Great post
One in a row for me! I am on a hot streak!
You don't seem to understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is a position on a single question, "Do you believe that there is a god(s)?" If you answer yes then you are a theist. If you do not answer yes then you are an atheist. In the subset of people who do not answer yes there are those who answer that they do not accept the proposition that there is a god and there are those who assert the position that there is no god. Both are atheists, the second position is usually called strong atheism. Strong atheism makes a claim, "There is no god," that needs to be supported with evidence. Atheism in general is the rejection of the claim "There is a god."
Agnosticism is a description of knowledge. Agnostic theists or atheists hold their position on the question above without knowing whether it is correct or not. Gnostic atheists or theists hold their position knowing that it is correct. Agnosticism is a quality of a particular belief.
Given the question, "Is there a deity?" a skeptical and logical person will answer that there is no evidence for a deity so there is no reason to believe it. In the exact same way we would answer the question, "Are there fairies?" with the statement that there is no evidence in support of the existence of fairies so there is no reason to believe in them. However, the vast majority of these people also will freely admit that, if given compelling evidence, they would be willing the change their position on the question. That last bit is the skeptical part... .
Good clarification. Fremmer would be refuting the strong atheist position.... not all atheism. I don't think I got the agnostic part wrong though. Dictionary definition includes:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I think that is how I used it.
There are certainly some atheists who would deny the existence of a deity if it came up to them and lifted a stone too heavy for it to lift, just as there are a great many theists who would continue believing insane, contradictory, and irrational things in spite of evidence to the contrary. The theist/atheist distinction does not necessarily include a concurrent distinction of illogical/logical or skeptical/credulous (whichever way you choose to order those pairs.).
I think this is where Fremmer disagrees. He takes the position that a skeptic will be neither theist nor atheist, but uncertain. (To avoid the term agnostic.).
The only null hypothesis I could find in this thread is flawed, in my opinion. As far as I could see it was a very briefly stated parenthetical comment, "(no gods,)" and I'd really rather not make much analyzing it one way or the other. If I missed a more thorough version, my apologies. I think a better hypothesis/null hypothesis would be something like, "The evidence supports the existence of a deity." and "The evidence does not support the existence of a deity." I still don't really like this and I can't see how this hypothesis could be scientific without a really good definition of the deity in question.
This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, prior to the discovery of black swans. The onus IS on you to prove that black swans exist. Until then it makes sense to believe that swans are white. Do you believe that pink swans exist? Do you simply say, "I don't know?" I would answer that question in the negative, "I do not believe that pink swans exist." I could be wrong, but until I am presented with evidence to the contrary there is no good reason to hold the belief. Note, this is a different response than "Pink swans do not exist.".
I would agree with you, with the caveat that I would not want to bet too heavily on any conclusion based on absence of evidence, and that in some cases we may be forced to place such a bet. Sometimes we must take sides... even (or especially?), in academia. Taleb (Black Swan author) would advise us NOT to build a house on a river bank where there has been no past evidence of flooding. I think this agrees with what you are saying.
Suppose a child has a whole piggy bank full of pennies. He or she can look at all of them and hold the very reasonable belief that pennies are made of zinc/copper alloys (called copper from here on.) Without evidence to the contrary, that belief is the rational one to hold (that pennies are made of copper.) Uncle Joe then gives the kid a couple steel pennies from WWII, and the child's understanding of pennies changes and her beliefs about pennies change as well. There is nothing wrong with holding a belief about a category of items as long as one is willing to change it when given evidence.
Unless the item is important and the evidence comes too late for action. Sometimes the rational course is to protect from the unlikely - to build a dyke around that river house even though there is no evidence a flood has ever occured there. (And no, I am not arguing that belief in God is rational because it protects you in the event that He does exist.)
As was mentioned earlier, there is also a categorical difference between accepting someone's claim that a belief is wrong in a normal, reasonable way (Uncle Joe just tells the girl about steel pennies and she changes her beliefs because steel is another metal and there is a sensible reason why copper wasn't used during the war) and accepting someone's claim that a lack of belief is wrong in a way that requires massive changes to our understanding of the working of the universe (Uncle Joe tells the girl about a deity that can do anything, knows everything, etc.) Strictly speaking, in either case the original belief could be wrong, and any honest, rational person will admit that. However, if you can't see any difference in the two changes and the burden of proof they should require, then there's not much reason to continue.
I am not sure how belief in God requires a massive change to your understanding of the workings of the Universe. Wouldn't that depend entirely on your definition of that deity?
And in a practical sense, wouldn't it be wiser to put the burden of proof on any belief that increases your "risk" (risk to finances, health, freedom, friendship... etc), rather than putting the burden on the belief that requires the most change. (Working again from Taleb's Black Swan).
