What's wrong with saying "we don't know"?

[Frozenwolf150]

Of course you are claiming to know. You are claiming to know tat such a being doesn't exist. Do you realize the significance of what you are saying? You are saying that you know for a certainty that no matter what the vastness real nature of our universe or of ultimate reality might be-even if it composed of infinite dimensions as some physicists postulate,
or an infinite number of multi universes which some astronomers such as Carl Sagan have speculated, that in all this vastness where our laws might not apply, that YOU know there isn't somewhere even the slightest possibility of a being we call God.

Do you realize how unscientific and illogical that sounds?

Sorry, but this 'hidden God' apologetic still doesn't work. A god by definition is a worshiped being, and all conceptions of gods that humans have ever worshiped have interacted with humans and been involved in human affairs in some shape or form. A being hiding from us in a remote corner of space, on the opposite side of the universe, or in a different dimension, cannot be a god at all. It would simply be an alien. It isn't interacting with humans in any meaningful way, it's not receiving our prayers and sacrifices, and it's in no way involved in human affairs.

Also, it's been said repeatedly, but an atheist is not one who asserts that no gods exist. An atheist is one who says that, given the lack of evidence for gods, it's reasonable to disbelieve in them. The atheist stance is not certainty but probability, to put it another way.

 

[ntropy]

Atheists [that I've met] avoid the I don't know, response when faced with the patently unknown because they see such an admission as a defeat. You see, if they admit ignorance about things beyond what science can know, then they feel that they have admitted to the possibility of [insert favorite God(s) here].

Fixed.

 

[Faithkills]

Well, here is what is wrong with it from the atheist side:

Atheists avoid the I don't know, response when faced with the patently unknown because they see such an admission as a defeat.

I don't know about that.

Yet you seem to.

Lacking evidence, I don't know what created the universe.

Lacking evidence, you seem to know.

 

[ttch]

Returning more or less to the OP's post, when I'm asked questions (e.g.) about the origin of the universe, and I give my uncertain understanding of the popular science view of how it happened, usually at some point I do have to admit, "I don't know."

Your uncompromising theist friend may smile and say, "Yes, that is where God comes in."

The proper question to ask now is, "So, how did He do it?"

Your friend may then proceed with stock answers like, "He spoke a Word," or "He moved His mighty Hand," and you could quibble there, but keep on, asking, "Well, exactly how does that work?"

Don't stop. At some point your friend, too, will have to finally admit, "I don't know."

Saying, "God did it," simply doesn't answer the question.

You don't know, and your friend doesn't know either. Adding God to the equation just adds a mystery to a mystery and leaves one as ignorant as before.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Not true. If you ask someone if god exists and they respond "I don't know", they are an atheist. They don't believe. But they are not claiming god doesn't exist either.

Well by your own personal definition that may be true but the term refers to the positive view that there is no god/gods:

a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

What you're describing is this:

ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

If you have your own personal definition thats cool -- but it doesn't rewrite the english language.

You can't hold a negative belief about something.

I think you just posted one

By your definition, every being on the planet is required to be agnostic. And by your definition, I completely agree with ignosticism.

Its the most logical position, imo, but I think we can agree that most people aren't very logical.

Fine, let's go with this definition for now.

I believe that God/gods do not exist, therefore by your definition I am an atheist. I also know that I could be wrong about that, so by your definition I am an agnostic. Which am I? Both? Neither?

As with most things in life its a spectrum. You are an agnostic that leans heavily towards atheism.

Maybe we can sit down and devise a system in an attempt to quantify it?

 

[Irony]

If you have your own personal definition thats cool -- but it doesn't rewrite the english language.

If it were his "own personal" definition you might have a point, but given that it is the definition commonly used by a population it very much does rewrite the English language. You see, in any living language the meaning of a word is defined by it's usage. The fact that a large number of atheists define the word as a lack of belief rather than a active disbelief means that the word can be defined as such. The failure of the dictionary to note this definition is a failure of the dictionary, not of atheists in general.

If you wish to make the point that many self-described atheists do not qualify as atheists by a definition that is not the one that they are actually using, that's perfectly valid (although meaningless and needlessly confusing) point. It doesn't, however, change the fact that they are atheists by their definition.

 

[Radrook]

Akumanimani
If you have your own personal definition that's cool -- but it doesn't rewrite the English language.

Very true! Thanx for setting things straight as to definitions. It makes discussion much easier.

Originally Posted by Myshkin
Fine, let's go with this definition for now.

I believe that God/gods do not exist, therefore by your definition I am an atheist. I also know that I could be wrong about that, so by your definition I am an agnostic. Which am I? Both? Neither?

Suppose I said this:

I believe that evolution is not true, therefore by your definition I am not an evolutionist. I also know that I could be wrong about evolution, so by your definition I am an evolutionist? Which am I? Both? Neither?

In other words my I believe is canceled by my I am not sure. So the I am not sure predominates. Which means maybe yes or maybe no. Which amounts to no opinion at all. Which in my case would make me neither an evolutionist or a non-evolutionist but would leave me in a limbo. In reference the atheism it means you are neither atheist or theist. I would say an agnostic is the fitting term.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If it were his "own personal" definition you might have a point, but given that it is the definition commonly used by a population it very much does rewrite the English language. You see, in any living language the meaning of a word is defined by it's usage. The fact that a large number of atheists define the word as a lack of belief rather than a active disbelief means that the word can be defined as such. The failure of the dictionary to note this definition is a failure of the dictionary, not of atheists in general.

If you wish to make the point that many self-described atheists do not qualify as atheists by a definition that is not the one that they are actually using, that's perfectly valid (although meaningless and needlessly confusing) point. It doesn't, however, change the fact that they are atheists by their definition.

Okay, so far I count two in your "population". All the atheists *I* know don't believe in god and will debate vigorously that he/she/it/whatever does not exists. To hold a belief yet pay lip service to the possibility of it being incorrect is not the same as holding an agnostic position. Sure, any reasonable person will change their belief on something if faced with enough evidence that contradicts it. Being agnostic means that the only thing you're certain of on a particular subject is your ignorance concerning it. [the root meaning of the word itself is "not known"]

I believe that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old but I recognize that I could be incorrect and that by some remote chance geologists somehow managed to get it all wrong and the earth is far older/younger. But my position is not agnostic concerning the age of the earth because the weight of my belief in it having that age is much greater than my uncertainty.

I believe that the earth is round but I recognize that there is some cosmically remote chance that all I've been taught was a hoax of mammoth proportions, that satellite images of earth are doctored movie magic, and that the Flat-earthers were right all along. Being that my belief that it is, in fact, round is vastly stronger than my doubts to the contrary then my position is not agnostic.

If a person is uncertain of the existence of deities [which would include doubtful religious people or the average joe/jane who prefers not to think about such things] then they are agnostic. If a person believes that there is no god strongly enough to consistently argue that position then they are atheist.

 

[Radrook]

True, and that is exactly the kind of atheist that I have been referring to, a totally convinced one. And it is that total conviction that is not scientifically nor logically justifiable since it presumes to know what science doesn't claim to know nor can it offer a good premise to justify that presumptuous conclusion.

BTW

The statement was not one of paying mere lip service. It was a statement of uncertainty. Concluding that it amounts to the payment of lip service is an added thought which justifies everything that follows it. In short, there is nothing which indicates degree of doubt. Degree of doubt isn't a factor which would affect the uncertainty since the uncertainty would remain and that would make the person an agnostic regardless of degree of doubt. That is of course if we are to remain within the strict definition of agnostic as one who doesn't know one way or the other. Now, if we make our own definitions then anything goes I suppose.

excerpt

What Is an agnostic?

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

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

Bolding mine

 

[Mobyseven]

Paging Mobyseven. Mobyseven, agnostic clean-up on aisle 4.

Dammit...why do the useful meanings always have to die on my shift?

I think I'm going to start numbering the most common errors I see around the shop. And believe me, the idea that agnosticism is some kind of magical middle ground between theism and atheism is gonig to be #1.

 

[Mobyseven]

Also, it's been said repeatedly, but an atheist is not one who asserts that no gods exist. An atheist is one who says that, given the lack of evidence for gods, it's reasonable to disbelieve in them. The atheist stance is not certainty but probability, to put it another way.

To be fair, there are two types of atheist:

(1) Those who assert that they know there is no god; and

(2) Those who simply do not believe in god.

Type (1) are gnostic atheists - those who claim to know there is no god. Type (2) are agnostic atheists - those who do not claim to know there is no god, but who do not believe in one.

So a person who says, "I know with 100% certainty that there is no god," is as much an atheist as the person who says, "I don't know with certainty, but until there is any evidence of god I will not believe in it." Agnostic atheists are certainly the majority on these forums, and I would hazard a guess that they are probably the majority in general.

 

[Mobyseven]

Eek, double post. Watch me do a merry jig for you all to repent.

*Mobyseven dances a merry jig*

Right, goodo then. Now, for those who are still unsure, go and learn the damn definitions of 'atheist', 'theist', 'gnostic' and 'agnostic', and stop acting like there is some continuum of atheist-->agnostic-->theist.

That is all.

 

[Gate2501]

Suppose I said this:

I believe that evolution is not true, therefore by your definition I am not an evolutionist. I also know that I could be wrong about evolution, so by your definition I am an evolutionist? Which am I? Both? Neither?

In other words my I believe is canceled by my I am not sure. So the I am not sure predominates. Which means maybe yes or maybe no. Which amounts to no opinion at all. Which in my case would make me neither an evolutionist or a non-evolutionist but would leave me in a limbo. In reference the atheism it means you are neither atheist or theist. I would say an agnostic is the fitting term.

I would say that when most atheists say that it is 'possible' that they are wrong about there not being a god or gods, they are referring to a 1 in **insert the number of possible imaginable (and perhaps unimaginable) deity systems here** chance, that there actually would be some form of god.

I would also like to remind you, that this list includes the giant elephant god with sasquatch feet, dual wielding lightsabers whilst riding in his pimped out chariot on the far edges of the universe.

I would say that my admitting the possibility that there could possibly be any form of god does not make me agnostic. Because I know that the possibility is so low, that it is effectively zero.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I would also like to remind you, that this list includes the giant elephant god with sasquatch feet, dual wielding lightsabers whilst riding in his pimped out chariot on the far edges of the universe...

Oh, wow, that's the kind of god thing I could get into. Not these boring gods who slap down these pissy commandments about having to poke your brother's widow and not eat lobsters simultaneously. If that giant elephant god is Trantor The Mighty, I'm ready to join up and smite the unbelievers if He gives me a few of those lightsabers.

 

[Radrook]

I would say that when most atheists say that it is 'possible' that they are wrong about there not being a god or gods, they are referring to a 1 in **insert the number of possible imaginable (and perhaps unimaginable) deity systems here** chance, that there actually would be some form of god. I would also like to remind you, that this list includes the giant elephant god with sasquatch feet, dual wielding lightsabers whilst riding in his pimped out chariot on the far edges of the universe. I would say that my admitting the possibility that there could possibly be any form of god does not make me agnostic. Because I know that the possibility is so low, that it is effectively zero.

But the definition of "atheist" as being a non believer in God or gods doesn't allow that admission of a possibility. That admission shows that we aren't sure of our first atheistic claim. In short it is tantamount to saying we don;t know. Which is exactly what an agnostic would say.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yes, sure. Tantor the Mighty is possible. About as possible as whatever you worship.

 

[bokonon]

Neither is there a reason to claim that you know what lies beyond the reach of science and yet that is exactly what atheists presumpuously and unscientifically do.

I thought that's what the theists with their "God of the gaps" myths did.

"Science doesn't know so presoompahpah it's God."

Could be shoemaker's elves riding invisible pink unicorns for all science or atheists say about it, but the theists insist god's in every nook and cranny.

Presumpompously and unscientifically.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I thought that's what the theists with their "God of the gaps" myths did.

"Science doesn't know so presoompahpah it's God."

Could be shoemaker's elves riding invisible pink unicorns for all science or atheists say about it, but the theists insist god's in every nook and cranny.

Well if "God" is "omnipresent", as many theists believe, then that would be literally true.

Acts 17:27-28

That they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might search for him by reaching out, and perceive him, though he is not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and are (i.e., exist, or have our being); as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

By this rather broad defining, the universe would be made of "God" -- an all encompassing field from which all things arise. In which case, there would be no real need to ascribe the anthropomorphic qualities to it that theists often do.

 

[Complexity]

I don't know whether leprechauns exist.

I find that life is better and less silly if I behave as though they don't.

I find that describing myself as a leprechaun-agnostic doesn't really capture the extent to which I find belief in them to be unfounded and without evidenciary support, not to mention silly and unnecessary.

Describing myself as a leprechaun-atheist, while not completely accurate, conveys my thoughts on the matter better than does leprechaun-agnostic, and suggests the lack of impact that the concept will have on my life and the disdain with which I will treat the belief in others.

And I find leprechauns to be much more plausible than any god.

 

[Radrook]

Sorry, but this 'hidden God' apologetic still doesn't work. A god by definition is a worshiped being, and all conceptions of gods that humans have ever worshiped have interacted with humans and been involved in human affairs in some shape or form. A being hiding from us in a remote corner of space, on the opposite side of the universe, or in a different dimension, cannot be a god at all. It would simply be an alien. It isn't interacting with humans in any meaningful way, it's not receiving our prayers and sacrifices, and it's in no way involved in human affairs.

Also, it's been said repeatedly, but an atheist is not one who asserts that no gods exist. An atheist is one who says that, given the lack of evidence for gods, it's reasonable to disbelieve in them. The atheist stance is not certainty but probability, to put it another way.

An atheist is a person who rejects the idea that God does or can exist. I have never heard a definition of atheist which allows for the minute probability of God existing you mention. But let's continue along that probability line. You say atheists conclude that the probability is so low that it is tantamount to being impossible. but you see, that's just the problem. Atheists are concluding based on the experiences they garnered through their senses in this microscopic part of the universe and want to extrapolate it to all reality. That constitutes a generalization based on scanty and unrepresentative evidence. You cannot extrapolate your conclusions into areas which you know nothing about.

For example, astronomers tell us that our detectable or visible universe is a very likely a small part of the whole which lies beyond our detection. You ignore this and say that your statistical conclusions reached here can be applied there. But you know absolutely nothing about what's over there. So how much credit can be placed in such an estimate? I would say zilch since there is absolutely no reason to have confidence in such an estimate.

Actually, what I see you doing is putting your skepticism on hold when convenient to and reactivating it when convenient. Which is fallacious reasoning by virtue of inconsistency. So since that's the case and since it will continue to be the case regardless of any argument proposed, it's best that we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

BTW
Several years ago an atheist on this religious forum site told me that the reason he refused all logic was because it was his duty to oppose religion at any all cost. This is the general impression I get and which seems to be the modus operandi of the so-called skeptics here on this so called religious board.