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. You can't know anything with 100% certainty because in order to do so, you would have to know everything. But if the evidence is good enough, it is reasonable to act based on near (but not absolute) certainty.

But I will still object to anyone who claims absolute certainty of anything, except perhaps logical and mathematical proofs. That is tantamount to saying "there is no evidence which could convince me that I am wrong". Is that the proper stance for an avowed skeptic?

 

[Tricky]

By definition, to know something you do not have to be 100% certain.

What would you say then is the correct percentage of certainty of something in order to claim that you "know" it?

 

[JanisChambers]

Is there really any room for definition when it comes to being agnostic? If you have any set notion of God or Gods then I think you would have to call yourself a theist. The word translates into "without knowledge" so if you claim knowledge of anything in religious context than you are *not* an agnostic.

However... I am not sure if you're still agnostic when you are fairly sure that all existing notions of god are false. "I don't know, but this is unlikely" I am guessing is not %100 agnostic.

 

[JanisChambers]

What would you say then is the correct percentage of certainty of something in order to claim that you "know" it?

Ahh, but remember that theistic 'knowledge' comes in the form of faith.

 

[plindboe]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So if I look through my pocket for money, and I don't find any, that doesn't count for evidence that there are no money in my pocket?

There may be no proof that a god of any sort exists, but there is equally no proof that no gods exist.

Agreed.

Sagan should have used the word "proof", and I would have agreed with this famous quote of his. I adore the guy, and "The demon haunted world", but I think he made a mistake with this quote.

 

[wollery]

So if I look through my pocket for money, and I don't find any, that doesn't count for evidence that there are no money in my pocket?

No, that would be evidence of absence.

 

[plindboe]

So absence of evidence, can be evidence of absence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I feel like I might be reaching into a pool filled with sharks to try and fish out a dime, but here goes.

With all this talk about knowledge and faith.. Is it not possible to be as sure as reasonably possible (to avoid the word 'know') a thing based on different ideas or principles?

I'm reasonably sure that if I drive my car into a group of people it will hurt them because I've seen documented and reviewed reports showing an accident so eerily similar as to be indistinguishable.

I'm reasonably sure that if I drive my car into a group of people it will hurt them because I've been hit by a car and it hurt.

I'm reasonably sure that if I drive my car into a group of people it will hurt them because I've deduced that my car and the people are solid objects, and through other evidence, am reasonably sure that F=ma; that F is enough to hurt people.

I'm reasonably sure that if I drive my car into a group of people it will hurt them because my God told someone not to hurt people and I believe that based solely on faith.

My point being, you can say there's no way to prove God exists or doesn't exist, but by what means? An atheist, sure, would say in no way. A deist, however, would say through philosophical argument and no other. A believer in religion would say through faith alone. I would think that agnosticism needs reference and gives rise to the idea of a 'strong' or 'weak' agnosticism.

One agnostic may say that he or she doesn't believe God can be proven or disproved by way of philosophical argument; both sides of the argument present equally good and/or bad proof (in that sense). They may also in the same breath say that they believe God's existence can't be proved through physical evidence; there's nothing on Earth or elsewhere that proves God exists.

Another may say that there is nothing in any realm of learning (say, experience, reason, collected studies of others, faith) that can prove or disprove the existence of God.

I'd say both are "agnostic" but they clearly have different (if just on certain points) beliefs; there's other possibilities but I think I've run on too long already.

 

[Darat]

So absence of evidence, can be evidence of absence.

Yes - Am I missing something in that you seem surprised by that?

In the example above the claim would be "I have money in my pocket", since "pocket" can be defined we only have to examine that one pocket and if there is no money in it can conclude from that "absence of evidence" that the claim was wrong. However if the claim was "a pocket has money in it" and we examine just one pocket we can't use that to conclusively say "no pockets contain money".

 

[wollery]

So absence of evidence, can be evidence of absence.

You know exactly what money looks and feels like, so you know exactly what you are looking for when you search your pockets. Therefore searching your pockets and finding no money is evidence that there is no money in your pockets. Thus it is evidence of absence.

 

[Jekyll]

I think your believe is mistaken. Do we not know that 2 + 2 = 4?

No, we don't. We could all be nuts and hideously wrong about this. We can not even be certain about mathematical proofs, as we could be relying on false inferences. But we haven't stumbled across any contradictions recently.

In this case, absence of evidence is evidence (but not proof) of absence.

 

[plindboe]

Yes - Am I missing something in that you seem surprised by that?

In the example above the claim would be "I have money in my pocket", since "pocket" can be defined we only have to examine that one pocket and if there is no money in it can conclude from that "absence of evidence" that the claim was wrong. However if the claim was "a pocket has money in it" and we examine just one pocket we can't use that to conclusively say "no pockets contain money".

I'm not surprised. Just wanted to point out that Sagan's quote isn't some universal scientific law without exceptions. Now that we agree that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence in certain cases, we can begin discussing whether the absence of evidence of God/gods should count as evidence.

Regarding the money, it could be magical money. They will seem to disappear every time a hand approaches. Wouldn't rationalisations like these be evidence of absence?

 

[Darat]

I'm not surprised. Just wanted to point out that Sagan's quote isn't some universal scientific law without exceptions. Now that we agree that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence in certain cases, we can begin discussing whether the absence of evidence of God/gods should count as evidence.

Regarding the money, it could be magical money. They will seem to disappear every time a hand approaches. Wouldn't rationalisations like these be evidence of absence?

It all just falls back onto definitions and how you define stuff. So if you define money as being "something that can disappear when your hand approaches it" then the lack of money no longer becomes "evidence" that there is no money in the pocket.

Similarly with God depending how you define him/her/it/them/whatever.

 

[Tricky]

Ahh, but remember that theistic 'knowledge' comes in the form of faith.

LOL. Yes I do remember that. If I were arguing with a theist, that would be an insurmountable obstacle to my point about knowledge. But since most of the people I'm disagreeing with here are atheists, I'm sure that they would object strongly to the suggestion that their "knowledge" required faith.

And welcome to the forum, BTW.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"there is a god , no there isn't"
are you saying both statements have the burden of evidence

 

[plindboe]

It all just falls back onto definitions and how you define stuff. So if you define money as being "something that can disappear when your hand approaches it" then the lack of money no longer becomes "evidence" that there is no money in the pocket.

Similarly with God depending how you define him/her/it/them/whatever.

God started out quite human(we were created in his image) and according to the texts, he produced several quite real and measurable effects, a world wide flood for instance. But as science progressed God got pushed into gaps more and more narrow.

It's just as easy to do this with the money, or the famous dragon. We start out with a claim that seems quite detectable, but every time it's not detected, we come up with an excuse/rationalization. If the claimers continously do this, I consider it pretty damning evidence that the original claim was false. Of course it's never proof, but with the proper understanding of what the word 'evidence' actually means, it is rather damning evidence.

Don't mistake me for another thaiboxerken. Even though I consider myself a hard atheist, I'm quite open to the possibility that my belief could be wrong, and I truly can see no difference between him and the various faith fanatics out there.

 

[hammegk]

What should be the most confusing thing about agnosticism for you wannabe materialists/naturalists/whatever is that, in the naive view, it presupposes illogical dualism.

An objective idealist has no logical problem accepting it as part of his philosophy, but the only logical position a materialist/naturalist/whatever can take is "god does not, cannot, exist".

Or, someone could provide an alternative option as requested in my signature.

 

[sesshin]

So, why is it that you don't care?

I've never had the need to care.

Are the implications of the issue not important to you? With religions causing so much harm in the world and if there are no gods, are you justified in not caring?

I think you misunderstood me. The implications of god existing or not existing isn't important to me personally, in that I don't need to reference god to define my moral code, but of course I care about harm that is done in the world. I don't want to see anyone suffer and I try to help people whenever I can. I don't really see why I should have to have a belief or disbelief about god in order to do that though.

 

[sesshin]

I don't think ANYONE has ever included the concept of caring in the debate about what agnoticism/atheism mean. It's just irrelevant.

Thats not necessarily true. Not caring is a qualifier to not knowing. For example if two people are arguing about whether pink unicorns exist or not and they ask me my opinion I would simply say "I don't know and I don't care" and walk away. The idea of god has the same level of importance to me as the idea of pink unicorns, which is none. I choose not to debate it.

Now from that don't assume I don't care about anything like someone else has said. I have been an active social activist for years now and my indifference towards god hasn't hindered me in the slightest bit. I find you can make just as big of a difference in the world without having to believe in god one way or another.