We are all agnostic

[Patricio Elicer]

In reality, the best we can do is claim that their evidence does not fit the scientific definition of evidence - but the scope and definition of scientific knowledge is of no interest to them. They know that god exists.

Yes, but there's a reason why science and the scientific method are better established: science works!. One has to be blind and/or deaf to not to accept this hard fact.

 

[Cosmo]

Yes, but there's a reason why science and the scientific method are better established: science works!. One has to be blind and/or deaf to not to accept this hard fact.

Sure. I am merely stating that, for a theist, their numerous claims of evidence for their god(s) fit wollery's definition of knowledge:

Just that. If you know something then surely you must be able to prove it. If not then you simply believe that you know it.

 

[geni]

Yes, but there's a reason why science and the scientific method are better established: science works!. One has to be blind and/or deaf to not to accept this hard fact.

That one is fairly easy to get round by argugeing over what the scientific method and therefor science actualy is.

 

[wollery]

Sure. I am merely stating that, for a theist, their numerous claims of evidence for their god(s) fit wollery's definition of knowledge:

No, they don't, since they don't prove anything.

The things you cited as things that theists offer as evidence can be used just as well for the contrary position.

I said hard evidence. There's a difference, and an it's an important one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some of us are not agnostic. Though I accept the OP premise we are born agnostic. Some of us have carefully examined the evidence and using that and deductive logic have come to the conclusion that god beliefs today are no different than god beliefs of the past which lots of people who identify themselves as agnostic have no trouble firmly dismissing the existence of such as Thor, Zeus, Pele and the like.

I wouldn't call someone a wimpy fence sitter who identified him/herself as an agnostic. I would however suggest they are unaware of the special treatment they are giving god beliefs over other beliefs they have no trouble declaring false or unlikely.

I need to digress here. I find the argument, "one cannot disprove the existence of gods", to be a semantics argument given way too much attention relative to, "you cannot disprove fairies". If a person is merely arguing the scientific principle that one cannot disprove a lot of things and one should have an open mind to new discoveries, then I have no disagreement with them.

Trouble is, that is not what most people are really arguing. Regardless of the verbal patronage to scientific principles, it is much more typical for skeptics and scientists to in reality, elevate 'god beliefs' above beliefs in fairies. Yet empirically, these two beliefs belong on equal footing.

Why can you dismiss a belief in fairies and in Zeus and in invisible pink unicorns, yet not dismiss god beliefs with the same degree of certainty?

 

[Hokulele]

It's a sometimes overused statement, but, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But if evidence should exist and is not found after a reasonable search, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. For example, the Loch Ness monster. If evidence cannot exist, then the entire concept of the thing itself is meaningless. For example, Sagan's dragon.

Which would still not mean that you actually know that god exists.

But there is no evidence, either to the contrary or in support of.

See above.

Not really. God has so many definitions (and it's always possible to make up a new one) that you cannot show that all of them are impossible. As such, I do mean that we can't know with certainty about god's existence or lack thereof. I don't think that translates to "we can't know anything".

If it cannot be defined, or if new definitions can be made willy-nilly, then is it really a thing at all? Hence the entire concept of knowledge can easily be thrown out the window, along with the terms gnostic and agnostic.

Again, this is just my opinion, and as long as any partner in debate is willing to agree on one set definition, a discussion can be had.

I do think that solipsism is at least a self-consistent philosophy, but it isn't one I adhere to, I'm a materialist. However, I think this is a debate for a different thread.

Oh, I agree entirely (including the bit about the separate thread). It was mostly a comment as to what path this line of thinking can take.

And now we're arguing over the definition of the word "agnostic".

Isn't that what philosophy is meant to be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've got a good point. Agnosticism is more "we can't know" than "we don't know". "We can't know" is much more frustrating.

"We can't know" means you are giving more credence to god beliefs than to other beliefs which you never hear stated in the same way.

We can't know there are no fairies.
We can't know Zeus isn't real.
We can't know the Pele doesn't cause volcanic eruptions.

Really? Can't know? Maybe if you are making a semantics statement about the scientific process. Otherwise, I call bull on the claim, "we can't know". Yes, I can. I can come to a conclusion the evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact god beliefs are purely fantasy beliefs, just as I can with confidence also say fairies are fantasy beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't believe there is a debate, since it all boils down to either side positing that they believe their side is right, when in fact neither side has any real evidence. That's just a pointless argument with no possible conclusion.

Saying "I don't know" isn't playing devil's advocate, it's admitting to the truth.

That neither side has no evidence is not true. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs arose from magical thinking. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs, as they are historically recorded in many forms from stone carvings to modern writings, did not arise from human encounters with any real gods.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with most of your OP. I have nothing wrong with your definitions or your position.

But I'm not so sure that we can simply assert that everyone is agnostic. Certainly, that everybody should be agnostic, ...

If one determines the scientific process and the skeptical process of using critical analyses to come to a conclusion one way or the other is the system we should be operating under, and one can show what evidence it is that supports their conclusion, then "should be agnostic" loses credibility. You may or may not agree with my conclusion. But saying I should be agnostic ignores the fact I have used evidence and logic to draw that conclusion. You are guilty of the thing you imply I am guilty of and that is assuming your conclusion is correct. The assumption "we can't know" ignores the evidence we do have about the validity god beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it's a matter of definitions. The commonly accepted definition of Atheist is "someone who holds no beliefs in a god or gods". Looks like you are at least implying that Atheist is "someone who has proof that god doesn't exist". That's a wrong approach IMO, because if someone were to have proof of the non existence of god, then we all should be atheists. So in the end, Atheism, as well as Theism, is a matter of belief. What differentiate both beliefs is that one in evidence-supported (note I didn't say proof-supported), while the other is not.

On the other hand, if we define Agnostic as "someone who has no opinion either way because he/she doesn't know", then Atheism and Agnosticism can be considered not mutually exclusive positions, because one is a matter of belief and the other is a matter of opinion of something as a fact.

Good thread, BTW. It made me revise my ideas.

I think we agree here, but I would only clarify that evidence supported conclusions do have many different qualities from non-evidence supported beliefs.

 

[Cosmo]

No, they don't, since they don't prove anything.

The things you cited as things that theists offer as evidence can be used just as well for the contrary position.

I said hard evidence. There's a difference, and an it's an important one.

It sounds like there's still a miscommunication. Could you perhaps define what you mean by "hard evidence"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The Christians make a lot of claims for their god. Benevolent. Omniscient. Omnipotent. Created the universe and everything in it. Biblical flood. Communion wafer into flesh...etc. All kinds of things for which there is no evidence.

And most for which there is evidence against.

As for a Deist god, it is my opinion this belief is just an attempt to move the goal post as god claims are knocked down as false one after the other. But using logic, one can also say that not only is such a god equally likely as the tooth fairy, by definition, there is no way for someone to become aware of a god which never interacts with the Universe. It would seem Deist believers conveniently forget this fact as they claim to believe in a God which merely created everything and sat back.

I generally agree with what you've posted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, there are two basic atheistic views, strong atheism, which is essentially the statement "God does not exist", and weak atheism, often confused with agnosticism, which is the statement "I don't believe in god". The difference is subtle, but important.

My point is that the strong atheistic position is just as logically untenable as the theistic position, i.e. absolute knowledge is not possible, so as much as a strong atheist may state that they are certain that god does not exist, in reality it is just as much a statement of belief as the theists make.

This is what I mean when I say that we are all agnostic. It isn't a statement of belief, but one of knowledge, and whilst theists and strong atheists alike say with absolute certainty that they know their stance is correct, they in fact don't, they just believe it, and since they actually lack genuine knowledge they are, by default, agnostic, even if they don't know that they are.

But your two options do not describe my strong atheism accurately.

God beliefs are of an imaginary nature and there is no more reason to consider the possibility of gods than there is a reason to consider the possibility of the tooth fairy which is also of an imaginary nature. Once you recognize god beliefs are of an imaginary origin, strong atheism is indeed logically tenable. Elevating god beliefs above beliefs in fairies is the illogical position, because we have overwhelming evidence god beliefs did indeed arise from human imagination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether you know one way or another is entirely irrelevant to this distinction. You can be uncertain all you like - heck, you can be a newborn baby and never even have considered the question - but you are still an atheist or theist. Again, there is no logical middle ground.

That implies we must draw a conclusion about everything and that is not the case. Lots of things lack the evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

 

[Mobyseven]

If one determines the scientific process and the skeptical process of using critical analyses to come to a conclusion one way or the other is the system we should be operating under, and one can show what evidence it is that supports their conclusion, then "should be agnostic" loses credibility. You may or may not agree with my conclusion. But saying I should be agnostic ignores the fact I have used evidence and logic to draw that conclusion. You are guilty of the thing you imply I am guilty of and that is assuming your conclusion is correct. The assumption "we can't know" ignores the evidence we do have about the validity god beliefs.

Really, there is very little that we shouldn't be agnostic about. The only things that we can ever really say are true beyond doubt are those things that we can establish through deductive logic and mathematical reasoning - and those only hold true in a self-contained framework. If we wish to apply our conclusions in such matters to the real world, we must bring in again all the real world uncertainties that plague every empirical notion.

I am an atheist, because I don't believe in god. But were I to not be agnostic about the idea, were I to mistakenly believe that I am right beyond possibility of being wrong, then I would be treating my lack of belief in god differently to my belief and lack of belief in many other things, and I would have no good justification for doing so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, not exactly. Don't get hung up on the christian definition of god, or any specific definition of god.

The answer to the question "could god exist" is most definitely yes, but that isn't the important question. The important question is, as you stated at the start of your post, "does god exist", to which the answer, if you are honest, is, "I don't know". You can add, "but I don't think so", or "but I seriously doubt it", if you want, but in the end you cannot answer the question absolutely one way or the other.

As for the existence of god being a scientific question, I agree that "god exists" is a theory, but I disagree that it presents a scientific question, since god, by definition, can be outside the laws of the physical universe, and thus untestable by the scientific method. If god made the Universe then it must "predate" it, and is therefore not bound by its laws. God, if it exists, may be bound by some laws, but good luck with defining what they might be.

Please answer this simple question - do you know for certain whether or not god exists?

If the answer is no, then you are agnostic.

There is the semantic argument that science uses the language of uncertainty. I prefer the statement, "overwhelming evidence", where the uncertain language of science does not allow for the use of the word, "proved". If you want to argue the semantics of the proper language of science, that is fine. But it is not what most people are arguing. They are arguing as you have been here that we can't even declare, "overwhelming evidence". You said yourself, "no evidence". On that I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Neutrinos? Germanium? We've never found another earthlike planet orbiting a sol like star. It would be unreasonable to assume they do not exist (and we've never found a planet with 2 earth mases anywhere or indeed 4 although PSR B1257+12 C comes pretty darn close).

While Pard didn't make the statement all that clear, I think you are twisting the intent of his statement.

I believe the matter is regarding zero evidence to consider the existence of something rather than the matter of making an assumption that something is plausible because of the evidence we do have. Do you honestly consider fairies possible because their existence has not been disproved?

 

[plumjam]

I agree in general, agnosticism doesn't have to be "fence-sitting". However, I'm sure a lot of people believe that they have a connection with God.

Take schizophrenics, for example. Schizophrenics with God delusions (1/4 of schizophrenics, I think) really believe that they are either speaking to a divine being, or that they are either a reincarnation or a manifestation of said divine being.

As for more typical people, there is a tendency to attribute events to the supernatural. Ramachandran has studied this and it's very much worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4B5BYbjf8

One neuroscientist suffered damage to the left brain, through a stroke, and has shared her experience with others at a TED conference.

Drug users sometimes experience similar phenomena, presumably by affecting the brain in analogous ways.

Near-death experiences can be explained similarly.

So I don't find it unusual that normal people can find themselves in similar situations without extremely unusual neurotransmitter levels, or slightly unusual neuronal pathways.

I would say that these experiences are "real" and these people will consider themselves theists or religious, without being dishonest in the least.

As for myself, I consider myself agnostic, but with a materialist and atheist slant. That's definitely not fence-sitting, but I still contend that most people do not know for sure.

Have there been any studies done on the brain activity/structure/chemistry of atheists?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really, there is very little that we shouldn't be agnostic about. The only things that we can ever really say are true beyond doubt are those things that we can establish through deductive logic and mathematical reasoning - and those only hold true in a self-contained framework. If we wish to apply our conclusions in such matters to the real world, we must bring in again all the real world uncertainties that plague every empirical notion.

I am an atheist, because I don't believe in god. But were I to not be agnostic about the idea, were I to mistakenly believe that I am right beyond possibility of being wrong, then I would be treating my lack of belief in god differently to my belief and lack of belief in many other things, and I would have no good justification for doing so.

Again, I am distinguishing between the semantic argument that we use language of uncertainty in science and the intended argument here that the possibility of gods are in reality, unknowable. As long as you actually apply the same consideration to invisible pink unicorns, Harry potter and fairies, then we can agree on the semantics argument. But the minute you put the possibility of gods as even minutely less knowable one way or the other than the existence of Harry Potter's Hogwarts, then we have a disagreement.

 

[phantomb]

I don't disagree with you on any particular point (I would have to answer no to your "simple question"), but like Pardalis I think that sometimes you have to be pragmatic and consider how the average person might define words like "believe", "agnostic", and "god". I know this is a problem that Richard Dawkins has faced in interviews and the like, and it required that he spend a good deal of time explaining the correct meaning of these words and how he uses them to the host and audience. These are some of the same ignorant people, no doubt, who were so very happy to see a science curriculum refer to evolution as a "theory" (lol a scientific theory, what's that?).