Primal

I think given that statement you are somewhat defining agnosticisms way to victory. The idea that reality is not changed by belief and that one should be careful about certainties is not unique among agnostics, rationalists, many atheists and objectivists in general hold to that position. Likewise if agnsticism was merely a process, then why is it being contrasted with both atheism and theim in your own post?

Clearly your definition is very vague. As well as at odds with the historical context surrounding the term agnsoticism, which springs from Huxley's experience at a Metaphysics Society in which he thought both atheists and theists were too cock sure whereas Huxley was going to be cautious. Many leading agnostics, such as Michael Shermer, have likewise defended the basis for agnosticism under the claim that in arguments both theists and atheists never get anywhere: indicating that one sees both positions as on equal epistemic ground.

I have argued against that position, if you disagree with me then you must explain why agnostics so often will say "Both atheists and theists argue and neither side gets anywhere (in regards to the evidence)" or why they say "atheists think their sure and theists think they are sure and neither side is" (which to me is a straw man of atheism). Or why some even say the God question will not be answered until the entire universe is searched.

From about.com: On the issue of agnsticism

In it it says there is no knowledge of the God claim, which to me is not the case. I think there is much evidence and knowledge about the claim, mainly that its false. Or that it's probably false because its superfluous. I call this provisional certainty.

from the same article:

Again here I disagree, I think there are good reasons for concluding that God does not exist, because the concept is superfluous.

What I seem to be arguing for is
strong atheism" then according to the article, as a rational alternative to agnosticism.

<a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_agnosticism.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_agnosticism.htm</a>

The article note more takes your view about agnosticism being a matter of method, though I do tend to see it offered as a third position, especially by agnostics like Michael Shermer.

What seems problematic here is that strong atheism is limited to absolute certainties, whereas I would say that when I deny the existence of God I am making a provisional claim based on probabilities not certainties. This to me, seems like the agnostics often times are the ones making the straw man. I believe I can be certain about some God claims(omni claims), but not all, though I believe they are all superfluous and unlikely.

I do this in the same spirit that I deny creationism due to the evidence for evolutionary theory, I deny theism because of the evidence for materialism/strong atheism. So I guess according to the article I am a "weak" agnostic about some theist claims, because I do not pretend to have certainty, but at the same time I am a "strong" atheist because I believe affirm the "God does not exist" as a provisional statement. In which case I'm wondering if the terms are a little vague or unfair.

The author somewhat confronts this claim in another article however:

Not saying all agnostics or theists do this, I just tend to see this happening a lot.

More likely problems arise from:

1) Equating all atheism with strong atheism.

and

2) Saying that one is either a "weak" atheist and does not believe or a "strong" atheist who is certain that there is no God. Ignoring the alternative of provisional certainty or beliefs/denial based on probabilities.

In any event my argument still stands against agnsotics who wish to say both atheists and theists are wrong/closed-minded because the evidence does not support either side. The evidence clearly supports the atheist position, at least at the level of probability because it supports materialism/naturalism.

The God claim is superfluous and it is in this manner that I can claim to have some knowledge about it, just as I have some knowledge of creationism(mainly that it's unlikely to be true). And I contend that it is oft time the agnostic who attacks a straw man of strong atheism by limiting all refutations to uncertanties.

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps you're correct. I would, however, make two points: <ol type="1">[*]Huxley serves as an exception only if it can be shown that this "methodological naturalist" was not an agnostic with respect to phylosophical naturalism.[*]The question "Can one be an agnostic with respect to theism and any less ambivalent with respect to philosophical naturalism without reducing the term "naturalism" to some meaningless tautology?" should be understood as asking: "Can one reasonably be an agnostic ...", in which case one might be expected to show, not only that Huxley held such a position, but also that his reasons for doing so were cogent.[/list=a]I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Thank you for the quote. It was helpful. It also led me to review <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html" target="_blank">The Essence Of Agnosticism</a>, including the quote It's difficult for me to understand how such a method could result in anything other than agnosticism when applied to the supernatural.
Since claims share all of the features of opinion, I am again forced to apologize for my lack of clarity. By "God(s)" I intended a supernatural Deity or Deities. If I understood claims of more pedestrian gods - which I don't - I assume that my attitude towards them would be somewhat comparable to my attitude towards alien abduction claims.
First of all, you'll not hear me insisting that you are an atheist, in part because I'm not a big fan of the term nor the endless debates about its meaning. Furthermore, I can appreciate your focus on method. I refer to my beliefs, not as atheism, but as philosophical naturalism, i.e., the generalization of methodological naturalism and the protocols of science. With all due respects to Huxley and poetic license, I would suggest that 'agnosticism' is, in fact, a conclusion drawn based upon those very methods. I avoid using the term because, if asked about God(s) or the supernatural, what I wish to convey is not simply that I don't know - there are an infinite number of things that I don't know. What I wish to emphasize is that I have absolutely no reason to warrant their existence.

So the question becomes:

• Can one reasonably be an agnostic with respect to the existence of a supernatural deity or deities and be any less agnostic with respect to philosophical naturalism without reducing the term "naturalism" to some meaningless tautology?

Thanks again. While I do not (yet) concur with "agnosticism as method", I have yet to give it the consideration it deserves. I appreciate the input.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I understand. That's why I said: "You hypothetically posit the supernatural and then claim to know its characteristics and limitations."

I guess I'm suggesting that marriage between agnosticism and naturalism is likely to result in a dysfunctional family of propositions.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Amos

That's your choice. I just wanted you to know that I am not intimidated by some prominent 19th century natural scienitst.

Further, agnosticism cannot really be an -ism because by definition the agnostic does not understand the knowable of which the gnostic has complete understanding. So how can you make an -ism out of not understanding that which we have knowledge of. Absurd.

Jayhawker Soule

I'm probably not understanding it as well as I thought I did. Let me try again.

The agnostic states that s/he does not know if there is or is not a God or Gods. I am trying to determine how such a position might coexist with a support for philosophical naturalism without first defining the supernatural out of existence, thereby rendering philosophical naturalism tautological.

sandlewood

I think lack of evidence can also be evidence. It’s like when the 90-year-old man is asked why he has never gotten married and he replies that he just hasn’t decided whether to marry or not yet.

Depending on how you look at it, we don’t really know anything. We just have ever-increasing levels of relative certainty. I don’t think there is any specific line drawn between where something is known and something is not known.

sandlewood

I suppose I’m not helping then, since perhaps I did render naturalism a tautology. I’ve also defined supernaturalism out of existence. But that didn’t have anything to do with agnosticism really.

How would you define “Universe”? Does it mean “everything that exists”? If so, then how can there be anything outside the Universe? If there is something outside the Universe, then maybe our definition of “Universe” is not quite right. But if we define it as “everything that exists”, then does that mean that the meaning of “Universe” is a tautology?

Likewise if I define nature as everything in the Universe that we have observed in some way, then is it a tautology? If there is something “outside” of nature, then where do you draw the dividing line between what is in nature and what is outside of it? You can try to say that something is outside of nature if it does not follow natural law. But natural laws are really just the patterns that we’ve seen in the things that we’ve observed so far.

Buffman

I have often heard supernaturalists claim that:

"The absence of evidence does not confirm the evidence of absence."

I respond with:

"The evidence of absence is confirmed by the absence of evidence."

Since theists are the ones claiming that a God exists, it is their obligation/responsibility to provide the falsifiable evidence of their contention.

Since atheists are the ones claiming that a God does not exist, it is their obligation/ responsibility to provide the falsifiable evidence of their contention.

Agnostics look at both contentions and claim that neither one has any falsifiable evidence to support itself; therefore the jury must remain out until one or the other side has some...which will most likely never happen.

Naturalists say that they aren't concerned with either contention and are only interested with discovering more about the universe in which we currently find ourselves.

That's why I have labeled myself a "Non-Supernaturalist" and sincerely apologize for having intruded here. I have no beneficial opinions/comments on this question beyond those stated above.

PS: As best that I can recall, this is my first personal exposure to Amos and have no idea what end/goal s/he seeks...other than self-gratification. (Back to my C-SS cave.)

Jamie_L

Well, it seems to me you can define naturalism without defining the supernatural. You don't really even have to posit the supernatural. All you do is posit the natural world as a closed system and posit that all natural effects within that system have only natural causes.

Now, this says nothing about if there is anything outside that system, and if there is, what properties that other "stuff" might have. One could be agnostic about the existence of other stuff out there, and even posit that it may have had something to do with the creation of this closed system.

I don't know why I'm getting caught up in this. I guess I just like to blabber.

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule

Really. Let me suggest a few popositions:

• Proposition B - Buffman can not levitate on earth
• Proposition J - Jamie_L can not levitate on earth
• Proposition K - ksagnostic can not levitate on earth
• Proposition P - Primal can not levitate on earth
• Proposition R - ReasonableDoubt can not levitate on earth]
• Proposition S - sandlewood can not livitate on earth

This can be generalized as natural law. If a deity comes along capable of abrogating these rules at will, I suggest that there has been an abrogation of natural law, and that deity warrants the attribution of Supernatural. The alternative, of course, is to propose the aw:

• Proposition N - N can levitate on earth for all N, God willing (and the creek don't rise).

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>