Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[yomero]

The Ultimate Goal Post Shifting Belief in God,

The God that I believe in, is a completely immaterial being. There is no contact between Him and the physical world. None of our senses is able to detect Him. He does not interact with this world. He can not affect the circuitry nor the chemical mediators of our brains. Thus, anyone who claims to have felt His presence is just experiencing the physical activities of his (the person's) neurons. If I said before that the God I believe in does not interact with this material plane, I can not possibly say that He created the universe nor its physical laws. Since all of my perceptions, memories, emotions etc. are products of my brain, there is no reason to believe that I possess a spirit or soul that will continue to live after I die.

Of course those are not my real beliefs (I'm an atheist, a 6 in Dawkins' scale of belief.) And I know that the above paragraph is a strawman version of what deists or pantheists hold. But perhaps not by much. The fact is that I don't understand why deists or pantheists claim to have faith in such a discount, Kmart version of god. I can only think that it can be one of 3 reasons or a combination of them:

A.-It gives me a warm feeling to know that ''someone'' is always besides me.
B.-I'm convinced that it makes me virtuous. I avoid being an Evil Atheist(™) .
C.-I don't really believe in this unfalsifiable but inconsequential god, rather,I believe in an active God much like the God of The Bible. I just use this argument to frustrate Evil Atheists(™). I win arguments for Jesus and get a golden star glued to my forehead.

There are probably better reasons to be a deist. What are they?

 

[CriticalSock]

Well, you had better go beyond science, because one needs to use one's reason to evaluate the science and weigh it with everything else you know.

For example, I don't simply rely on science to conclude that the earth is round, not flat. My waking experience every day of my life confirms beyond doubt that the earth is round. Science merely helps me more fully interpret certain aspects of that experience.

Yes. That's the point I thought you were making and that's what I was agreeing with!

In fact we go beyond science every time we draw a conclusion based on science's theories don't we?

Science makes the argument and then reason draws the conclusion.

Watch me.

There will never be evidence, EVER. Prove me wrong. I won't be holding my breath.

Well, yes. That's the conclusion I've come to as well. But it's not science that's saying that is it? It's pointing the way but your wonderful brain is making the final leap?

That's what I took from Piggy's argument anyhow.

 

[Darat]

I don't think the religious types would ever agree that God is categorically unfalsifiable but only potentially falsifiable. The Christian crowd certainly think that he interacted with the world at least a few times. Just not in a way that you could ever go about testing him.

Thomas the Apostle i..e Doubting Thomas?

 

[Belz...]

Indeed, "there is no god" is falsifiable, but that wasn't the proposition you made.

Your proposition was that there will never be evidence of god.

That is an unfalsifiable propositon. There is no way to prove whether there will or won't be evidence in the future, and even if there weren't that wouldn't disprove god.

Of course it's falsifiable. As soon as any evidence is shown, that is. And of course, usually the evidence is found in the future of the proposition.

What's your beef here, anyway ?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And they would be wrong about that.

While I agree with you, I see no way to prove it. The idea that a creator sits in judgment and we will have no interaction with this god until after death is simply unfalsifiable.

I can have my very deep suspicions about the origin of this idea and be virtually certain that it is a projection of human wants and needs and a reflection of our social structure but I still can't disprove it. And, yes, this is in the same category as my not being able to disprove that there really might be a wizard named Harry Potter.

The latter has no bearing on anyone if the worlds are kept separate; the former would have bearing on everyone if life after death were possible (and this is one of the big problems with the idea), even though it is almost entirely impossible.

I'm not losing sleep over either since there is no reason to believe either.


I think the only reason we even entertain a difference in knowledge between the earth being round and the existence of Yahweh is because of the emotional consequence of the one versus the other. Ultimately it doesn't matter if the earth is round or flat; it's just an interesting datum that helps us predict what to do in certain situations. We have all sorts of data showing us a roughly spherical earth, but we can never arrive at 100% certainty for all the reasons that have been hashed over hundreds of times. We are in the same position with gods -- we have all sorts of evidence that they are human creations -- but our not being 100% certain with them has a potential consequence. Like it or not we are irrational creatures and emotions play a role in virtually every discussion we have.

 

[Belz...]

Well, yes. That's the conclusion I've come to as well. But it's not science that's saying that is it? It's pointing the way but your wonderful brain is making the final leap?

That's what I took from Piggy's argument anyhow.

There is no leap. That's what atheism is. NOT a leap. I am drawing a conclusion based on the TOTAL lack of evidence for god, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. So far there is NO reason, whatsoever, to believe that God exists. Therefore there is NO LEAP in saying there is no God.

 

[CriticalSock]

There is no leap. That's what atheism is. NOT a leap. I am drawing a conclusion based on the TOTAL lack of evidence for god, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. So far there is NO reason, whatsoever, to believe that God exists. Therefore there is NO LEAP in saying there is no God.

But there is a leap! Or if leap is too loaded a word, a step.

Science says all signs point to the fact that there is no god.

<step>

I believe that there is no god based on science.

<hop, step and skip>

I state unequivocally that there is no god.

 

[Belz...]

But there is a leap! Or if leap is too loaded a word, a step.

Science says all signs point to the fact that there is no god.

<step>

I believe that there is no god based on science.

<hop, step and skip>

I state unequivocally that there is no god.

You've worded it in a way that creates the leap artificially. Here, let me help you:

P1. No evidence points to the fact that there is a god.

P2. Evidence points to the fact that there is no god.

C1. There is no god unless proven otherwise.

There is not C2. I don't believe there is a god because of the evidence. And since we've been looking for positive evidence since ever, and none have been forthcoming, I am quite justified in claiming that none ever will.

 

[Piggy]

Yes. That's the point I thought you were making and that's what I was agreeing with!

In fact we go beyond science every time we draw a conclusion based on science's theories don't we?

Science makes the argument and then reason draws the conclusion.

Exactly.

Reason poses the question, develops the means of testing, and evaluates the validity of the results.

Science is a tool of reason, not the other way round; therefore, reason is not limited to the scope of science, a tool which produces only provisional results.

 

[Piggy]

The assumption that the human mind is in any way qualified to consider the question of God/gods is presumptuous and places the human faculty of thought on a pedestal.

Really? Why is that?

Because actually, it's not presumptuous at all.

If you define it as something which we cannot detect in any way by any means we have or may devise, then it cannot be "real".

If you say that it does indeed have some effects on us and this world, that it does indeed have some sort of qualities and behaviors, then we don't need to be able to comprehend the whole thing to be able to detect it... we only need to be able to detect some of its effects on us and the world.

The arrogance argument is a fallacy.

 

[Piggy]

I don't think the religious types would ever agree that God is categorically unfalsifiable but only potentially falsifiable. The Christian crowd certainly think that he interacted with the world at least a few times. Just not in a way that you could ever go about testing him.

Here, I was addressing bogus philosophical objections.

The religious objections are another matter, but equally bogus.

 

[Piggy]

I believe I said earlier that the wiggle room in 'exists' is what people are trying to exploit. And people questioned me! You are absolutely right, unfalsifiable gods can exist only in a way that is no different to them not existing.

Yes, my comments were in agreement.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Disclaimer: Sorry, didn't read all 10 pages of thread, just first page. So if I repeat something, forgive me.

Welcome to the forum Nicole Friedman. I really enjoy JREF. Especially all the E they put into JREF.

I consider myself, like Tricky and many others, an agnostic atheist, in that while I don't believe God exists, I don't know it for a fact.

I would add another dimension to AdMan's definition. I consider myself an agnostic atheist regarding the question of a deistic type of god. All other gods that somehow are supposed to have an effect of the universe can be (and have been) tested for and are notoriously absent in all ways! In those cases I will consider myself a gnostic atheist. Of course, getting someone to define their god(s) is almost as tricky as getting them to agree on the meaning of life itself.

I think people who want to engage in honest discussions about a variety of topics are welcome here, no matter their beliefs. But if you want to bring up arguments that may be contentious with skeptics or atheists, you better be prepared to defend them well, because people won't let you get away with weak arguments.

Well said.

 

[Piggy]

While I agree with you, I see no way to prove it. The idea that a creator sits in judgment and we will have no interaction with this god until after death is simply unfalsifiable.

On the contrary, it's easily falsified.

This one has 2 characteristics:

1. It created the universe.

2. It will judge us after we die.

Since the origins of the universe can be explained naturally -- we don't yet have a complete or certain answer, but we're making progress within the naturalistic framework -- being the cause of the universe doesn't make a thing a god, so that one's out.

That leaves judging us after we die. Now that IS a quality of a god.

But that would require us to survive our own deaths. And we now know that our awareness is caused by the activity of the brain, and that therefore it makes no sense to talk about what happens to people after they die.

It's like asking what happens to a wave after it breaks on the shore. The question makes no sense, because there's no longer a wave for anything to happen to.

So that's the second bit gone.

And poof, this supposedly unfalsifiable god vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

[Piggy]

There is no leap. That's what atheism is. NOT a leap. I am drawing a conclusion based on the TOTAL lack of evidence for god, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. So far there is NO reason, whatsoever, to believe that God exists. Therefore there is NO LEAP in saying there is no God.

I think you're misreading that post.

The work of scientists simply is what it is, but it takes your reasoning brain to understand what it is, blend it with the other knowledge in your head, and draw a conclusion.

I think that's all that was being said.

 

[Complexity]

Reading through many of the threads on this forum, I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe.
For the record, I consider myself to be a very rational thinker. I cannot commit myself to saying that G-d exists 100% because I have no tangible proof. However, I refuse to say that G-d does not exist for the same reason. Also, I honestly hope that there is some intelligent, good force in this universe; I admit my unscientific bias but even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this... which leads me back to my thread topic "Are agnostics welcome here?"

I don't take people who type 'G-d' seriously.

I don't cotton to what you describe as "hopeful agnostics", only "atheists-in-all-but-name-and-absolute-certainty agnostics".

 

[Trent Wray]

I don't take people who type 'G-d' seriously.

I don't cotton to what you describe as "hopeful agnostics", only "atheists-in-all-but-name-and-absolute-certainty agnostics".

I want to say "you just typed it" really badly ...

 

[Dani]

I can parsimoniously dismiss God the same way I dismiss the Matrix, I can logically examine God claims and I can inductively conclude that gods are myths.

God is either falsifiable and falsified, meaningless or a trivial redundance (nature? Ok, this god exists).

 

[Belz...]

I think you're misreading that post.

The work of scientists simply is what it is, but it takes your reasoning brain to understand what it is, blend it with the other knowledge in your head, and draw a conclusion.

I think that's all that was being said.

If that's the case, ok... but I took it to mean that it took a leap of "faith" or something of the sort, to conclude there is no god.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

On the contrary, it's easily falsified.

This one has 2 characteristics:

1. It created the universe.

2. It will judge us after we die.

Since the origins of the universe can be explained naturally -- we don't yet have a complete or certain answer, but we're making progress within the naturalistic framework -- being the cause of the universe doesn't make a thing a god, so that one's out.

I'm afraid the answer there is no, if we speak in an absolute sense, and yes if we speak in a practical sense (which is really what matters). Part of the game the religious and philosophical types play (I like playing the game from time to time) is to point out that we cannot disprove gods on this basis, where disproof means 100% ironclad certainty. Natural explanations allow for a god to direct the natural process. Apply parsimony and gods become unnecessary.

There is simply no way to get to 100% ironclad certainty on this or any other matter when discussing the real world (as opposed to the world of definitions). But, as with all other fields of endeavor, I think it is safe for us to ignore our limitations in knowledge.

Though, I wonder if 100% certainty might be possible if we really analyze what we mean by the supernatural and all the silly games we play with the logically possible.

That leaves judging us after we die. Now that IS a quality of a god.

But that would require us to survive our own deaths. And we now know that our awareness is caused by the activity of the brain, and that therefore it makes no sense to talk about what happens to people after they die.

It's like asking what happens to a wave after it breaks on the shore. The question makes no sense, because there's no longer a wave for anything to happen to.

So that's the second bit gone.

And poof, this supposedly unfalsifiable god vanishes in a puff of logic.

As I said this is the difficult one for the religious to deal with, but..............
God recreates you after death in all your intricacy, neuron here and there with the same pathways, same reactions to what occurs in the world, same underlying neural processing. But he does so with some new magical substance that doesn't die; or, he keeps recreating you with the same substance over and over with each additional death. It is even possible to construct such a scenario with almost virtual continuity -- at the very moment of death you are recreated in a new body somewhere, so the experience would be dying and awakening in the next instant. This is the transporter problem recast.

There are all sorts of problems with this -- from the fact that magic is involved to the very real problem that the feeling of being 'me' is a very localized process that occurs only in my body; that's where my emotions are, where my valuing occurs. So, it is not clear that any recreation of 'me' would be 'me'. It would be a copy. Why should I care what happens to a copy of 'me' in a putative afterlife?


Unfortunately there are ways to answer your analysis. It is the case that gods are pushed so far to the side that they are inconsequential almost certainly; I agree with you there. But I don't see how we can be absolutely certain. This kind of uncertainty, though, is of the type that we can't be certain that god is not directing evolution. It's a bit silly to entertain the idea.

That is why I think it best to adopt a position of fallibilistic atheism. Strong disbelief in gods with the proviso that I know I could be wrong about it, as about everything else.

But I still use the word God to refer to my relationship to the universe as a whole, a reverential stance. It's a holdover I fully admit, but we don't really have a word for that feeling aside from reverence itself and that word carries god-talk with it everywhere it travels.