Skeptic Mystic

The problem comes when an atheist tries to say too much. It is perfectly reasonable to reserve judgment, just as it is perfectly reasonable to say "without evidence of x I will not believe x. This is a far cry from saying "without evidence of x, not-x.

An intelligent atheist also has to be careful about how he expresses his belief. If an atheist claims that God does not exist then it is well within the rights of the agnostic to demand proof. Although the common meaning of "God does not exist" may be interepreted as "I don't believe in God", it behooves any atheist engaging in philosophical discussions to be more precise. Too often atheists make the same mistake as theists in confusing statements about beliefs with statements about reality.

The default position really should be agnosticism. It is as silly to claim that we are born believing there is no god as it is to claim that we're born believing in one. Unless people want to get into a discussion about a priori knowledge then it seems to me that the neutral position would be "I don't know."

Wyz_sub10

Technically, though, an agnostic is one who belives god is unknowable. IMO, this is as much a belief as any other position, because you commit to the position that one cannot know god.

The more recent, popular "version" of agnosticism is that of one refusing to affirm or deny god's existence, as you indicate. But it's still a position taken with some rationale.

As for saying that one should claim "I don't not know" as the ideal position, I would ask if you would apply that openness to the idea that maybe cosmic termites are carrying "units" of electricity through your wires on their backs.

If I proposed this to you, would you say you believed it to be true, did not believe, or did not know? If you feel comfortable in saying you did not believe it, what makes this proposition different than the exisitence of god?

ex-xian

Thank you very much!

I used the mathematical example b/c it was the first that came to mind. I could also cite numerous examples of this indirect method of argumentation wrt philosophical arguments.


When the theist is evangelizing or such, I agree totally. However, when one is attempting to show the theist the error of their ways or is advocating a non-theistic political position, something more is needed.

Exactly. I don't understand why so many people misunderstand this. Agnosticism means exactly what the words says. The knowledge is unattainable, that the ultimate nature of reality is impossible to be known. The reason I flirt with agnosticicm is because I am unsure about Kant's take on the mind/body problem.

Hawkingfan

A theist's claim that god exists and an atheist's claim that god does not exist are not the same. The burden of proof is on the theist, not only because he brought it up, but also because it is the positive assertion that if were true, contradicts science. Saying that there is no god does not contradict anything. Saying you don't know is leaving possiblities open for something to exist outside of reality and science. That is illogical and unreasonable. Using Occam's razor, it is perfectly logical to say there is no god. I always say it's like someone who says that they can walk on water. Since they brought it up and are making the positive assertion that in order to be true, would contradict science, it is up to them to prove that they can walk on water. It is not up to me to prove that they cannot. The laws of science tell me they cannot. If they prove it, it would be up to me to disprove. But until then, there is no need to disprove anything that cannot be proven in the first place. IMO, saying "without evidence of x, I will not believe in x" is the same as "without the evidence of x, not -x" because the second statement has an understood "believe" before the word "not" so it reads, "without the evidence of x, (I believe) not -x".

And I'm curious, if someone asks you if there is a Santa Claus, would you say "I don't know"? Would you consider using Occam's razor in coming up with another conclusion, or do you not care about Occam's razor?

Skeptic Mystic

I checked the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and came up with this entry for agnosticism:

One entry found for agnostic.


Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


Thus, those who claim that God is unknowable and those that claim no knowledge of God's existence or non-existence can both claim to be agnostics. Similarly, an atheist can be someone who claims God's nonexistence or someone who claims to have no belief in God.

As for your cosmic termites, I really don't know. Would you be so kind as to provide more information on them?

joedad

But it should get past that point eventually. Seems mentally healthy to do so. What does a believer mean by the word "god," for example? My hat goes off to xianseeker as well, because I see him as moving on in this regard.

Gods appear to be cultural mechanisms, artistic inventions, delivery vehicles for communicating and passing on values, behaviors, even survival skills. This is the sense is which they are real, like fiction, as Koy might say.

joe

AJ113

Well of course, if your intention is to advocate the atheist stance with the express purpose of converting theists, then you are going to come up against a boatload of problems and objections.

I am happy to explain my own stance on this issue, because I am certain that at that point I am right.

Whether this explanation has any sort of effect on the person listening to me is not top priority for me, although, of course, I am always ready to consider opposite viewpoints along with supporting evidence.

Skeptic Mystic

The claims are similar. Both are, (for the most part), unprovable assertions. If there is no evidence either way we are left with a person saying "x" and a person saying "not-x". Who am I, the poor agnostic, to believe? And while I do agree that the burden of proof for the existence of god is on the theist, an atheist such as yourself cannot smugly sidestep the problem by saying "there is no proof for the non-existence of god, so I don't have to present it." A statement such as that would be regarded in philosophical circles as a meaningless noise. As for the assertion that god contradicts science, this is not necessarily true. I can think up a half-dozen definitions of god off the top of my head that would not be contradictions of science. There may be ideas of god that do contradict science, but they are not all possible definitions of god.



Oh no! I don't know what you had for breakfast! Maybe now a Cosmic Space Goat will devour the Sun! Saying "I don't know" is not going to open any more possibilities than existed before I uttered those fateful words. Do you know how many hairs are on the top of my head? Saying "I don't know" does not have some deeper, unsettling meaning. It merely expresses ignorance (in the face of lack of evidence especially).



Technically, Occam's Razor would state that we have no need of god to explain reality. There are insects that walk on water and I imagine that humans might be able to duplicate that feat technologically at some point. (This is, of course, ignoring the obvious answer that anyone can walk on water, if only the temperature were cold enough. ) Any positive claim requires evidence.



:banghead:
You saw the point, but you don't understand it. If we assume that you are correct and that any statement x actually means "I believe x" then we cease to be able to claim that x and not-x are contradictory. If all x means is "I believe x" and all not-x means is "I don't believe x" then we're left with the fact that both can be true at the same time. If this were the case, it would make philosophical discussions about the nature of reality rather difficult. "God exists" and "God does not exist" would both be true. This is why I brought the point up at all. As responsible and intelligent philosophers, we should try to say what we mean. If we did implicitly assume "believe" before any proposition what should we do when we want to discuss propositions without reference to belief?

I don't know if there is a Santa Claus. I have seen arguments against the common beliefs about Santa Claus that carry some weight.

Also, Occam's Razor is not generally used to "come up with another conclusion." It is better used to decide between two already existing propostions.

Wyz_sub10

Agreed on both counts. Just stating that the first definition of 'agnostic' is true to the original meaning of the word (in contrast, 'gnostic' refers to 'knowing god directly' as opposed to knowing of god).

Seeing as I'm sure you know where this is headed, the information doesn't matter too much. It could be broad, confusing, inexplicable, contradictory, with some physical attributes that do not make sense to you. Let's provide at least enough detail to explain their relationship to electricity, plus some other "facts":

For instance,

- they are invisible
- they travel faster than light
- they are able to hear Jell-O
- they are immortal
- they have two eyes, but one ear
- they are the sole source for the delivery of electricity
- they always think good thoughts
- they provide "cleaner" electricity to those that believe in them

You can ask any other questions as you like, but this is the gist of it.

Hawkingfan

The two are not the same when applying Occam's razor.
You are to believe the statement that is the most scientifically plausible and is closer to everyday, experienced reality.
That is not what I said. I said that there is no reason to disprove something which cannot be proven to begin with. The one who makes the claim that contradicts reality must provide the proof first.
If a being that has no fundamental qualities of science existed, it would contradict science.
I thought "philosophical discussions about the nature of reality" were rather difficult. No?
They are considered true. It depends on whether you're a theist or an atheist.
Well, let's use Occam's razor here. Is it scientifically possible for 1 being who is averaged-sized, has 1 body, 2 hands, 2 legs, 8 reindeer, and 1 sleigh, deliver several million objects to several million homes over thousands of miles all over the world within a 24 hour period? In order to answer "yes", laws of science would need to be re-written, so we can logically conclude that the answer is "no".