We are all agnostic

[Macoy]

Having read all this, I too must now reluctantly commit to something, and accordingly change my 'ag' to 'ig'.

 

[Soapy Sam]

All well and good, except that agnosticism isn't really a philosophical position, and does not leave the door open "in case any evidence shows up", for the simple reason that no evidence could show up which would prove the proposition either way.

At the risk of repeating myself, agnosticism is a simple statement of fact. I don't know. How is that in any way philosophical?

It's a philosophical position because that's how agnosticism is perceived.
What you mean is that you are ignorant on this matter.
(As am I).
Ignorance is a general state. Agnosticism is a specific form of ignorance with regard to a specific subject. By claiming ignorance in this case, we are specifically choosing to suppose that all religious doctrine is unproven, untestable and possibly untrue. WE are deciding to disregard all evidence presented by either side in the debate.
Given the importance of the religious POV as a philosophy, to reject all the evidence as intrinsically worthless IS a philosophical viewpoint. To deny this seems disingenuous.
I agree it is especially galling that the same accusation of indecisiveness is levelled by those on both sides of the issue.

Ignorance is not a philosophy, just a fact of life.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

But as far as the traditional, Christian god, I'm an atheist. Full stop.

 

[wolfgirl]

I take the two things this way:

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. I don't know if there's a god or gods or not.

Atheism is a statement about belief. I [n]believe[/b] that there are no gods.

In this definition, we are all agnostic. But some of us believe in gods and some do not. I am an atheist, in that I don't believe in gods. I find this to be an honest position with no need for proof. Someone who believes in gods can't prove their belief. I can't prove mine. But I have a strong feeling about it.

That's what makes it a non-fence-sitting position. You are taking a stand about what you think is true, even if you can't prove (or know) it.

 

[Yoink]

I might be the person that FLS mentions as having started a thread a while ago on this topic. My position was that "atheism/agnosticism" is a distinction which provides no useful or philosophically coherent distinction. That is, you can describe an "agnosticism" that makes sense--but if so then it is simply coterminous with what the vast majority of atheists hold to be their position. Or you can describe an "atheism" that makes sense, but if so it in fact describes the actual (though often unrecognized) position adopted by the vast majority of self-described "agnostics."

You can see this in the way that each defines the other position. Self-described "agnostics" will always say that atheists "believe in" or "have faith in" the absolute non-existence of gods--that they are just as "dogmatic" as the religious believers. That, of course, is absurd. Similarly, self-described atheists see agnostics as "wishy-washy" types who want to have a bob each way: despite having no evidence of god's existence they somehow want to insist that this leaves God in a different category from all the other things for which they find no evidence. That, too, is an absurd position (though one which some self-described agnostics do, in fact, hold).

What I mostly discovered from that thread is that the division doesn't serve any useful philosophical purpose bu that it serves a vital social purpose. That is, people who call themselves "atheists" are held to be bumptious and rude (they're saying that believers are "wrong"), while people who call themselves "agnostics" can feel like they're not treading on anybody's deeply held beliefs, and can also feel that they're leaving themselves open to some future conversion experience.

I quite like the idea of "ignosticism" simply because it gets us away from these two rather useless terms. My problem with it, though, is that I am not persuaded that the concept of God is inherently unknowable. In fact, that seems to me to beg the question (by assuming the impossibility of omnipotence). Grant me an omnipotent being, and it is trivially obvious that that omnipotent being has the ability (if not, apparently, the will) to make his existence known to us, and known absolutely. An omnipotent being need not work through the mechanism of "evidence" (stars rearranged etc.); an omnipotent being can simply make it to be the case that we know that he exists, and know that that knowledge cannot be false.

If, therefore, it remains conceivable that there is a god out there (just as it is conceivable that there are unicorns, fairies etc. etc.) AND that the question of that god's (or gods') existence is in principle one that can be determined at some future date, it seems to me that we are left with the existence of God being a meaningful postulate for which no evidence has, as yet, been brought forward. Personally, I think that the only sound philosophical position to take towards such a case is the same as the position we take towards the existence of unicorns, fairies, goblins, leprechauns etc. Whether we call that position "atheism" or "agnosticism" isn't all that important to me, but I do think it would be nice if we could all agree that there aren't two distinct, coherent, defensible positions that are described by those terms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No because evidence we would expect to see if they did exist as described does not.

And likewise, evidence we would expect to see if gods existed most certainly does not exist.

 

[slingblade]

I take the two things this way:

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. I don't know if there's a god or gods or not.

Atheism is a statement about belief. I [n]believe[/b] that there are no gods.

In this definition, we are all agnostic. But some of us believe in gods and some do not. I am an atheist, in that I don't believe in gods. I find this to be an honest position with no need for proof. Someone who believes in gods can't prove their belief. I can't prove mine. But I have a strong feeling about it.

That's what makes it a non-fence-sitting position. You are taking a stand about what you think is true, even if you can't prove (or know) it.

Agree, and pretty much what I had planned to say.

All of us are agnostic, because none of us know. But some of us believe, and some of us don't. I'm an atheist, because even though I don't know any more than the theist does, I don't believe.

 

[fls]

I might be the person that FLS mentions as having started a thread a while ago on this topic. My position was that "atheism/agnosticism" is a distinction which provides no useful or philosophically coherent distinction. That is, you can describe an "agnosticism" that makes sense--but if so then it is simply coterminous with what the vast majority of atheists hold to be their position. Or you can describe an "atheism" that makes sense, but if so it in fact describes the actual (though often unrecognized) position adopted by the vast majority of self-described "agnostics."

Yeah, that was the thread. Thanks for expounding on that again.

Linda

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

And I would agree with you, and say that, yes, in the absolute strictest sense I must be agnostic about the IPU (may She be blessed), Harry Potter and fairies. I don't believe that any of them actually exist (except for the IPU, naturally), but I accept the principle that they could exist and I merely do not or cannot know.

It's why I find it so important to sort the ontological question of belief from the epistemological question of knowledge. I believe and don't believe a great many things - but I know very few. In practical, everyday situations, it is my belief that matters most, and it is through my beliefs that my identity is formed.

 

[Dragoonster]

And I would agree with you, and say that, yes, in the absolute strictest sense I must be agnostic about the IPU (may She be blessed), Harry Potter and fairies. I don't believe that any of them actually exist (except for the IPU, naturally), but I accept the principle that they could exist and I merely do not or cannot know.

It's why I find it so important to sort the ontological question of belief from the epistemological question of knowledge. I believe and don't believe a great many things - but I know very few. In practical, everyday situations, it is my belief that matters most, and it is through my beliefs that my identity is formed.

I agree with this, and with most of Wolfgirl's post. Knowledge is very rare depending on one's philosophy, everything else are values of belief.

I'd add that not every philosophical position has to be taken merely so it can be argued, or that a position that doesn't claim something must be abandoned for that sake of argument. One doesn't need to be an atheist to argue against theism, or a theist to argue against (very strong) atheism, and I'm quite happy sitting on my fence watching those who "know" try to disprove those on the other side, to no avail. Many theists seem to fool themselves into strong belief (or purported knowledge) due to spiritual comfort, but many atheists seem to do the same due to intellectual comfort. But comfort is not a reason to "know" something. Or imo even believe something.

As far as fairies and gods, I don't elevate one over the other. Philosophically there isn't a reason to, and ideally everyone would realize this. But pragmatically it's obviously more important for us to consider the god belief, as billions of people want to alter law and societies based on it, while none I know of want to do that based on belief in the tooth fairy.

 

[Phase Inverter]

Atheism is a statement about belief. I believe that there are no gods.

I would change that definition slightly to read:

Atheism is a statement about non-belief. I do not believe that there are gods. The term says nothing about what I do believe.

All those who hold a belief that god does not exist are atheists, but not all atheists hold a belief that god does not exist, most simply lack a belief that god does exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why not separate the semantics argument about the scientific principle, one cannot prove the negative, from the misuse of that principle to claim one should leave god beliefs on the table? I don't have a problem whatsoever with that uncertainty principle in science. I do however, have a problem that this uncertainty principle is trotted out repeatedly to claim one cannot draw a reasonably certain conclusion gods only exist in people's imaginations. No one pulls the uncertainty principle out to seriously claim we can't disprove IPUs. They use the IPU example only to illustrate the uncertainty principle.

As important as the scientific principles are, they shouldn't be used as a barrier to getting rid of magical thinking. And that is what they are being used for here. Heaven forbid (pun intended) we tell the emperor he has no clothes. Heaven forbid we recognize god beliefs for what they are. They remain the biggest residual belief in magic for the human race. If you can conclude witches don't exist, you can conclude gods don't either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for the, "we are all agnostics", no, we are not. I don't have any problem not letting the scientific principle, one cannot prove the negative, stop me from drawing a conclusion about the existence of gods anymore than I let that principle stop me from drawing a conclusion the Earth revolves and orbits the Sun. In my opinion. there is overwhelming evidence for both. Until other evidence surfaces, those conclusions remain certain for all practical purposes. And the principle of uncertainty in science remains intact. There is always a door for more evidence. But there is no good reason to limit the practical certainly of some conclusions.

 

[slingblade]

Meh, I don't really farking care, one way or the other.

If you ever see me in a church, SHOOT ME. I have obviously gone mad and am a danger to self and others.

 

[Dysphemist]

If god is outside of time, and space, and our capacity to know, then why is it even a question whether it exists or not? Something outside of space and time by definition doesn't "exist".

Ignosticism? I want to hear what agnosticism opposers think about ignosticism ( - one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive).

In reply to the OP statement

...we are all agnostic.

Not completely true. It's still only an opinion. Sure, there may be some theists who can relate to agnosticism, but true theism is "belief in the existence of a God or gods." The few devout theists I know would tell me not that there is a slight chance that "god" doesn't exist, but that he definately exists.

You, and all agnostics, still believe that they are right in what they think. That their position is the right one. But the same goes for atheists and theists. Theists believe with all their heart that a god does exist - if they don't then they arn't theist, they're agnostic or atheist.

I don't consider agnosticism as fence-sitting or a third option, though. It's still just a belief system to me... Though sometimes maybe agnostics are just fooling themselves, and that they do deep down believe that there is a god or that there isn't. A few months ago I probably would have called myself agnostic leaning more toward atheism, but deep down I know that I don't believe there could be some actual being/supernatural element which created me and everything else.

I can't explain how the universe came about using science or religion, I don't think it's possible (at least with what humans currently know about both). Damn it, that makes me sound agnostic. Oh well, I don't really know how to get my position across - maybe I'm ignostic.

 

[Pardalis]

Ignosticism? I want to hear what agnosticism opposers think about ignosticism ( - one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive).

I agree with ignosticism, if one can't even define an hypothesis, then what are we arguing about? Why debate about something that we can't even define? As Darat and Skeptic Guy have noted, if there are no established parameters on which to base a discussion, then there is no discussion.

Agnosticism is just a form of argument from ignorance, it doesn't hinder, doesn't help, it really doesn't do anything. It's a non-position, you can always say "we don't know", but that's a given to anybody that is honestly looking for the truth.

There's always the "we can't know", which is a bit more of a bummer, maybe we can't know, but why stop there? It could be true that we could never know, actually one agnostic argument I still like in a way, is the image of the ant: that it can't possibly know about music, or quantum physics, or the next US presidential elections, and they will never know about any of those things, because their brains are not built to understand them. And I also like Hokulele's point about string theory, it's so untestable that we might not even know iif it's true. There may be things, concepts, that we could never know, but some could argue that maybe computers will, once they pass the "singularity" point.

But we also have to give ourselves a credit, a hundred years ago nobody had the slightest idea about the big bang theory, it wasn't even close to being an idea, and now we are starting to have a grasp of it. Maybe we'll stumble upon something that closely resembles a god concept one day, but it'll be because we followed the evidence. We can speculate all we want, but for an hypothesis to be considered, it has to pass the scientific process, and so far it hasn't failed us. Otherwise it remains an "idea", a nice idea, but just an idea. Agnosticism, as a position, only seems to want to defend the idea just for the sake of it, just because it's an idea. If we really can't ever know, then that's fine, it won't be that we didn't try, at least we won't know what we missed.

But as far as the theist god concept, at least we can all agree that it should have been put to sleep a long time ago.

 

[Egg]

I would change that definition slightly to read:

Atheism is a statement about non-belief. I do not believe that there are gods. The term says nothing about what I do believe.

All those who hold a belief that god does not exist are atheists, but not all atheists hold a belief that god does not exist, most simply lack a belief that god does exist.

While I can see the difference, I do think the "don't believe" is a little confusing semantically. In common conversation, if I said my brother in an astronaut and you said "I don't believe you", it would generally be understood that you thought he wasn't an astronaut.

Perhaps a useful angle on this question would be "do you believe that God is entirely imaginary?" or even "do you believe that it's most likely that God is entirely imaginary?" and if you're prepared to make such a statement, would you have the evidence to back it up?

 

[Egg]

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.

"Overwhelming" strikes me a being pretty subjective in this instance. I think if that was objectively the case, we'd see far fewer theists in educated society. There again, I'm still not sure what the particular evidence you refer to here is, since on the occasions I asked you before you've avoided presenting it.

 

[H3LL]

IMHO, I think having a fluffy "It might be" weakens the position of agnostics and ignostics (very interesting BTW) and also science, to the point where any and all woo has safe ground and effective scientific plausibility for any nonsense.

This gray area of "It might be" has been well and truly exploited by both ID and Homeopathy ... to name but two. It also has had negative impact on daily life, such as Health and Safety, where extremes of chance are interpreted as "Well, that 1:10¹²⁸ might me ME!"

The agnostic/ignostic "It might be" may be correct for some distant chance in a universe differently contructed to the one we understand at an un-specified future point. This, to me is the agnostic/ignostic position and I fail to see how that is either useful or helpful.

It is a definite liability when dealing with social/political manefestations of those promoting delusion, ignorance, disinformation, religion and psuedoscience.

One should state definitely "No, that [insert woo] is nonsense and incorrect." If challenged, "If I'm wrong - show me evidence where I'm wrong."

I see little point in giving the woo a fluffy "It might be" on the limits of chance to hide in.

What are agnostics/ignostics afraid of? They might be wrong and magic pixies are going to stick hot pokers up their bum for ever? If so you are neither agnostic nor ignostic but a believer, all be it a non-specific believer.

.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Overwhelming" strikes me a being pretty subjective in this instance. I think if that was objectively the case, we'd see far fewer theists in educated society. There again, I'm still not sure what the particular evidence you refer to here is, since on the occasions I asked you before you've avoided presenting it.

Often the entire line of evidence is ignored by skeptics making the agnostic argument, (they mostly haven't thought about it) and most certainly ignored by the majority of theists, (a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest).

The evidence is overwhelming if you look at the anthropological record and consider the psychology of magical beliefs. We have overwhelming evidence from both fields.

In anthropology there is evidence that god beliefs arose from human endeavors to explain and control the world around them. We have evidence in psychology today that shows at least some of the mechanisms for why people believe weird things.

Add to that the myriad of god beliefs theists have no doubt in dismissing as myth. These 'dismissed as mythical' beliefs have all the same themes as the god beliefs people maintain are real. You cannot explain away the phenomena by saying maybe they believe in the same god because these beliefs are incompatible with each other despite the same themes.

And top that off with the fact there isn't a single credible bit of evidence any of these myths arose because people had real interactions with actual gods.


For those of us who recognize one god myth is the same as the next, the evidence is overwhelming. For those who do not recognize their god myth is indeed a myth, they cannot see the reasoning.