The Intellectual Dishonesty of Agnosticism

[Warren Stupidity]

...
The intellectual agnostics, that is the academics, are the worst of all and can be extremely exasperating. Listening to them in debate or reading them in print, they spend much of their time in apology for the worst elements of religion, but they will rarely push it as far as condemnation.

While claiming not to be religious themselves, they make claims that we should however keep religion going for the good of society. They claim that they can live without it, but the "intellectually unwashed" general public cannot: A classic example of this thinking came from the Spanish-American biologist and philosopher Francisco Ayala, at the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference. The same position was further promulgated at the same conference by Melvin J. Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology, Neuroscience, and Behavioral Biology at Emory University.
...
The atheist has decided based on probability, that the God concept is improbable. That improbability is based on the same reasoning, that most of us do not believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. They are simply mind-spun speculations and are disconnected from any evidence that could begin to even lead to probability.

The theist on the other hand (and here I am referring to monotheism in particular), believes in God not based on probability, but simply because they have faith and it's 'supported' by a long history of tradition.

But what of the agnostic. On what basis have they even proposed that the God concept should be at least considered a possibility, however remote that possibility is. Well, it is not a position based on faith, if agnostics could be convinced based on faith, then they wouldn't need the 'crutch' of agnosticism. On the other hand how can they come to a conclusion of holding God up, in the realm of maybe, however small that maybe is, if there is no evidence to support that position.

http://secularman.blogspot.com/2007/07/intellectual-dishonesty-of-agnosticism.html

[rug]

1. July 16, 2007

by Craig Secularman

No comments.

I have been an atheist all my life... Well, at least from the age that I grasped the meaning of the word. I saw through religion as a man-made hoax from a very young age.

[edhopper]

2. You have a problem with his reasons

for being an atheist?

[rug]

5. I was hoping for something more from his profile.

[edhopper]

13. Oh

okay then, fair enough.

[Goblinmonger]

3. That's some deep analysis there.

Anything to offer?

[rug]

6. That's all it takes.

I look forward to the next installment from January 16, 2000.

[Jim__]

17. Valid point! Did you try following the links that support his claims?

For instance:

The intellectual agnostics, that is the academics, are the worst of all and can be extremely exasperating. Listening to them in debate or reading them in print, they spend much of their time in apology for the worst elements of religion, but they will rarely push it as far as condemnation.

While claiming not to be religious themselves, they make claims that we should however keep religion going for the good of society. They claim that they can live without it, but the "intellectually unwashed" general public cannot: A classic example of this thinking came from the Spanish-American biologist and philosopher Francisco Ayala, at the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference. The same position was further promulgated at the same conference by Melvin J. Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology, Neuroscience, and Behavioral Biology at Emory University.

The link to the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference leads to a web site that does not seem to be about the conference (a translation of the page):

By the self-bankruptcy, you want to rebuild a life from scratch ...
I wonder do the state of their own debt state that can be self-bankruptcy ...
Repayment of other debt does not turn ... But I want to avoid just absolutely self bankruptcy!
...

Although his reference there is to an argument allegedly made by intellectual agnostics, and the personal reference is to an example from Francisco Ayala. Now, I'm not sure if he is asserting that Ayala is an intellectual agnostic making statements that back the claims in the essay, or, he is not citing Ayal as an intellectual agnostic but rather as someone who makes a claim about intellectual agnostics that is similar to the claim being made in the essay. But, according to wikipedia Ayala does not generally discuss his religious views but does identify as a Christian:

He has been publicly critical of U.S. restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He currently serves on the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, an organization that has lobbied Congress to lift federal restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research. He is also a critic of creationism and intelligent design theories, claiming that they are not only pseudoscience, but also misunderstood from a theological point of view. He suggests that the theory of evolution resolves the problem of evil, thus being a kind of theodicy.[10] Although Ayala generally does not discuss his religious views, he has stated that "science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God."[11] He also briefly served, in 1960, as a Dominican priest.[12] He also identifies as a Christian.

The Melvin J Konner link is to an, apparently, different (new?) Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology at Emory University:

Professor Knauft's research combines politico-economic and cultural analysis across different world areas. He is particularly interested in issues of collective and individual subjectivity in relation to structures of social inequality and political domination or disempowerment, both historically and in the present. Across geographic and temporal scales, Dr. Knauft has been concerned with the critical and comparative theorization of social and cultural responses to imperialism and neo-imperialism, on the one hand, and civil strife, on the other, including in circumstances of underdevelopment and responses to development schemes in different world areas. His publications have addressed issues of modernity and marginality, social and critical theory, politics and violence; and gender and sexuality.

So, it isn't possible to verify the claims he is making about intellectual agnostics. That's not the fault of this aged essay, of course, but it does raise questions as to why it was cited without giving us updated references.

[rug]

18. Geez, that post is so old some of the links aren't there anymore.

http://beyondbelief2006.org/

Thanks for the translation!

Maybe he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Goblinmonger]

4. I think this is where you are left when you redefine agnostic.

One is either an agnostic atheist or theist if the word is used the way it is supposed to be.

But if one tries to redefine the word to mean "I'm just not sure" you have the conundrum above. I don't know how such an agnostic explains away the article other than "stop being mean."

[DonCoquixote]

7. no actually

"While claiming not to be religious themselves, they make claims that we should however keep religion going for the good of society."

No, actualy, all an agnostic is is someone who beliuves that trying to prove absolutly that God either definitely exists or definitly cannot exist is a waste of mine. Religious hypocrites have many soft underbellies to attack tha will not waste ammo.

[Major Nikon]

8. An atheist can also fit your definition

All that's required to be an atheist is the rejection of belief in the divine. No proof of anything existing or not existing is required.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. That might be some agnostics, but not others.

What I have seen is that the term is frequently used to create a false equivalency between that which is almost certainly true, and that which is vanishingly unlikely. In particular the "agnostic argument form" is used in this forum quite frequently not with respect to knowledge about god, but about all sorts of things, all of them, unlike some abstract concept of a deity removed from the physical universe, quite "knowable".

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. I see no conclusive evidence that some sort of deity exists somewhere in the Universe.

I see no conclusive evidence that a deity does not exist somewhere in the Universe.

In order for me to state one way or another, I would need to be omniscient.

If I were omniscient, that would give me a godlike power, and provide an argument that a deity could exist in my chair.

That fact that I am not omniscient only proves that a deity is not sitting in my chair.

I am not an atheist because I will never say "no deity exists."

I am not a theist because I do not worship and have no faith in the existence of a deity.

That makes me an agnostic, in my estimation.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. So you are holding that the probability of "deity of astounding powers exists"

is as equally likely as "deity of astounding powers does not exist". Is that correct? Seriously?

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. I said, "No conclusive evidence."

I said nothing about probability.

Probability is irrelevant to the discussion.

It can not be proved.

Because there is no proof, and no proof is possible, I do not join either side of the argument.

[immoderate]

28. Are you equally agnostic about leprechauns?

Not take a side?

--imm

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. I am Irish. About Leprechauns, I have no doubt.

Especially after a fifth of good Irish whisky.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Probability is most relevant to this discussion. It is why I believe claims of agnosticism are

frequently dishonest.

Again, claiming that two opposing positions are equivalent when one has a 0.000001 probability of being true and the other a corresponding 0.999999 probability of being true is absurd - it is what the corporate media does, for example, with catastrophic climate change, an issue they are "agnostic" about.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. Agnosticism does not claim two opposing postions are equivalent.

As I said, it is not about probability. An atheist can not disprove the existence of a deity anymore than a theist can prove a deity must exist.

No matter how many decimal points are on the side of improbability, they do not equal to exact proof.

From the evidence I have seen, there is no indication that a deity exists. Because I have neither seen everything nor sensed every nook and cranny of the universe, It would be disingenuous to say, none exist.

I am content to live with uncertainty.

[Silent3]

52. What makes you think being atheist means taking a position of 100% certainty...

...that no gods exist?

Even if that were the technical definition of atheism (which it most certainly is not), there's still a point at which a probability becomes so vanishingly small that it's a greater abuse of common use of language to treat wild implausibilities as important caveats in need of special acknowledgement than to accept a little round-off error of nearly zero to zero.

If one has any significant doubt about the existence of deities, then that tentative state in which you hold consideration of deities can certainly not be called a belief. A suspicion or an allowance, perhaps, but not a belief.

You therefore lack belief. That's all there is to being an atheist. You may shun the label, and that's your right, but the definition of atheist as been met.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. What is uncertain in the statement, "There is no god." If you can not prove a statement,

and assert it is true, then you have taken up a position of 100% certainty.

To me, the best statement is, "It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity."

[Silent3]

56. You assert that all atheists say "There is no god?"

"It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity" is a statement of lack of belief, and it is therefore an atheist statement.

[Agnosticsherbet]

58. Well, that is the primary definition. Now, if you are merely uncertain, how can you disbelieve?

The accurate statement would be to say that you are uncertain of or that you doubt the existence of a deity because there is no absolute proof of a claim of Godhead. You would not be an atheist because you would not be defined as not believing in God.

Uncertainty is an alternate state to belief and unbelief.

Sadly, there is not an organized group of Uncertainists who claim Uncertainism and hold the Uncertainty Principal as a defining ethos.

[Silent3]

64. Disbelief is merely a lack of belief, not an assertion.

One can easily disbelieve and be uncertain at the same time. The word disbelief certainly has a strong connotation of thinking a thing is improbable, even highly improbable, but disbelieving X is not at all equivalent to 100% assertion of Not X.

The strength of my own disbelief all depends on what someone means by the highly malleable meaning of the word "god". An idea of god can be so self-contradictory that 100% disbelief is applicable. If someone equates "god" with nothing more than the natural universe, I could even say that I believe in that God -- except that I'd rather skip the unnecessary baggage that comes along with the word "god" and just say "natural universe".

As the word is commonly used, I often find "agnostic" to be associated with a frankly wishy-washy trying-not-to-offend diplomatic stance, or with silly idea of treating "can't prove it isn't true!" as if that, in and of itself, were a strong argument for giving an idea serious consideration.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. I see no conclusive evidence that monkeys can fly or leprechauns exist, should I hold

out just in case for either?

Maybe I should reword it

"that elephants can fly or leprechauns exist"

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. Monkeys were held sacred in India. Some consider Leprechauns echos of deities of pre-christian

religion.

I have left my shoes out. Not once as a "one shoe maker" showed up to repair them. I blame that on American culture's throw away ethic rather than absolute proof of their non-existence.

But the argument that one specific God does not exist doesn't refute the possible existence of a deity somewhere in the universe.

There is no way to prove or disprove that somewhere some God Damned God is not sitting on a celestial crapper, or inhabiting some hidden companion of Fomaulhaut. (A tip of the hat to H.P. Lovecraft. One of my favorite atheist writers.)

I choose to call myself an agnostic rather than say one does not or one does exist.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

32. But that is just silly...sorry, not meaning to be rude or anything like that

But if I made up the possibility of a golden building in the sky where chocolate fairy tales were made in the form of unicorns, and I convinced children of this for hundreds of years, would you have to consider it possibly true since you could not disprove it?

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. The arugment being made is that one must either choose Faith or Atheism.

That the answer must be digital, either a 1 or 0, yes or no.
That if I believe I must accept gravity defying golden buildings and Chocolate fairies.
That only if I don't believe can I accept that gravity works in accordance with accepted physical laws inherent in the universe we share. (Except for quantum gravity, which still is a freaking mystery.)

As an agnostic, I do not have to give equal credence to Jesus, Mohammed, and the flying Spaghetti monster. (I think the later is ever so slightly more honest and sensible.) That is the reason why I say it is impossible to prove that a deity can not exist or that a deity must exist.

Measure me out a kilo of deity, a pound of Jesus, or an ounce of Mohammed. That would be conclusive evidence. On the other hand, the fact that those things can not be measured does not mean they, in some form or another, do not exist.

I don't live my life so I can get the key to the executive bathroom in heaven. I don't live my life as if there is no heaven.

I live it day to day, for my family and friends.

I expect that dead is dead, and the only thing for anyone to do once I am gone is to go through my pockets for lose change. I am open to surprise.

I think agnostic is a perfectly sensible and logical point of view.

[cleanhippie]

45. Understanding that theism is about belief and Gnosticism is about knowledge

Is the key. The two are mutually exclusive.

One can be a theist (believe in a god) and an agnostic (doesn't know for sure) or one can be an atheist (doesn't believe in a god) and an agnostic (doesn't know for sure), for example. Most of us are agnostic on the issue of whether we know for sure or not, but when it comes to belief in a god, that is a binary position; one either does or does not believe. (If you disagree, please do demonstrate where the middle-ground is between believing and not believing, knowing that knowledge has nothing to do with that position)

Those that choose not to answer the question regarding their belief claiming agnosticism on the subject either don't undersand the subject or are being intellectually dishonest about it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

46. Agnosticism is the position that it is imossible to know.

The statement that a deity does not exist is not based on real knowledge, but on the preponderance of observable data that
provides an atheist sufficient faith in the observation that no such deity can exist.

Belief in a deity without proof requires faith, the acceptance of a deity without knowledge of its existence.

The preponderance of data is not sufficient to me to state, categorically, that there is no deity in the universe. Faith is not a sufficient answer for me to get religion.

That is the position in between.

[cleanhippie]

47. So you disagree that theism is about belief?

belief isn't knowledge, knowledge isn't belief.

Belief in a deity without proof requires faith, the acceptance of a deity without knowledge of its existence.

And that is the definition of an agnostic theist.

The preponderance of data is not sufficient to me to state, categorically, that there is no deity in the universe. Faith is not a sufficient answer for me to get religion.

That sounds like Agnosticism to me, but tells us nothing about your belief or lack of belief about a god.

[Agnosticsherbet]

50. I am not an agnostic theist, for I do not accept faith in a deity.

I am not an agnostic atheist. I do not accept faith in the preponderance of evidence.

It is impossible to know, so I chose neither of the above.

[cleanhippie]

53. Do you believe in a god or not?

Its a simple question, really.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. I neither believe in a deity or in the absolute lack of a deity.

It is like accepting the existence of Black Holes.

Black holes are a mathematical concept. They can not be directly observed. Mathematical theory allows predictions on how matter acts around such massive gravity wells. I accept that the theory that supermassive black holes occupy the center of galaxies is sound and the most likely explanation for observed data. I don't believe in black holes. I look for evidence that either more deeply cements that explanation or evidence that the theory is wrong. If the mathematics are correct it will never be possible to directly observe a blackhole and report on it.

I view Theism and Atheism as theories. It is not possible for either side to prove their theories. Though I will grant that it is easier to cast doubt on the gods of specific religions, at the core of each theory is the dogmatic belief in their own world view, that a deity must exist or can not exist.

Prove it.

[cleanhippie]

57. You should join a pro team.

With mental gymnastics like that you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. I have no need to convince anyone else of my world view.

And I am a lousy team player

[cleanhippie]

60. On ale sure to stretch really well.

It's easy to pull something when you contort like that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

61. What is "On ale sure..."

I do not need to contort. My world view is what it is.

[cleanhippie]

62. Ha! Fat fingers on an iPhone with autocorrect strikes again.

And if you say so.

[Agnosticsherbet]

63. Auto-correct is not a god, but it seems to act as a mischievous spirit intent on fouling our words.

[eomer]

66. The middle ground between belief and non-belief is being somewhat convinced.

be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Belief is thinking that something is true. It seems to me that a person can go through a process that starts at not thinking at all that something is true, to starting to think it might be true, into thinking it's probably true, and finally to being absolutely convinced that it is true.

That process could also stall at some point in the middle, as far as I can see.

However, I'm not completely sure of this, perhaps you can finish convincing me!

[struggle4progress]

10. Those, who wish to think of themselves as great advocates of the scientific method, and

who regard every question as involving an issue that can be settled by science, ought to realize that all real science begins with the effort to dispel our ideological inclinations and to instead begin from the position "I Do Not Know" with regard to the question under investigation

Ideological bravery or cowardice has nothing to do with a scientific outlook: intellectual integrity and the willingness to face our own ignorance, together with a determined effort to dispel (in some accurate and decisive way) a small and specific portion of that ignorance, is critical to the scientific outlook

The view that someone, who says "I Do Not Know," should be attacked and chastised for admitting their ignorance, is the view of an ideologue: "I Do Not Know" is the only honest starting point for all knowledge

[skepticscott]

14. Intellectually mature and honest beings have moved past a simplistic "I don't know"

to an understanding that, just because something is not absolutely, 100% certain, it doesn't mean that all possibilities can be regarded as of equal likelihood, and that the strength of one's convictions should be directly related to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Only those without intellectual courage or integrity still use "I don't know" as a refuge or pretend that no amount of inquiry can ever dispel ignorance to even the slightest degree. Only the emotionally weak and needy cling to the notion that, even though the evidence is 99.9% on one side and 0.1% on the other, it's still intellectually honest to say "well, it might be true and and it might not be, we just don't know", and leave it at that.

[rug]

16. How do you know that?

[edhopper]

15. Depends on what they say

"I don't know" about, and how much they have looked at it.

It is a starting point, but it is not the end point. To not allow there to be an answer is an argument for ignorance.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. 'I do not know' is by default, atheist.

Belief is a positive, overt investment in XYZ. Atheism is without belief.

Reserving judgment is a fine thing to do, but until one makes the overt, intentional EFFORT of Belief(TM), they are an atheist, with no positive or negative connotations.

[Warpy]

11. Or maybe some of them just haven't made up their minds yet

a condition that can last a lifetime, and are honest enough to admit it.

I can live with that, especially since I've never met an agnostic who thought that naked Santa Claus on the roof of the Sistine was a possibility. Naw, their god possibilities are considerably less anthropomorphic ones.

It's the 100% certain who cause all the mischief, no matter what they're 100% certain about. Me, I'm not certain I'm sitting in a messy room in a slum and typing on an old keyboard right now, I might be picking daisies in the Caucasus in summer while daydreaming this shit. Reality can be a slippery commodity and people who are sure of it are annoying, at best.

[trotsky]

20. It's not even so much that I mind people misusing the word agnostic...

it's those who present it as if it were the superior "centrist" position between two equal "extremes."

http://xkcd.com/774/

[Warren Stupidity]

21. it is the form of agnosticism that holds

that a position based on utter bullshit that is massively improbable and has zero evidence to suggest that it is even possible is held to be equal to the claim that the utter bullshit can be disregarded until such time that actual evidence of its non-bullshit status is produced.

In other words: a probability of 0.999999 is held to be equivalent to a probability of 0.000001. That is a massively dishonest position.

[pinto]

24. I see nothing dishonest, intellectually or otherwise with a simple "I don't know".

[Goblinmonger]

25. Even if the question is "Do you believe in a god?"

Because I think people know if they believe in a god. Which decides the atheist/theist binary. Then we move to whether they are gnostic/agnostic about that belief.

It's pretty simple.

[pinto]

29. I think the binary proposal / query is an issue. Not the "I don't know".

Either / Or from the get go doesn't seem to work well in most interactions. "Do you believe in a god?" could be a good opening to some discussions, yet I'd like to see room for "I don't know" as a response.

Then move on to "What's a good spot for lunch around here?"

[JoePhilly]

27. The agnostic stuggles with how to "believe" a negative.

The negative being ... "there is no God".

Consider this ... there is no reason that ANYTHING exists.

How did ANYTHING come to be?

Even if you exclude humans and the Earth ... why is ANYTHING else out there?

Science has no answer ... and neither does Religion ... Religion only tries to explain why WE are here, not why the rest of the known Universe exists.

And so, an agnostic can accept those two points and expect either on to effectively explain their reason as to WHY any of it exists. Which neither has yet.

btw ... I'm an atheist.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. How did anything come to be?

How is that any more sensible of a question than 'Why shouldn't everything exist?' Why should we assume that at some point 'nothing' existed? Isn't taking that sort of stance along the lines of the 'spontaneous generation' theory of flies 'magically' appearing in a jar with rotten meat placed in it? Is there any sort of proof anywhere that there was ever 'nothing'? We've obviously got lots of 'something' all around us, so why should we believe that there was a 'before something existed' in which 'nothing' existed?

[JoePhilly]

34. So everything was always here?

Why?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Why not?

And by 'everything was always here', I obviously don't mean everything was always here in its current form. Obviously, for instance, you and I are only here for a short period of time. But the mass or energy incorporated in us atm will be around after we're gone, although entropy suggests it will be more spread out. I'm not up on string theory or the latest 'we're all a hologram' theory, but 'always here' certainly fits with the 'cyclical big bangs' guys. We (as a universe) expand, we contract, we expand, we contract...

Of course if you meant 'why' in a 'meaning' sort of sense, I have no idea why there should be any meaning to existence beyond that which we attempt to give to it.

[Jim__]

39. Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

From Technology Review April 2012

...

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

...

That's one reason to believe that at some point nothing existed. Could the paper be wrong? Of course, but, I haven't seen anybody claim this paper is wrong. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't really argue that there is no reason to believe that existence had a beginning.

[eomer]

65. The authors of that paper don't say they've *proved* that.

Here is their final paragraph (emphasis added by me):

3 Did the universe have a beginning?

At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.² Here we
have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning,
and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both
eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have H_av > 0, which means that
they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple
emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse.
Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to
be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

So when they say "there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions...", clearly that's an indication that new findings could possibly change their conclusions. Which is of course just how science works. Whatever they conclude in analysis like this is just theory and would have to give way if new observations are found that contradict it.

[Jim__]

67. I know. I just copied the title from the article in Technology Review.

And the excerpt that I used from the article is explicit that they are only talking about certain types of universes.

[eomer]

68. OK, thanks. Regarding "I haven't seen anybody claim this paper is wrong", ...

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

certainly there are some who say that it is wrong. See the comments section of the URL that you provided.

Having read the original paper, the comments section following the article, and a paper from someone at Stanford that was linked in one of the comments, I definitely will say that the technical discussion is beyond someone like me who hasn't studied any of this. But it's clear even to me that there is not universal consensus that their conclusion has been demonstrated, which is what you seemed to imply.

Edit to add: here's a related article in Scientific American that I coincidentally just browsed onto:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

[DerekG]

40. This (intellectually dishonest, I guess) agnostic doesn't give a rat's ass

How about this: While the religious fundamentalists and the atheist brigade battle one another, I'll stand with everyone else...trying to find ways to improve this world.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Interesting opinion.

In this country a huge minority of the population is evangelical/fundamentalist, the vast majority are religious and one of the most progressive demographic groups is atheists.

"everyone else" most certainly isn't "agnostic".

Not giving a shit is not agnosticism, so if that is your philosophical position on the existence of gods, it is indifference. Agnostics hold that the existence of god is unknowable, not that it is irrelevant. I mostly agree that it is irrelevant, or more exactly I deeply wish it were irrelevant, but it isn't. It isn't irrelevant because, in this country and elsewhere, religion and religious institutions are powerful and for the most part deeply conservative forces in society.

[rug]

42. What's the matter with you?

He said: "While the religious fundamentalists and the atheist brigade battle one another".

That leaves a might big swath as "everyone else".

You're equating religious people with fundamentalists.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[trotsky]

43. Could we improve the world by reducing the power and influence of religious fundamentalists? n/t

[rug]

44. Could we improve the world by reducing the power and influence of religion haters? n/t

[mmonk]

48. Everyone hates the agnostic and always

defines what it is on their terms (the theists and the atheists).

[Warren Stupidity]

49. most atheists are technically "agnostic atheists", that is they

accept that they cannot prove the non-existence of deities, and claim merely, as Dawkins does, that such existence is vanishingly unlikely. I'd go further and claim not only vanishingly unlikely but the realm of the "unknown" within which deities might exist is at this point so constrained as to render such deities irrelevant.

[longship]

51. I am pretty much of the same opinion.

But I frankly do not much care what non-believers call themselves.

I use "atheist", but if somebody wants to use "agnostic", I am certainly not going to bust them in the chops for it, so to speak.

I have had people tell me I cannot call myself an atheist because I don't know that gods don't exist. That usually begins an interesting discussion.

[mmonk]

72. True. However I really don't see the need

Dawkins has to personally have in trying to divide agnostics into so many degrees and define his new created types. Many agnostic people think he is over thinking it. What personal need is he trying to fulfill?

[eomer]

69. For this atheist it isn't a matter of probability, it's deeper than that.

I don't see that a coherent question has even been posed. I say this because I don't understand any definition of supernatural, or therefore of God, that I can understand as anything other than contrived or feigned confusion. It's a construct that (to me) falls apart immediately if you just think about it. As far as I can see, the reason people entertain it is only because it makes them feel good, even though (or perhaps because) it makes no sense.

I think that makes me still an atheist, perhaps even more of one. Not only do I not have a belief that a deity exists, I don't even acknowledge that "deity" has a coherent meaning that one could believe in or not believe in.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. I agree about that. You can't even have a reasonable discussion with believers about

what exactly they mean by god. It can start out well enough, but question anything asserted about "god" and the conversation grinds to a halt.

[rogerashton]

71. The word "agnostic" is being used in two different ways in this discussion.

One, I think, is correct but confused; the other is (imo) incorrect but makes perfectly good sense.

Agnosticism (as I understand it) developed in the 19th century and is based on reasoning along the following lines:

1) Nothing can be known except on the basis of evidence.

2) The existence of a God could never be shown either true or false on the basis of evidence.

3) Therefore, no-one at any time or place can know that God exists.

Now, I would criticize this as follows. The first premise must be wrong. In order to apply it one must know what constitutes evidence, and this is knowledge that cannot itself be based on evidence. It might be based on reason, but if reason can tell us what is and is not evidence, then reason might tell us that God exists, or that she does not.

However, many people might reason as follows:

1) It may be possible in principle to know whether God exists or not.

2) However, no-one has to date shown me evidence or argument either for or against the existence of God that I find persuasive.

3) Therefore, I reserve judgment on the matter.

This is a perfectly reasonable line of thought, and one that I subscribed to for about thirty years. Smart remarks about leprechauns have nothing to do with it. In fact, it is an incorrigible statement -- one that cannot be shown to be wrong because it rests on a report of subjective experience. Persuasiveness is a subjective evaluation.

However, it is not agnosticism. Well, let me put it this way. The two positions are quite different, so using the same word to refer to both of them is confusing, and if I am not mistaken, the first one is the original usage.