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

[Ichneumonwasp]

I see theism/atheism as another epistemological position because, as I've said, it depends on how one defines the deity or deities in question, so perhaps that's the source of the disconnect.

I think Moby is correct about the basic distinction, though. Theism/atheism really is an ontological position. One may be agnostic about one's ontological posisiton, but God, if anything, is intimately tied to if not coequal with Being.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I see.

Dangerous.

Yeah, well, humans......can't live 'em, can't (you know the rest).

 

[Frozenwolf150]

That had occurred to me last night. While agnostic may not fall on a continuum between atheist and theist, that doesn't mean there is no such continuum. In fact, instead of using a black and white model for either theism or gnosticism, I would propose something more like a coordinate plane. I've seen this model used to categorize people by political spectrum, with liberal-conservative being the X axis, and libertarian-authoritarian being the Y axis. An individual would be represented by a point on the plane, rather than a point on a line.

What if we make atheism-theism the X axis and agnostic-gnostic the Y axis? That would allow for varying degrees depending on people's individual beliefs, and it would (hopefully) encompass other categorizations, although I'm not quite sure where they would go. Here's a crude labeling I just came up with:

 

[slingblade]

Then I'm a (-4, -4).

I really don't know, but I really think not.

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

What if you're a red dot?

 

[bokonon]

If I understand his position correctly, Moby7 wouldn't be happy with your quadrants, because it still posits a continuum between theism and atheism. It seems to me that he considers these as clear and distinct positions, such that if you're not a theist, you're an atheist.

To me, we're still discussing beliefs here, and I don't see them as clear-cut in all cases. If you're a juror on a trial, you have to vote "guilty" or "not guilty," but that doesn't necessarily say everything there is to say about your belief in the defendant's guilt or innocence. Ultimately, your vote for guilt or innocence will come down to your true personal feelings about the defendant's guilt or innocence along your own internal continuum, plus your personal opinion about where the threshold needs to be. If the judge has instructed you that you're only to vote guilty if you believe guilt has been established "beyond a reasonable doubt," you will have a higher threshold than you'd have if the standard was "based on a preponderance of the evidence."

I think Moby7 just wants to get everybody off of the fence in a similar question about atheism or theism, but I personally don't see it as necessary. I see the degrees of certainty or doubt being an intrinsic part of the atheist/theist question.

Somebody in one of the nearby related threads used the term "apatheist," as one who doesn't really care enough to stake out a position one way or the other. I don't think Moby7 will be any happier with that, because (again, if I've correctly understood his position) I don't think he acknowledges the possibility of any middle ground between atheist and theist. You're either one or the other, so flip a coin and call it.

To me, that's like insisting that these letters are either black or they aren't. If I say they are, and you show me something that's even darker made out of combed carbon nanotubes or whatever, do I say, "That's blacker," or "That's black too"? I think belief is analog, not digital, and unbundling certainty and doubt may seem to clarify someone's position, but in most cases I think it's only the illusion of clarity.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If I understand his position correctly, Moby7 wouldn't be happy with your quadrants, because it still posits a continuum between theism and atheism. It seems to me that he considers these as clear and distinct positions, such that if you're not a theist, you're an atheist.

To me, we're still discussing beliefs here, and I don't see them as clear-cut in all cases. If you're a juror on a trial, you have to vote "guilty" or "not guilty," but that doesn't necessarily say everything there is to say about your belief in the defendant's guilt or innocence. Ultimately, your vote for guilt or innocence will come down to your true personal feelings about the defendant's guilt or innocence along your own internal continuum, plus your personal opinion about where the threshold needs to be. If the judge has instructed you that you're only to vote guilty if you believe guilt has been established "beyond a reasonable doubt," you will have a higher threshold than you'd have if the standard was "based on a preponderance of the evidence."

I think Moby7 just wants to get everybody off of the fence in a similar question about atheism or theism, but I personally don't see it as necessary. I see the degrees of certainty or doubt being an intrinsic part of the atheist/theist question.

Somebody in one of the nearby related threads used the term "apatheist," as one who doesn't really care enough to stake out a position one way or the other. I don't think Moby7 will be any happier with that, because (again, if I've correctly understood his position) I don't think he acknowledges the possibility of any middle ground between atheist and theist. You're either one or the other, so flip a coin and call it.

To me, that's like insisting that these letters are either black or they aren't. If I say they are, and you show me something that's even darker made out of combed carbon nanotubes or whatever, do I say, "That's blacker," or "That's black too"? I think belief is analog, not digital, and unbundling certainty and doubt may seem to clarify someone's position, but in most cases I think it's only the illusion of clarity.

What about this proposition.......really there are only two possibilities - yes to god, no to god.

But there are untold gods. To hold a position -- yes or no -- we need each god to be defined. It is certainly possible to be an atheist for most gods but to hold onto a potential belief in one god, defined in a way that is appealing to you.

Taking an agnostic position makes sense in regards to the ultimate decision about some gods, but not others. There is one definition of god that I am willing to believe in, so I don't count myself an atheist for all versions of god. But that doesn't amount to much.

 

[Mobyseven]

That had occurred to me last night. While agnostic may not fall on a continuum between atheist and theist, that doesn't mean there is no such continuum. In fact, instead of using a black and white model for either theism or gnosticism, I would propose something more like a coordinate plane. I've seen this model used to categorize people by political spectrum, with liberal-conservative being the X axis, and libertarian-authoritarian being the Y axis. An individual would be represented by a point on the plane, rather than a point on a line.

What if we make atheism-theism the X axis and agnostic-gnostic the Y axis? That would allow for varying degrees depending on people's individual beliefs, and it would (hopefully) encompass other categorizations, although I'm not quite sure where they would go. Here's a crude labeling I just came up with:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2190347b5ef5e6c753.jpg[/qimg]

While it's an interesting idea, it still doesn't really make sense. As much as there are a number of false dichotomies in the world, this is not one of them - if one believes in god, then they are a theist (in the general sense of the word by the way - encompassing deists and anyone else who holds a belief in some kind of supernatural god, as opposed to the specific term often used to describe belief in a personal god), and if one does not believe in god, they are an atheist.

Where there is room for some kind of a scale is on the agnostic/gnostic axis - what varies is not the truth value of the belief itself (one either believes in something or they do not), but the certainty of that belief. One may be an agnostic who believes that it is possible to know the truth but that we simply don't yet, whereas another person could be an agnostic who believes that it is impossible for us to ever know the truth.

However, when discussing belief there are only two options. Either one believes, or one doesn't - this is inescapable by the very definition of the problem. I have often encountered people who claim agnosticism because they don't feel that they can really know one way or the other. Such people are so close to answering the question sensibly - indeed, they have even recognised that agnosticism is an epistemological position. They just haven't complemented that position (on what they think they can know) with their ontological position (on what they believe).

Knowledge and belief. Two separate, but closely related, problems that people all too often fail to separate out.

 

[Beth]

Hmmm. Since I'm at the (0, -4) position, at least today, I really feel agnostic is the best term to describe my belief/lack of belief. I like the analog scale, but really a single point isn't enough. What I need to do is plot a cloud that covers all the places I slide around on that graph. My 'beliefs', such as they are, over the course of my life have been almost everywhere on the map excepting the (-4, 4) position.

People's beliefs often change over time. A dot really only gives you a snapshop of where you are now.

 

[Mobyseven]

Your saying that using "agnostic" as a synonym for "undecided" is the same as saying "I pee freely" doesn't make it so. Maybe instead of getting your knickers in a knot, you could just mentally substitute your word of choice for "agnostic" when it is used in a way you deem inappropriate.

I know it doesn't make it so. That's why I also gave the logical explanation that demonstates such a position is a contradiction. If you're not going to bother actually addressing my arguments, don't bother replying - I can get hot air from my car's air conditioning system.

And (this is another point of mine you seem to have missed), I can't just substitute my word of choice for 'agnostic' when it is used inappropriately, because the inappropriate use of the word means that I can't be sure what meaning I am supposed to assign to it.

If I ask you, "Do you like to eat chicken?" but also inform you that 'chicken' does not mean 'the species Gallus gallus domesticus', what is your answer? Such is the reason I can't just mentally substitute different definitions in when 'agnostic' is used incorrectly.

I think Moby7 just wants to get everybody off of the fence in a similar question about atheism or theism, but I personally don't see it as necessary. I see the degrees of certainty or doubt being an intrinsic part of the atheist/theist question.

This isn't a matter of people getting off the fence, this is a matter of realising that 'on the fence' isn't actually a position in the first place. I don't really care what people think privately, but if anybody wants to have a meaningful discussion then it is important that the terms used in the discussion are defined and have non-nonsense meanings. In the case of 'agnostic' we have a word with a useful definition being hijacked and given a nonsense meaning. You can't have a meaningful discussion about a subject when one side is continually asserting the truth of a logical contradiction any more than you can have a meaningful discussion with a man wearing underwear on his head who can only say the word 'banana'.

Also, I also see degrees of certainty and doubt being an intrinsic part of the atheist/theist question. But one can only have a degree of certainty in relation to a belief. The certainty or doubt does not change the value of the actual belief, instead it is a measure of how strongly that belief is held - it is far more closely related to the epistemological question of agnosticism/gnosticism than it is to the ontological question of god's existence. If I am (to pull a figure out of thin air) 75% sure of the existence of god, does it mean that I am 25% sure of the non-existence of god? No, because such a position would be nonsensical - I would be holding two contradictory viewpoints as both being true, just with different degrees of certainty. Being 75% sure of the existence of god simply means that there is a measure of doubt in my belief in god. That I would still hold a belief in god would make me a theist.

 

[Olowkow]

What if you're a red dot?

Then you're a politician.

 

[bokonon]

I can't just substitute my word of choice for 'agnostic' when it is used inappropriately, because the inappropriate use of the word means that I can't be sure what meaning I am supposed to assign to it.

When I use the word in relation to myself, you can assign it the meaning of "somewhere outside (since you're so uncomfortable with 'between') the categories of atheist and theist."

For others, I guess you could always ask, but I don't think you'd be far wrong in assuming the meaning I just gave. It seems to be what most people mean when they use the term.

This isn't a matter of people getting off the fence, this is a matter of realising that 'on the fence' isn't actually a position in the first place. I don't really care what people think privately, but if anybody wants to have a meaningful discussion then it is important that the terms used in the discussion are defined and have non-nonsense meanings. In the case of 'agnostic' we have a word with a useful definition being hijacked and given a nonsense meaning.

I think you're the one who's trying to hijack it. Every dictionary I've checked lists the word as a noun, but you're insisting it's only meaningful as an adjective. Thomas H. Huxley, the man who coined the term, reportedly

came up with the word ‘agnostic’ while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself “an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian…” and while he had much in common with freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately.

I also see degrees of certainty and doubt being an intrinsic part of the atheist/theist question. But one can only have a degree of certainty in relation to a belief.

And since there is an infinite number of beliefs, and I can't be bothered to enumerate them all, much less weigh each one for truth, I adopt the convenient shorthand of calling myself "agnostic" on the question of god. Chances are, for every definition of "god" you'd care to throw out, I could tell you I don't believe in that. I do kind of like pantheism, not because I think there is a "spirit" in all of nature, but because my idea of the creator of the universe is the universe itself. I doubt that's a valid use of the word "pantheism" either, and I think calling myself a theist on that basis would be even more confusing than using the commonly accepted and widely understood "agnostic."

 

[Beth]

And since there is an infinite number of beliefs, and I can't be bothered to enumerate them all, much less weigh each one for truth, I adopt the convenient shorthand of calling myself "agnostic" on the question of god. Chances are, for every definition of "god" you'd care to throw out, I could tell you I don't believe in that. I do kind of like pantheism, not because I think there is a "spirit" in all of nature, but because my idea of the creator of the universe is the universe itself. I doubt that's a valid use of the word "pantheism" either, and I think calling myself a theist on that basis would be even more confusing than using the commonly accepted and widely understood "agnostic."

That's not too far off my own vague conceptions of what qualify for the title 'god' and still be plausible. But I can't actually say for certain that I'm not a panthiest because my understanding of the term is rather fuzzy, so it's possibly a decent description. At any rate, it's always nice to hear that I'm not entirely off the map even if I am close to the edge.

 

[Apology]

I don't know why atheists and theists alike despise the answer, "I don't know". I don't know why I keep saying "I don't know", except if I claimed I did know, then I'd be lying, and I don't know much but I'm pretty sure lying is bad no matter whether you're a theist or an atheist.

 

[Mobyseven]

When I use the word in relation to myself, you can assign it the meaning of "somewhere outside (since you're so uncomfortable with 'between') the categories of atheist and theist."

It doesn't change anything. You're still claiming a position that is logically contradictory, because you're still claiming ~(p v ~p). I don't see why you're having so much trouble with this - if you don't believe in 'x', then you don't believe in 'x'. p --> p. A theist is one who believes in god, and an atheist is one who does not believe in god. If you are not a theist, then you don't believe in god. Therefore, you don't believe in god. It puzzles me that I have to explain this at such a basic level, because really, it's quite simple.

The test is very simple. If you cannot truthfully assert, "I believe in god," then you are an atheist. That's it! Really! There is absolutely no effort involved in not believing something, and indeed I go about every day not believing in billions of things.

To repeat: Simply changing 'between' to 'somewhere outside of' does not deal with the problem of asserting a logical contradiction.

For others, I guess you could always ask, but I don't think you'd be far wrong in assuming the meaning I just gave. It seems to be what most people mean when they use the term.

Perhaps it is, but it doesn't change the fact that, if that is how they are using the term, they are asserting the truth of a logical contradiction. How am I supposed to have a meaningful discussion with a person who is using nonsense definitions? Just because people use the word like that doesn't automatically give it meaning or make it useful - many psuedoscientific practises have their own jargon, discussing chakras or aura for example, but such terms don't correspond to anything in the real world (so far as we can ascertain) and as such are nonsense. Your definition of 'agnostic' is actually worse than this - it fails on basic logical consistency, and so can never be anything but nonsense. Chakras could, at least theoretically, be detected in some way and therefore leave the realm of nonsense - asserting that the proposition ~(p v ~p) is true will never be anything but nonsense.

I think you're the one who's trying to hijack it. Every dictionary I've checked lists the word as a noun, but you're insisting it's only meaningful as an adjective. Thomas H. Huxley, the man who coined the term, reportedly

Where have I insisted it is only meaningful as an adjective? I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. Put up or shut up - provide an example or withdraw your claim. Also, I don't really care whether Huxley thought he was, or why he coined the term. I have demonstrated why 'agnostic', in the way you are using it, is nonsense. If you disagree, you have to explain why and justify your position. So far all you have provided are arguments from popularity (many people use the term with that meaning) and an argument from authority (Huxley used the term with that meaning). If you disagree with my arguments, explain and justify your position. Don't just get all huffy because I'm contending that a lot of people, including you, are asserting nonsense.

And since there is an infinite number of beliefs, and I can't be bothered to enumerate them all, much less weigh each one for truth, I adopt the convenient shorthand of calling myself "agnostic" on the question of god. Chances are, for every definition of "god" you'd care to throw out, I could tell you I don't believe in that. I do kind of like pantheism, not because I think there is a "spirit" in all of nature, but because my idea of the creator of the universe is the universe itself. I doubt that's a valid use of the word "pantheism" either, and I think calling myself a theist on that basis would be even more confusing than using the commonly accepted and widely understood "agnostic."

That's missing the point somewhat. You don't have to enumerate all beliefs or weigh each one for truth. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and until someone comes up with a definition of god that stands up to scrutiny there is absolutely no reason to believe in anything that has thus far been labelled 'god'.

As for things like pantheism...there are so many different definitions of god that it would be silly of me to pretend to be arbiter of what is a 'proper' definition for god. My only question would be, "Are you making the claim that this 'god' exists in the literal sense, or are you using 'god' as a metaphor?" So long as they are describing a belief in a literal god, I will take them at face value and describe them as theists (in the general 'believes in a god', not the specific 'believes in a personal god) - regardless of whether they are pantheists, deists, or whatever. They can believe that a tub of icecream in their freezer is god for all I care - it wouldn't make any less sense than any large number of other definitions of god that are out there.

 

[TeslaPRG]

Radrook,

All of this aside, the proof is not on the Atheist to prove anything. We don't make the wild claims of an imaginary friend who created everything (or anything). Science is clearly on the side of the atheist. Without proof their is no need to even speculate on the possibility of a god unless you are devising a way of experimentally confirming his existence/non-existence. Philosophical discussion is really unnecessary and silly. No need to try to find a science loophole.

The strength of science is it's admission to ignorance pending further testable evidence.
So.....
We don't know.

I'm very comfortable with that.

paul

p.s. I'd put money on the non-existence of a god all things considered. (I play the odds)

 

[bokonon]

As for things like pantheism...there are so many different definitions of god that it would be silly of me to pretend to be arbiter of what is a 'proper' definition for god. My only question would be, "Are you making the claim that this 'god' exists in the literal sense, or are you using 'god' as a metaphor?" So long as they are describing a belief in a literal god, I will take them at face value and describe them as theists (in the general 'believes in a god', not the specific 'believes in a personal god) - regardless of whether they are pantheists, deists, or whatever.

Fine, you filthy atheist, you've succeeded in doing what all the Jehovah's Witnesses and the boys from Bob Jones and the hotties in Young Life were unable to do -- you've converted me into a theist. Because I definitely believe the universe exists, in a literal sense, and as (as Sagan said) "the source of all that is, or was, or ever will be," I think it has as firm a claim on being "god" as anything.

You may deny that you believe in my god, but of course you're only fooling yourself. The evidence is all around you that it is real. Fortunately, my god doesn't give a damn about your denial. My god doesn't care about puny prayers, my god neither needs nor expects worship. You will not be punished for claiming my god is not the motive power behind all that happens; you will not be rewarded for affirming it. My god is so vast and so powerful that the petty concerns and accomplishments of all the humans who ever lived are only a tiny insignificant fragment of a fraction of a piece of a sliver of nothing compared to the immenseness of my god's indifference.

Long after Yahweh and Allah have passed away, my god will still be moving and grooving.

Oh, my god, I'm not even an agnostic any more. I have no doubt that my god exists.

In fact, YOUR agnosticism is proof that you've admitted, in your heart of hearts, that my god is real. Your whole life has been devoted to discovering the truth about my god, even before you realized what you were doing. My god transcends and subsumes all categories and beliefs, all truths and all lies, all good and all evil, all creation and all destruction.

Fortunately for both of us, I have better things to do than preach about the reality of my god. My god speaks to everyone directly, in a billion trillion voices. Open your eyes, and listen.

 

[Beth]

My god speaks to everyone directly, in a billion trillion voices. Open your eyes, and listen.

Yea verily brother, my ears see the truth of your words. I am converted to your religion. I believe in your god. I am no longer agnostic!!!!!!

 

[Radrook]

Radrook,

All of this aside, the proof is not on the Atheist to prove anything. We don't make the wild claims of an imaginary friend who created everything (or anything). Science is clearly on the side of the atheist. Without proof their is no need to even speculate on the possibility of a god unless you are devising a way of experimentally confirming his existence/non-existence. Philosophical discussion is really unnecessary and silly. No need to try to find a science loophole.

The strength of science is it's admission to ignorance pending further testable evidence.
So.....
We don't know.

I'm very comfortable with that.

paul

p.s. I'd put money on the non-existence of a god all things considered. (I play the odds)

And you are to be commended for that admission!

About claims and proof, however

Without proof to the contrary there really isn't any need to speculate about the non-existence of God. Actually, I find the atheistic position far more illogical since a PURELY atheistic position claims a knowledge of regions never detected, To me that comes across as far more illogical because Christians are basing their claims on things observed as applying it to things observed in our observable universe-cause and effect-for example. But these people are applying cause and effect to regions that they have absolutely no knowledge about. From an agnostic viewpoint- which I am taking for the sake of this discussion, therefore-such claims are unjustifiable.

Claims of certainty concerning impossibilities of existence also qualify as wild claims needing substantiation. A claim is a claim is a claim. What makes a claim wild? What makes a claim wild is its total disregard for evidence to support it. So in my opinion claims of certainty concerning the impossibility of things in regions as yet not perceived or unreachable are wild claims.

BTW
If you aren't sure and admit you don't know-then according to the strict definition and in my eyes, at least, you are an agnostic. Not that you have to agree-of course.

 

[Mobyseven]

Fine, you filthy atheist, you've succeeded in doing what all the Jehovah's Witnesses and the boys from Bob Jones and the hotties in Young Life were unable to do -- you've converted me into a theist. Because I definitely believe the universe exists, in a literal sense, and as (as Sagan said) "the source of all that is, or was, or ever will be," I think it has as firm a claim on being "god" as anything.

You may deny that you believe in my god, but of course you're only fooling yourself. The evidence is all around you that it is real. Fortunately, my god doesn't give a damn about your denial. My god doesn't care about puny prayers, my god neither needs nor expects worship. You will not be punished for claiming my god is not the motive power behind all that happens; you will not be rewarded for affirming it. My god is so vast and so powerful that the petty concerns and accomplishments of all the humans who ever lived are only a tiny insignificant fragment of a fraction of a piece of a sliver of nothing compared to the immenseness of my god's indifference.

Long after Yahweh and Allah have passed away, my god will still be moving and grooving.

Oh, my god, I'm not even an agnostic any more. I have no doubt that my god exists.

In fact, YOUR agnosticism is proof that you've admitted, in your heart of hearts, that my god is real. Your whole life has been devoted to discovering the truth about my god, even before you realized what you were doing. My god transcends and subsumes all categories and beliefs, all truths and all lies, all good and all evil, all creation and all destruction.

Fortunately for both of us, I have better things to do than preach about the reality of my god. My god speaks to everyone directly, in a billion trillion voices. Open your eyes, and listen.

You appear to have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. If you really consider the universe to be god in a literal sense, good for you. Let's not lump me in as one who''s going to call the universe 'god' though...seems a bit silly, seeing as how we already have a perfectly good name for it...