Jayhawker Soule

sandlewood, in a parallel thread you wrote: This highlights an easily overlooked attribute of a natural law - that it is possible.

One of the truly wonderful things about nature is that we can know things about it, things which are both generalizable and extensible. It is this generalizability that allows science to be predictive. We are not amazed that a 7th century experiment by someone named John Philloponus should yield results identical to those noted centuries later by Galileo, even though the experiment was performed by different people at different times in different places using different objects. Because we can generalize, we can predict, and because we can predict, we can demand repeatability from experiments deemed successful.

So, what does this have to do with anything? You wrote yesterday: I believe that the dividing line is between that which demands an extension of our understanding of a natural law, and that which overturns the premise and predictability of natural law in general.

The Supernatural serves as the Universal Caveat, i.e., experiment E can be expected to yield results R except in cases characterized by Supernatural intervention.

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

sandlewood

I hadn’t replied any more because I didn’t know how to say what I meant without just repeating what I said earlier.
Sure, but when predictions fail, we modify our generalizations (natural law) to fit what happened. We don’t just label the non-conforming event as supernatural.

As a human, if I had never seen any animal other than elephants, horses, and pigs, I might create a natural law saying that no animal can defeat gravity. I would predict that if any animal jumped off a cliff, it would without a doubt fall to the bottom. And in every case I saw, that was true. But if I one day see a bird for the first time and the bird was flying, the bird would seem to overturn that natural law. I would see it “levitate”. If I didn’t yet understand how it could fly, I might think it flew by sheer willpower. If I saw the bird jump from a cliff and begin to fly instead of falling to the bottom, I would think it performed a supernatural act because it overturned the predictability of my generalization.

Helicopters can levitate. Isn’t that a supernatural act? The only reason we don’t think so is because we understand how a helicopter levitates.
First I think you get the cart before the horse by saying a “diety” comes along. I’d rather just say that someone or something comes along. The alternative law you suggested is not the only one possible. The next step would be to learn how that object is levitating. Presumably, if you accept that the universe is knowable, then you can eventually discover the cause theoretically. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the object has some particular attribute and method that allows it to levitate. Then you could make the new “natural law” that: objects that have that attribute and employ that method can levitate and objects that don’t can’t. You don’t have to say that either all objects levitate or they don’t.

In the bird example, you would make the “natural law” that animals with wings can fly when they flap them while animals without wings cannot fly. They will fall when they jump off a cliff. Of course, once you meet up with an ostrich and throw him off a cliff you will have to further modify your “natural law”. (Sorry, I feel way too pedantic )


I don’t see the difference between the two (except a maybe difference in degree). Anything that overturns the predictability of a natural law, demands that the natural law be extended.

Maybe a telling phrase is this one: “an extension of our understanding of a natural law”. The laws are written by humans. We understand them perfectly. The only problem is that they may not accurately describe the way the nature works because we don’t understand nature. So I’d prefer the phrase “an extension of our understanding of nature”.
What good is an experiment if we just arbitrarily chalk up certain outcomes to supernatural intervention?

Jayhawker Soule

In my opinion, sandlewood, this Universal Caveat is precisely the difference between

• that which overturns the predictions of a specific natural law, and
• that which overturns the expectation of natural law predictability.

Its the difference between the extension of natural law and its abrogation. It's the difference between noting exceptions to some rule that winged animals can fly, and determining that "rule' is, in fact, illusion.

ksagnostic

1) I didn’t claim that the idea that reality is not changed by belief was unique to agnosticism, but that it is a core idea of agnosticism. I stand by that claim.
2) As to why agnosticism is being “contrasted with both atheism and theism in my own post”…I am replying to a post in which you contrasted atheism and agnosticism. To reply to it and to criticize it, I naturally end up discussing the topic you introduced. When I argue that agnosticism describes a process, and atheism describes a conclusion, I am quite naturally contrasting the terms. However, my doing so hardly invalidates my claim that they are fundamentally different.
3) Victory over what? I am not arguing that agnosticism is superior to atheism. I am arguing that it is different, and that the label that one applies to oneself tends to reflect a difference in what he/she sees as important.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." - Thomas Huxley

Since I draw my “vague” definition from Huxley, I quite naturally disagree with your contention that my definition is “at odds with the historical context surrounding the term agnosticism”. My definition is that agnosticism is a process, and Huxley explicitly described agnosticism as a method. The terms, in this case, are essentially synonymous. Agnosticism describes a process/method/approach. Atheism and theism describe conclusions, which could be absolute or provisional. Whether Huxley thought atheists and theists were “too cocksure” is not really relevant to the definition.

Actually, I am simply obliged to defend my argument. With regards to what other agnostics say, I did say that “I'm not sure I know of any self proclaimed agnostic who says that the claims are equally likely to be true”. That statement I stand by. As a reminder, my argument with you is with the claim that an agnostic argues that both ends of a proposition are equally likely to be true (“The agnostic seems to be saying that given the evidence, both these claims: "There is a God" and "There is no God" are equally likely to be true.&#8221). Most agnostics I have known have indicated that they think one option is more probable than another on a “god” question. I know of very few agnostics, including Michael Shermer, who say that “There is a God” and “There is no God” are equally likely to be true. Saying both sides can not offer proof for their position, which Shermer has stated, is not the same thing as saying both possibilities are equally likely. Shermer himself makes that clear in his writing on the subject. BTW, I agree that the statement “atheists think they’re sure and theists think they are sure, and neither side is” is a straw man of atheism, and for that matter of theism as well. But, saying an agnostic thinks all propositions are equally likely is also a straw man, and like I said, one all too commonly employed here.

(snipped discussion on definitions of agnosticism and Primal’s reasons for assuming a position of provisional atheism)

If I am asked “Do you believe in God?”, after asking what the questioner meant (there is a surprising amount of variability among those who ask the question), I am likely to respond “no” to most variants. For example, Shermer himself stated in his discussion on agnosticism “If by fiat I had to bet on whether there is a God or not, I would bet that there is not. Indeed, I live my life as if there is no God.” Evidently, he does not consider the probabilities regarding whether god(s) exist to be equal. I can see how you disagree with Shermer’s statement: “’There is no God’ is no more defensible than ‘there is a God.’" Frankly I am not sure I agree with him on that point either. But that’s not the same thing as saying both statements are equally probable.

I once had an extensive on-line discussion with the likely author of your quotations from alt. atheism, Austin Cline. He tends to be in the “why don’t agnostics just admit they are atheist camp”. I’ll tell you what I told him. In my case, I don’t deny that I meet the definition of “atheist” (and I prefer the term “provisional” over “weak” myself). But, I don’t consider the label of atheist as being a particularly informative, helpful, or relevant description of me. I meet the definition of “atheist”, and “abigfootist”, and “aufoist”, because I am an agnostic who approaches extraordinary positive claims with skepticism. I arrive at provisional atheism because I practice agnosticism, but I am not an agnostic because I practice provisional atheism. I also think consciously choosing the label of agnostic also assists me in employing skepticism regarding my own perceptions and beliefs.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

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

ksagnostic

Quoted from Reasonable Doubt



I must admit, when I read this it made me smile, because the same problem with atheism (the endless debate about its meaning) obviously applies to agnosticism as well (as evidenced by this very thread). Maybe if I had it all to do over again, I would simply started off calling myself a skeptic. But, I like agnosticism, and maybe have something of an emotional attachment to the label. I think I like the methodological skepticism and cautious humility that I see as inherent in the label.

Jobar

Interesting discussion.

I have talked to agnostics who insisted that all atheists were actually agnostics (because given that humans are not all-knowing, there is always a chance we are wrong about any statement we make, though that chance be infinitesimal) and also vice versa (due to the fact that atheists simply claim no knowledge of God(s) and that theists can show no tiniest evidence for their deity.)

I see little to no difference between a weak/provisional/negative atheist and an agnostic.

In defense of agnostics, we who name ourselves atheists have to make it clear that we make no knowledge claims (this is why a strong or positive atheist is vulnurable to the accusation he holds his position on faith, since he claims knowledge he cannot prove objectively.)

Frankly, I see less difference between atheists and agnostics than there is between, say, Methodists and Baptists. It's simply a slight difference in emphasis.

Jayhawker Soule

Well expressed! I too view my 'atheism' as wholly derivative. What I do not understand, however, is the concept of agnosticism as method, rather than as epistemological conclusion derived from methodological naturalism.

How does agnosticism as method differ from science as method? Edited to add: perhaps an appeal to a dictionary entry for method would help ... (Left as an exercise for the reader.)

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Philosoft

Throughout all these types of threads that attempt to draw distinctions between philosophical positions, it never fails that someone takes a position contrasting "weak" and "strong" atheism. Having never received a satisfactory answer, I will ask again: Who are these so-called "strong atheists" who promote some dogmatic, faith-based doctrine, and what are the major differences that make the weak-strong dichotomy allegedly meaningful?

sandlewood

Are you saying that because the supernatural exists, then there can never be 100% predictability of anything because a supernatural entity can always do anything at any time?

Primal

Yes but so many other systems of thought stress such a feature, just about any realist/objectivist system that I see any attempt to define agnosticism via that means as a little too vague.


Unfortunately I do not think the issue is that clean cut. Many agnostics tend to present agnosticism as a third way between atheism and theism. This includes Michael Shermer that argues against atheism via his agnostic or nontheist stance (due to all the "negative" things atheism tends to entail). Shermer seems to argue for this position by showing that reason and science cannot be used to argue for or against any claim concerning God. To demonstrate this he used metaphor about a two-dimensional shape trying to understand a three dimensional shape. Carl Sagain did likewise by claiming that his agnosticism was better then atheists who were all certain:

-"The Amniotic Universe," Broca's Brain, p. 311.

In that sense Sagan is making it quite clear that he does not believe atheism to be compatible with his own agnostic/nontheist position.

Huxley also suggested that agnosticism was incompatible with atheism and represented a different position:

In it he is saying that that any answer to the question of theism cannot be answered one way or the other.

Later on Huxley explicitly stated that agnosticism was a method, not conslusion, however agnosticism seems to be contrasted a lot. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies; on the one hand agnostics want to stress that their belief is a method, not a third position in the atheist/theist debate, on the other hand agnosticism tends to be contrasted to both atheism and theism, which suggests it is a third conclusion. Even if this is not stated directly, it is often implied in what agnostics write/say. Agnostics then tend to stress one side or the other, in which case there is confusion. My posts can said then to be more against the agnostic who presents his own belief as a conclusion or as opposed to atheism, then one who holds to a method potentially compatible with atheism.



Well I am glad you are but not agnostics share such sentiments. That is who my argument is directed against.


Again I aknowledge this, but this seems at odds then with Huxley's contrasting agnosticism with theism and atheism. Saying he was esentially neither theist or atheist but agnostic.

But Huxley's use of the term was itself ambiguous, on the one hand he presents it as purely a method, on the other, an alternative conclusion to the "gnostic" like atheist,theist and materialist schools.

It is relevant if he describes himself as neither atheist nor theist but agnostic. That suggests a third position/conclusion.


No, because we are discussing what the term means, and if other agnostics use the term in a different way then your definition cannot be said to be the official or only definition of agnostic.

Well, I didn't mean they say this verbatim, that would be a straw man. That is often what they imply though and represents the sort of reasoniing they use to condem the atheist/theist position and establish the agnostic position.


Most I know say that the issue cannot be known or proven either way. I guess this is just an example of conflicting anectdotes though.

No, actually Shermer seems to say the issue cannot be treated in a rational manner, or that no side has compelling argument. Though Shermer does argue for atheism on "practical grounds".

I agree on the summary of atheism/theism by agnostics being a straw man, but not the summary of the agnostic position. This is because I have seen many agnostics use such reasoning, include Huxley and Sagan above.

Like I said Shermer argues for atheism on pratical grounds. However Shermer does often imply that epistemically, atheism and theism are on equal grounds. This is proven latter by your latter quote:


Again this difference in position "I'd bet on no God" vs "Both atheism and theism are equally defensible" seem puzzling. Until one realizes that Shermer advocates atheism on purely pragmatic grounds, while at the same time believing that the evidence, makes both sides equal in regards to theory or epistemic standing.

To me it looks that way, Shermer just didn't say "they are equally probable" verbatim. Shermer did imply this though by saying one position is "no more defnsible" then another. Again I admit, few if any agnostics have said "the sides are equally probable" verbatim, they do often imply that in arguments though.

Here's the reason why. Even if I was an agnostic atheist, who adhered to the definition of agnosticism as one of method; I would if asked about the God question say I was an atheist.

Why?

1) The confusion inherent in the term agnostic. On the one hand it is said to be a third conclusion on the other method.

2) The question is about what conclusion one has taken. Saying "I am agnostic" and meaning method says very little. This is because agnosticism is compatible with theism and atheism.

Imagine this; someone askes me: "Do you adhere to evolutionary theory or creationism?"

And I respond, "I am agnostic on the issue."

That will be either interpreted as meaning "undecided, or think both sides are on equal ground" or as meaning I adhere to the agnostic method, in which case I have said nothing about whether I believe in evolution or creation. In the answer then lies both a bit of vagueness and ambiguity.

Also imagine if I was asked "are you a racist of nonracist?" and I say "agnostic".

3) Therein lies another weakness in the answer, it can made in response to different questions. Meaning that it conveys no real information.

In the above I am saying "I adhere to a certain method" but that's not what the question was asking. It was asking if I believed in radical racial differences or racial superiority, in which case I would respond "I am a nonracist."

4) The terms I do not use because 1) They would refer to almost everyone in society, theism is far more popular, at least in my society hence the term atheism is meaningful and 2) They are not recognized words. Though on the bigfoot question I would say that "I believe bigfoot is a myth" not "I am agnostic on the issue"(again because the answer wouldn't really adress the question). I would not say I am a "abifootist" because that is hard to pronounce and isn't even a word. I would just end up looking stupid then. The term atheism is a word though so I use that to efficiently say "I believe there are no Gods". If there was a similiar word that allowed me to say the same thing about Big Foot and UFOs I would use that.