"Agnostics are Nowhere Men"

[JoelKatz]

But this is not a scientific theory, and the point of the scientific method is to model physical reality, which is not directly applicable here.

This is true if, and only if, by "physical reality" you mean all that exists. The scientific theory has only been applied to physical reality because that's all we've encountered. If we ever did encounter something that didn't qualify as physical reality, we would still use the scientific method to understand it. The method is not one tool in the box, it *is* the box.

To claim that the scientific theory only applies to "physical reality" and that one's claim is not part of "physical reality" and thus magically exempt from the rules is just a form of special pleading.

 

[stevea]

It seems that if one is going to depend on science and mathematics, my understanding is the position held by most people who work on the big issues in the realm of the testable is that it's likely that there are hard limits as to what is to be known. Often referred to are Godel's Theorem or Turning Halting States where some mathematical problems are unsolvable. Or I've heard of computations so hard to make that if we could turn every atom in the universe into a computational machine we still couldn't know such answers. If this is all true, the testable and measurable are not completely knowable and thus I Don't Know is the default position as none can be truly gnostic.

Chucky - I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Goedel's incompleteness theorem states that even simple axiomatic systems can express statements that are not provable, or else that the axiomatic system is not provably consistent. This is a mathematical proof, and has no application to physical reality where we have no unquestionable premises.

We have no concept of proof or unprovability in the physical sciences, only in math. The topic is empiricism, not mathematics.

In any case, I say it's way too early for anyone to be making assumptions of what is knowable or unknowable, at least until science and math have run their course as much as that is possible.

There is no "proof" for any question about the physical world; instead we accrete evidence. The Deist question "Is there a God?" should immediately cause us to ask, "What would we consider to be sufficient evidence that a God exist ?". I see no possible answer.

One of the posters is busy making a punching bag of the New Testament, but that's not very profitable. Still none of the "miracles" that appear there - water=>wine, raising the dead, making the earth stop rotation, ascension, or the OT parting of the red sea or decimating Jericho's walls, floods, ppl=>pillars of salt seem more than parlor tricks that might be carried out by a more advanced technology. To be believable we as evidence of the supernatural we would have to be able to reproduce some "miracle" under controlled circumstances and eliminate all physical variables in a control. But we don't know all physical variables (our understanding and abilities wrt physics is imperfect) and have no way to control those variables we don't understand. So either we would find that the "miracle" had a physical explanation, or else we would exhaust our knowledge without disproving it - but again let's not make the Ad Ignorantium fallacy. Just b/c humans don't understand something is not proof that it's supernatural.

Sorry - I think the fundamental problem is that there can be no evidence in favor of the supernatural.

 

[tourmaline]

It seems that if one is going to depend on science and mathematics, my understanding is the position held by most people who work on the big issues in the realm of the testable is that it's likely that there are hard limits as to what is to be known. Often referred to are Godel's Theorem or Turning Halting States where some mathematical problems are unsolvable. Or I've heard of computations so hard to make that if we could turn every atom in the universe into a computational machine we still couldn't know such answers. If this is all true, the testable and measurable are not completely knowable and thus I Don't Know is the default position as none can be truly gnostic.

And since there is no way to measure or test claims which are unmeasurable or untestable, it is impossible to determine whether they are true or not. This would mean that those claims are also unknowable. Making on some level agnosticism an unavoidable consequence all around to everyone.

On the other hand, part of why I'd consider myself an atheist is the dark horse in the race that could possibly win. That is the position that we don't know that all things are not actually knowable particularly if there are ways to measure which are unmeasurable by current standards. Or that we may be able to finally dismiss other things that we now suppose cannot be measured against some future certainty. Consider that the scientific method is only 400 years old. Arguably it and the math that supports it were not widely used until the industrial revolution was revved up an running. We've had game changers come along such as General Relativity and Quantum physics. And since then human knowledge in that realm and technology have been increasing exponentially and have changed the world vastly beyond all other human endeavors since our ancestors came down from the trees and walked upright. Science has an excellent track record. So who's to say what might be known given merely another 400 years? Or 4000 years or 50,000 or a million years from now? Or even 20 years for that matter.

We might be able to cross off the notions of a creator as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe was crossed off the list of expected phenomenon once Max Plank helped overturn classical physics with modern physics. Perhaps, at least in certain instances, could Godel or Turning be overturned? (I know, not at all credible at this point, but who here is absolutely gnostic about what we'll learn eventually?) Or perhaps we'll even find a subtle but universal footprint of a creator of the universe.

In any case, I say it's way too early for anyone to be making assumptions of what is knowable or unknowable, at least until science and math have run their course as much as that is possible. Call it agnosticism-plus. If it turns out that our descendants can know 98% about everything that is someday, that should be a comfortable amount of evidence to make pretty good assumptions about the rest. And who can say that it won't be 100%? Despite the high confidence that this is currently impossible (and that is my personal default position) on the other hand, you never know.

I enjoyed reading that and agree.

What I was getting at is the incorrect usage of the word. The common usage of the word agnostic is usually synonymous with undecided. MikeSun5's uses the word to mean "I dont care to consider the issue." The point has been made by others here that the definition of agnostic refers to knowability.

'Unable to know' is not the same as 'I don't care' or 'I don't know.'

 

[tourmaline]

But more importantly, there is overwhelming evidence that god's existence is impossible. There is simply no conceivable method by which a person could become convinced that a god existed that wouldn't drastically change their notion of what god is. God, as currently understood, is simply not capable of existing.

Can you please explain?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you are able to conclude that god does not exist, how can you be an agnostic?

I've already explained my reasoning in this thread. I'll say to you the same thing that I said to noreligion - go back and read my early posts. If you see a specific flaw in my reasoning or have a specific question, then post them.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Ok, I have serious trouble with the definition of agnostic as 'We can't know'. If you truly think there is no way of ever knowing whether god exists or not that must mean he never has any impact / effect (or at least none that is distinguishable from 'not caused by god'), in which case, what's the point? That is exactly the same state (in terms of impact / effect) of him not existing.

Other than the most extreme pedantry in terms of word use, why would you describe yourself as this sort of agnostic and not atheist? Yes I understand the fine distinction and that they're not technically mutually exclusive but, with that definition of agnostic, taken to its logical conclusion it doesn't add any distinction to the label 'atheist'.

I'm not trying to be arsey or anything, I just really don't understand...and, other than this forum, I've never encountered anyone who realised 'agnostic' meant that. Common useage has always been 'I'm not sure and I'm not sure we'll ever find out' or 'I don't know' or even 'I don't care'. I accept they all may be technically incorrect but that is the useage I've encountered. In terms of the 'We can't ever know' definition, all it can do is add confusion because it can't add any distinction to theist or atheist so what's the point?

 

[stevea]

This is true if, and only if, by "physical reality" you mean all that exists.

No, by "physical reality" I mean only the physical universe as we experience it. The deists claim that the thing I call "physical reality" was created by the deity, and therefore this deity must be separate from physical reality. "everything except the supenatural" might be an alternative but no more specific term.

The scientific theory has only been applied to physical reality because that's all we've encountered.

To be more accurate the physical reality is the only thing we can encounter with our physical bodies and physical senses. If yo "encounter it" is is part of the "physical reality".

If we ever did encounter something that didn't qualify as physical reality, we would still use the scientific method to understand it. The method is not one tool in the box, it *is* the box.

I think we disagree on terminology. How COULD you encounter some non-physical thing ? What sense or instrument could you use ? It's that very impossibility that I find ends the deist evidence discussion.

We disagree severely about what the scientific method is about, and I think you need to read some empiricist writings before you proceed. The scientific method is an unproven, yet apparently successful means of constructing a model of physical reality. There is for example no proof that choosing minimal pre-suppositions is the optimal means of model construction, or that the minimalist hypothesis is correct (sometimes it is wrong !). Further we are only building a model that allows us to match known observations. It's an error to confuse the model's predictions with the actual physical reality. The most useful experiments show errors in the model.

The claissical scientific method is not the only schema that has been considered, and it has evolved significantly over time. So no it is not "the box", it's a clunky tool that works more often than it fails.

In any case the scientific method cannot be applied to non-physical phenomena since there is no evidence to collect. Statements like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" can't become scientific theories unless they can be used to create predictable outcomes of a (physical) experiment, and are at least potentially disprovable/falsifiable. I think these statements fail on both counts.

To claim that the scientific theory only applies to "physical reality" and that one's claim is not part of "physical reality" and thus magically exempt from the rules is just a form of special pleading.

Not so, but I think this is based on your lack of understanding of empiricism. There is no foundation for the scientific method except that it is demonstrably successful in creating a useful model of the physical universe. There is no evidence that this practical method of model creation would produce useful results in any other domain. The very precepts used require physical evidence that would clearly not be available from non-physical phenomena. No - it can't apply without adaption, and there is no reason to think it would be successful if it was applied in another domain. We have no evidence of this other domain, and IMO we never can.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ok, I have serious trouble with the definition of agnostic as 'We can't know'. If you truly think there is no way of ever knowing whether god exists or not that must mean he never has any impact / effect (or at least none that is distinguishable from 'not caused by god'), in which case, what's the point? That is exactly the same state (in terms of impact / effect) of him not existing.

Yup.

Other than the most extreme pedantry in terms of word use, why would you describe yourself as this sort of agnostic and not atheist?

I don't. Even when indulging in the most extreme pedantry in terms of word use, such as in this thread, I describe myself as both.

Yes I understand the fine distinction and that they're not technically mutually exclusive but, with that definition of agnostic, taken to its logical conclusion it doesn't add any distinction to the label 'atheist'.

Yes it does.

I'm not trying to be arsey or anything, I just really don't understand...and, other than this forum, I've never encountered anyone who realised 'agnostic' meant that. Common useage has always been 'I'm not sure and I'm not sure we'll ever find out' or 'I don't know' or even 'I don't care'. I accept they all may be technically incorrect but that is the useage I've encountered. In terms of the 'We can't ever know' definition, all it can do is add confusion because it can't add any distinction to theist or atheist so what's the point?

You cater what you say to the audience you're addressing. As you say, people on this board tend to know what the words actually mean. So I can feel free to use them on this board. In the outside world, I tend to just describe myself as an atheist.

In fact, in the majority of discussions on this board, I'll describe myself as an atheist. It's only when agnosticism comes up, often more specifically agnosticism vs. atheism, that I'll get in to it. Were such a discussion to kick off in the real world, I'd say the same things out there, even if it did mean that I had to define my terms. Truth is, though, that I very, very rarely even mention religion in the outside world because it's not something I particularly care about, and nor do I know anybody that particularly cares about it. This doesn't seem to be at all uncommon in the UK.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I don't. Even when indulging in the most extreme pedantry in terms of word use, such as in this thread, I describe myself as both.

Yes, but I still don't see what value (beyond word play) the term adds.

Yes it does.

I don't see it - especially as you seem to be agreeing that the definition of the term effectively means absolutely no difference between god existing and god not existing and therefore adds nothing....doesn't it?

You cater what you say to the audience you're addressing. As you say, people on this board tend to know what the words actually mean. So I can feel free to use them on this board. In the outside world, I tend to just describe myself as an atheist.

In fact, in the majority of discussions on this board, I'll describe myself as an atheist. It's only when agnosticism comes up, often more specifically agnosticism vs. atheism, that I'll get in to it. Were such a discussion to kick off in the real world, I'd say the same things out there, even if it did mean that I had to define my terms.

Tidy.

Truth is, though, that I very, very rarely even mention religion in the outside world because it's not something I particularly care about, and nor do I know anybody that particularly cares about it. This doesn't seem to be at all uncommon in the UK.

Indeed. And long may it continue!

 

[JoelKatz]

Not so, but I think this is based on your lack of understanding of empiricism. There is no foundation for the scientific method except that it is demonstrably successful in creating a useful model of the physical universe. There is no evidence that this practical method of model creation would produce useful results in any other domain. The very precepts used require physical evidence that would clearly not be available from non-physical phenomena. No - it can't apply without adaption, and there is no reason to think it would be successful if it was applied in another domain. We have no evidence of this other domain, and IMO we never can.

This is naked special pleading. I can make any claim and then when the scientific method fails to validate it point out that this is just a failing of the method and says nothing about the validity of the claim. Your choice to limit the scientific method's scope to "physical reality" is arbitrary. You may just as well say it applies to "only exactly those things it has so far been validated on". In fact, I would reject the term "physical reality" as you are using it and substitute "all that exists". There is no evidence for any non-physical existants, they are like any other claim (physical or not) for which there is no evidence.

 

[tourmaline]

I don't. Even when indulging in the most extreme pedantry in terms of word use, such as in this thread, I describe myself as both.

Skeptic Tank can you explain the basis for agnosticism. It seems to have a degree of certainty to it. It seems divorced from evidence and antithetical to skepticism.

Many atheists are skeptical; belief/opinion dependent on evidence. This seems synonymous with gnostic atheist -- a disbelief in god but able to know one way or the other. Presumably if sufficient evidence is presented, a skeptical atheist may become a theist.

 

[Beth]

To claim that the scientific theory only applies to "physical reality" and that one's claim is not part of "physical reality" and thus magically exempt from the rules is just a form of special pleading.

Are mathematics part of 'physical reality'? If so, can you tell me the physical composition of a number?

No, by "physical reality" I mean only the physical universe as we experience it. The deists claim that the thing I call "physical reality" was created by the deity, and therefore this deity must be separate from physical reality. "everything except the supenatural" might be an alternative but no more specific term.

Actually, some religions claim that the universe and the diety are the same thing, not separate.

To be more accurate the physical reality is the only thing we can encounter with our physical bodies and physical senses. ... How COULD you encounter some non-physical thing ? What sense or instrument could you use ? It's that very impossibility that I find ends the deist evidence discussion.

We ecounter non-physical (I prefer the term non-material) aspects of the universe every day. Mathematics, for example. We encounter and examine the non-material aspects of our lives not through our senses but only with our consciousness. We can, an often do, create physical representations of non-material objects in order to better organize and understand them.

In any case the scientific method cannot be applied to non-physical phenomena since there is no evidence to collect.

Actually, the scientific method can be applied to non-physical phenomena, such as economics or mathematics, with some success. It's not as successful as it has been when applied to physical sciences, but it is useful.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, but I still don't see what value (beyond word play) the term adds.

Some gnostic atheists don't like being lumped in with the agnostic ones, so a distinction is helpful to avoid having the term 'atheist' not apply to some atheists. If atheism is defined as 'agnostic atheism', it excludes gnostic atheists. The description of agnostic atheist can be considered the 'ground floor' minimum to be considered an atheist, but atheism has two definitions: denial of or disbelief in the existence of God. Those who deny also disbelieve, but not all of those who disbelieve, deny.

As has been pointed out before, these kinds of distinctions are irrelevant in normal conversation, it is only when you're getting very fine-grained that this has any importance.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

There is overwhelming evidence that would be accepted by everyone but complete nutcases as conclusive in any other arena of human thought other than religion. To begin with, there's the fact that nobody has been able to explain what god is made of, how god does the things he has been claimed to do, or even what the claimed attributes for god even mean. There are the multiple conflicting accounts, the drastically more probable explanations for all the purported accounts, and the lack of any validated accounts even when such things would be expected if god existed as proposed.

But more importantly, there is overwhelming evidence that god's existence is impossible. There is simply no conceivable method by which a person could become convinced that a god existed that wouldn't drastically change their notion of what god is. God, as currently understood, is simply not capable of existing.

To propose something and be capable of being correct, one must describe what one is proposing in sufficient detail that one is capable of identifying the thing proposed. You can't say "there's a thing somewhere" and ever be right, no matter what is found nor where it is found -- nothing would make the thing found the think you were talking about. Lacking specificity, your words can never identify an entity. If you have to wait until we find something to say "oh yeah, that's what I meant", then you have to change your claim to make it correct, and your original claim remains incorrect.

And all we have for god is what he is not. God is "supernatural", that is, he is not natural, but that's all we know about the supernatural. God's power has no limits, but what is its nature? Nobody says. God is "holy", but what does "holy" mean other than godly?

The evidence all but conclusively suggests that nobody is capable of using the word "god" to identify an existent. In fact, there is no way two people who both claimed to believe in god could ever know if they believed in the same thing at all, because they can't manage to align their concepts to be even capable of identifying a thing.

Well said!

 

[OrangeCatz]

I have a friend who used to go by agnostic, since he believed there was a remote possibility of the existence of god. He now calls himself "godless".
Much more direct.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, but I still don't see what value (beyond word play) the term adds.

It just means that I'm conceding the possibility that I'm wrong. I'm not sure it "adds" anything particularly, except for scrupulous accuracy.

I see it as part of the same argument as solipsism. If you're strictly applying logic, then you have to concede that all the information you have about the world is garnered through your senses and so you have to concede the very slight possibility that your senses are completely wrong and that what you're experiencing as reality actually isn't reality at all. You could be, as I've said before, in the Matrix, or you could be a brain in a jar with electrodes attached, or a computer simulation of a brain programmed to believe it's human, or so on. I think that you absolutely have to concede these possibilities and uncountable others like them, because you can't know with absolute certainty that they're not true.

But what does a philosophy based on those concessions tell us about the real world? Nothing. What use are they interacting with the real world? None. Is there any reason to doubt that the real world outside your brain exists? No. So, while you logically have to concede that things outside your brain might not actually exist, it's not something it's worth spending any actual thought on, unless you're doing so for the sake of an interesting conversation.

Is it useful? No. Is it something you have to concede if you're being 100% scrupulously accurate? Yes, I think so. Agnosticism, at least as it applies to me, is pretty much the same. In fact, were we to draw a Venn diagram of my solipsism and agnosticism, then there would definitely be areas of overlap.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Skeptic Tank can you explain the basis for agnosticism. It seems to have a degree of certainty to it. It seems divorced from evidence and antithetical to skepticism.

I'd say the opposite. If you're being empirical, then you have to look at the scientific method. In the scientific method you don't prove things true, you just fail to disprove them. The more you fail to disprove them, the more likely to be true they are. They reach a point where they have been not disproved so many times that they are generally accepted as true. But there is always the possibility that at some point in the future they could be disproved. Always. It is, to my mind, the only rational, sceptical and empirical position to hold.

Many atheists are skeptical; belief/opinion dependent on evidence. This seems synonymous with gnostic atheist -- a disbelief in god but able to know one way or the other. Presumably if sufficient evidence is presented, a skeptical atheist may become a theist.

If I were presented with a large amount of good, overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, then I would become a theist (in the sense that I would believe in God, not necessarily that I would worship him). But, even then, I wouldn't claim that I knew the truth, just that the evidence that I have seen makes me think that the God hypothesis is the correct one. I would still be open to being wrong.

In fact, I would say that the agnostic is more likely to be swayed by evidence than the gnostic. If you know you're right, then how are you going to be wrong? If, on the other hand, you believe that the evidence makes a certain conclusion the most likely to be correct (even if that evidence is very, very strong, like the evidence for the non-existence of gods, and therefore that the probability of the conclusion not being correct is infinitesimally small) but don't claim knowledge, then you're already open to being wrong.

 

[Chucky]

Chucky - I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Goedel's incompleteness theorem states that even simple axiomatic systems can express statements that are not provable, or else that the axiomatic system is not provably consistent. This is a mathematical proof, and has no application to physical reality where we have no unquestionable premises.

We have no concept of proof or unprovability in the physical sciences, only in math. The topic is empiricism, not mathematics.



There is no "proof" for any question about the physical world; instead we accrete evidence. The Deist question "Is there a God?" should immediately cause us to ask, "What would we consider to be sufficient evidence that a God exist ?". I see no possible answer.

One of the posters is busy making a punching bag of the New Testament, but that's not very profitable. Still none of the "miracles" that appear there - water=>wine, raising the dead, making the earth stop rotation, ascension, or the OT parting of the red sea or decimating Jericho's walls, floods, ppl=>pillars of salt seem more than parlor tricks that might be carried out by a more advanced technology. To be believable we as evidence of the supernatural we would have to be able to reproduce some "miracle" under controlled circumstances and eliminate all physical variables in a control. But we don't know all physical variables (our understanding and abilities wrt physics is imperfect) and have no way to control those variables we don't understand. So either we would find that the "miracle" had a physical explanation, or else we would exhaust our knowledge without disproving it - but again let's not make the Ad Ignorantium fallacy. Just b/c humans don't understand something is not proof that it's supernatural.

Sorry - I think the fundamental problem is that there can be no evidence in favor of the supernatural.

stevea, these are claims that some people will make and some try to apply this to empiricism. I myself am not so certain - it's something that I'm trying to parse for myself. I understand as you point out that there are no proofs in our investigations of the real world, simply a greater amount of evidence, sometimes an overwhelming amount, that falls in favor of one thing or another being true. That does not mean that people don't assume that these represent limits to knowledge. As I have stated I'm not convinced that there there may not be any such limits. My understanding is that there are plenty of elegant mathematical proofs, some for instance being developed in string theory, that do not, or may turn out to not have any bearing on reality depending on what 'flavor' of string theory turns out to be correct. Mathematics is essentially a symbolic notation that can at times describe with great accuracy how the universe works. Other times it does not represent the physical world.

However I am also not certain if there is any bearing Godel and Turnings work has on our universe. And if so could it be due to premises which have not yet been determined or discovered if this work ends up being more fundamental and not only affecting symbolic logic? Again, some have decided that it does present a brick ceiling on what is knowable and I'm not sure if I buy those arguments or not. Any sufficient limits on what can be known will present implications on what we are capable of understanding about nature.

I think your response generally dovetails with my assumptions, but not being a mathematician or scientist myself I'm trying to follow the best rational explanations by those who can formulate reasons whether or not they represent such limits. The idea that there might be physical limits to what can be computed in terms of actual matter or energy available for certain difficult questions is another suggestion that this might be the case. It would express a sort of universal agnosticism in that all things cannot be known. Although some like Richard Feynman suggest that actual answers to extremely complex questions are likely in the end to be much more relatively simple that some people expect once they are boiled down. Much as E=MC2 did for General Relativity.

Still, what I was getting at was my assertion of the possibility, albeit a small one, that there may be no limits on knowledge or gathering evidence for or against anything that can be defined. Which brings me to the point, how does anyone know for sure that we may find a method for determining, at least within accurate models, anything that we want to know about nature given enough time to develop the tools to do so? How can anyone be certain such tools cannot be built?

 

[Chucky]

I enjoyed reading that and agree.

What I was getting at is the incorrect usage of the word. The common usage of the word agnostic is usually synonymous with undecided. MikeSun5's uses the word to mean "I dont care to consider the issue." The point has been made by others here that the definition of agnostic refers to knowability.

'Unable to know' is not the same as 'I don't care' or 'I don't know.'

Exactly. The term for that is indifference. And it is a good point as there can be agnosticism about a wide range of things which may or may not be related to the question of a supreme being.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Having spent most of my life as an agnostic, I find this thread's premise, and a large number of the alleged arguments, similar to a bunch of Christians sitting about telling atheists what they do or don't believe in.

A bunch of y'all don't get it.

BTW: Darat, nobody is required to offer an answer to you insipid question (what gods do you believe in?) with anything other than "where's my beer?"

...
unless you want to begin to require an answer to "have you stopped beating your wife/lover" as well.