Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

I understand that. What I'm saying is that if gods exist, our entire view of the universe--EVERYTHING--requires a fundamental shift. Whether the universe will expand forever or not doesn't have any impact on whether or not the universe is rational and comprehendable; the existence of gods does.

I'm going to take further issue with this.

First of all, it seems you'd need to explain exactly why the existence of a god would necessarily make the universe somehow irrational and incomprehensible.

But then, actually, you don't, because it will end up making no difference, and here's why.

When you say that something "exists" or is "real", you're not making a statement about any quality of that thing, but rather you're making a statement about the universe we live in.

For example, I can describe the qualities of unicorns, orcs, bigfoot, and all sorts of other things. But describing their qualities doesn't tell me if they're real or not.

To decide if they're real, I need to look at the world around me and decide whether or not it makes sense to claim that they're part of that world.

Now, it's unavoidable that if something is real, the universe must in some way be different if I compare the universe to what it would be like if that thing were not real... no matter how big or small that thing may be.

If my cat were not real, the universe would, in an extremely small way, be different from the way it actually is now.

If gravity were not real, the universe would be profoundly different from the way it actually is now.

But the scale of the difference is irrelevant. There must be some sort of difference.

Because if there is no difference, if the world looks identical whether the thing is real or not, then for that thing real = not real, and exist = doesn't exist... the two conditions are indistinguishable. And this is nonsense because it deprives the words "real" and "exist" of all meaning, and therefore it makes the claims of reality and existence empty, absurd, and self-contradictory.

The necessary conclusion to be drawn here is that no matter what you're talking about, if you claim it's "real", if you claim it "exists", then you're saying that it must be in some way detectable. That is, the universe must be different with it, compared to how the universe is without it.

That puts everything which you can possibly claim to be "real" or to "exist" on an equal footing in that regard, no matter what it is, no matter what the difference its existence implies.

This is why the question of God's reality, of God's existence, is not fundamentally different from the question of the existence of bigfoot, the Grand Canyon, unicorns, Buckingham Palace, alien abductions, gravity, Britney Spears' virginity, or anything else you care to name.

None of them are metaphysical questions.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Piggy, I think, perhaps, you two are using the word “metaphysical” in two different ways. It has two different meanings. In one sense, it can be the equivalent of supernatural—something beyond nature, beyond the physical that can be known. In philosophy, metaphysics is the study of what we know, contrasted with epistemology which study how we know.

I think Dinwar made a good point that, perhaps, atheists and agnostics actually share the same belief (or extremely similar beliefs) but simply express that same belief regarding the question “Is there a God?” in different ways because atheists address the question as a metaphysical question and agnostics address it as an epistemological question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can spell out "boobs" with my calculator.

This hour has 22 minutes?

I've been channel surfing so I lost track

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it was Dogdoctor who used to have as his signature "I'm a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either"

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Agnosticism doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, it merely allows for the possibility of its existence, just as it merely allows for the existence of god. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

You are obviously aware of what you know. But you don't know for certain what I know. To claim, "you don't either" is to claim you know all the things I know and that's certainly uncertain.

I understand that lots of atheists (agnostic or other) may not have the same knowledge I have and therefore may have different tentative conclusions. Technically, all of our conclusions are tentative.

But I have a very high degree of certainty that gods are fictional human inventions. To claim I don't know is baloney IMO. I am very confident that I do know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With all due respect and civility (see sig), I side with the premise that if a thing exists, it's natural, so supernatural is a meaningless term.
....

I believe this philosophical position also fits the evidence. IE, I concur.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you for proving my point. You have just stated a belief, and admitted that you don't know for certain.....

How does the fact a single individual is or is not certain, prove your point?

I am certain I live on the planet Earth. I am certain I am a human woman. In science, certainty is relative. If I were to put my certainty that gods are mythical beings on a scale of scientific certainly, it would rank up there with those fist two declarations. Are any of the three conclusions absolutely certain? Only because science never allows perfect certainty, no. But for all intents and purposes in a rational world, yes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because a type of tree is cognitively understandable.

But if you define that word as a mythical being in various texts, then yes you can categorize the subject thusly.

In the way I categorize god beliefs, myth is an obvious category that encompasses all god beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did say I was probably forgetting some people. It's so hard to keep track, what with people changing user names and avatars and such.

Hey, the mods said skeptigirl and skeptic something or other were confusing people. It wasn't my fault.

 

[laca]

Are you sure that you exist?

I'm sure enough to assume I do and not walk in front of a bus or something, just not 100% sure. Are you 100% sure you exist?

 

[laca]

Simple: How do you know? If reason and evidence aren't enough to convince you, there's an element of mysticism inherent in your epistemology. The whole idea that you can't know anything presumes that truth is supernatural and unobtainable, and the concept of being agnostic towards gods but not unicorns, the Easter Bunny, etc. can only be supported via mysticism--a rational person would see that there's no justification for such a separation, and therefore the same rules apply, and unless they can provide evidence that something exists to need explaining they'd conclude that nothing exsists to explain it.

No. You're missing the point. I'm convinced to the point that for all practical purposes, strong and weak (agnostic) atheism mean the same, as I'm sure others are too. The agnostic label is merely there for intellectual honesty purposes: while we assess the probability for a god to exist to be so small as to treat it as 0, we allow for the theoretical possibility that evidence for/against a god would actually change said probability. If you are anything but a 7 (or 1, but that's on the other end) on the Dawkins scale, you are an agnostic too, whether you like it or not. The way I see it is that the number you assign yourself on the scale merely qualifies the quality of evidence you would require. That is all. You might not like the label, and I agree that it's problematic on several points, but the fact remains that unless you're a closed-minded fundamentalist, you're an agnostic.

P.S. For the love of G-d, please use the quote button!

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Hey, the mods said skeptigirl and skeptic something or other were confusing people. It wasn't my fault.

Ah, so it is a false belief in Mods. Is there a Mod? Can there be a Mod who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Can a Mod lead us to salvation? Do you believe in Mods?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

No. You're missing the point. I'm convinced to the point that for all practical purposes, strong and weak (agnostic) atheism mean the same, as I'm sure others are too. The agnostic label is merely there for intellectual honesty purposes: while we assess the probability for a god to exist to be so small as to treat it as 0, we allow for the theoretical possibility that evidence for/against a god would actually change said probability. If you are anything but a 7 (or 1, but that's on the other end) on the Dawkins scale, you are an agnostic too, whether you like it or not. The way I see it is that the number you assign yourself on the scale merely qualifies the quality of evidence you would require. That is all. You might not like the label, and I agree that it's problematic on several points, but the fact remains that unless you're a closed-minded fundamentalist, you're an agnostic.

And I think the Dawkins scale is far too general for this discussion. Milestone 1 believes in God because he simply knows it is true. Milestone 7 does not believe in God because he simply knows it is true.

These are both just a matter of faith. You believe it because you believe it.

Let’s step up from milestone 7 to milestone 6: “I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable.”

Well, well, well. So you “think” God is very improbable. Sounds like a just another matter of faith. I believe God is true. I believe God is false. I believe God is improbable. And that belief is based on “I don't know for certain”.

But between 6 and 7 is where we have our concundrum. Milestone 6 is essentially the agnostic atheist, or even ignostice stance: “We can niether prove nor disprove the exisitence of God, so without evidence we will tentatively conclude God is false.”

If we want to go beyond this, the Dawkins scale says, we have to jump to “God is false just because.”

But there is an area between 6 and 7. There is no proof of God. But there is proof that there is not a God (depending on how God is defined). It is not just an absence of evidence, but evidence of absence. So I don’t believe that there is no God simply because that is what I believe. Nor do I believe that there is no God simply because there is no evidence of God or because I don’t believe there is a God.

I believe that there is no God because there is evidence that God is false and there is an absence of evidecne where there should be evidence if God were true.

God is not falsified by some default value we prescribe to the unknown. God is falseified by analysis of the evidence.

 

[laca]

And I think the Dawkins scale is stupid. Milestone 1 believes in God because he simply knows it is true. Milestone 7 does not believe in God because he simply knows it is true.

These are both just a matter of faith. You believe it because you believe it.

Let’s step up from milestone 7 to milestone 6: “I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable.”

Well, well, well. So you “think” God is very improbable. Sounds like a just another matter of faith. I believe God is true. I believe God is false. I believe God is improbable. And that belief is based on “I don't know for certain”.

But between 6 and 7 is where we have our concundrum. Milestone 6 is essentially the agnostic atheist, or even ignostice stance: “We can niether prove nor disprove the exisitence of God, so without evidence we will tentatively conclude God is false.”

If we want to go beyond this, the Dawkins scale says, we have to jump to “God is false just because.”

But there is an area between 6 and 7. There is no proof of God. But there is proof that there is not a God (depending on how God is defined). It is not just an absence of evidence, but evidence of absence. So I don’t believe that there is no God simply because that is what I believe. Nor do I believe that there is no God simply because there is no evidence of God or because I don’t believe there is a God.

I believe that there is no God because there is evidence that God is false and there is an absence of evidecne where there should be evidence if God were true.

God is not falsified by some default value we prescribe to the unknown. God is falseified by analysis of the evidence.

Whoa, where did you get that the scale is not continuous? Dawkins identified himself as 6.5 or 6.9, so I guess your whole rant is based on something that's false. If you had to choose between those fixed values, I agree, it would be stupid. You don't have to. The scale is obviously continuous.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Whoa, where did you get that the scale is not continuous? Dawkins identified himself as 6.5 or 6.9, so I guess your whole rant is based on something that's false. If you had to choose between those fixed values, I agree, it would be stupid. You don't have to. The scale is obviously continuous.

I got it from forum.richarddawkins.net. Where is the full scale?

 

[angrysoba]

Welcome*, Nicole!

(*I haven't read through the whole thread yet so assuming you haven't done anything absolutely terrible in the last few pages the welcome still stands!)

 

[laca]

I got it from forum.richarddawkins.net. Where is the full scale?

From wiki^WP:

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones".

 

[SusanB-M1]

Nicole Friedman
Thank you for starting a thread which I have very much enjoyed reading through since turning the computer on this morning. I am sure you have already realised that this is an excellent place to read and learn! There are so many posts that I agree with but would like particularly to mention #112 by Rasmus

If forums such as this had been available when I was young, I'd have been an atheist for a far longer time!

 

[devnull]

These are both just a matter of faith. You believe it because you believe it.

...

I believe that there is no God because there is evidence that God is false and there is an absence of evidecne where there should be evidence if God were true.

So how is strong atheism a matter of faith again?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Whoa, where did you get that the scale is not continuous? Dawkins identified himself as 6.5 or 6.9, so I guess your whole rant is based on something that's false. If you had to choose between those fixed values, I agree, it would be stupid. You don't have to. The scale is obviously continuous.

The scale doesn't work for me. It starts with the assumption that you can't know that God doesn't exist and therefore defines strong atheism as a faith position.

'The evidence tells me your specific God hypothesis is false' does not lie half way between 'God probably doesn't exist' and 'I have faith there is no God'

 

[laca]

The scale doesn't work for me. It starts with the assumption that you can't know that God doesn't exist and therefore defines strong atheism as a faith position.

You can't possibly know that all gods don't exist. Remember, we're talking about atheism in general, and not atheism wrt. one specific god.

'The evidence tells me your specific God hypothesis is false' does not lie half way between 'God probably doesn't exist' and 'I have faith there is no God'

Yes, agreed. However, I'll emphasize again, we're talking about atheism in general.