Agnosticism is goofy.

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
If we’re talking capital-G “God”, the God of Abraham and all that, then I do not believe that He could be proven (or even “proven”) to exist, given current conditions (that is, He chooses to remain aloof and rely on his believers’ faith, etc.). If we’re talking about any hypothetical god, then it depends entirely on the stated nature of the entity. Some gods are more likely “knowable” (in the sense that they can be demonstrated to exist or to not exist) than others. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god, however, rather conveniently removes himself from physical examination.

What expected evidence can there be of a wiley, omnipotent God who wishes not to be found, except through faith?
[/QUOTE]

The God I learned about in Hebrew School didn’t choose to hide back in the days of the Patriarchs and Moses. He made himself very available and evident. So even our Western god can choose to be found. Certainly he can’t be proved to exist under the current evidence. The idea of the wily god, as you put it, seems to have been developed by religionists as an explanation for his lack of presence in the current days. The reason you’ve never seen a snark is that they don’t want to be seen, not that they don’t exist.
It has always amazed me how Christians, especially, go on and on about how god giving evidence for his existence destroying faith when in Exodus he was all over the faces of the fleeing Israelites. (And they still didn’t have faith!)

122

[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, are Dinosaurs extinct?
[/QUOTE]

You know better than to ask me that question; my answer is an emphatic “No”!

As to the question we both know you meant to ask (“are non-avian dinosaurs extinct?”), I say “yes”. That determination, however, is not based solely on “absence of evidence”. We know dinosaurs existed once. We know no living specimens have been found. We can point to a line in the fossil record and say, "prior to this point, we have Tyrannosauruses; after this point, we have found none. Therefore, we conclude that they have gone extinct, until such time as we find a specimen which contradicts that position.

Now, where gods and the like are concerned, we have no direct, tangible evidence that they ever existed, or that they currently exist. So, why do I not simply dismiss the idea altogether and become a solid atheist? As noted, in terms of my personal beliefs, I am an atheist. Intellectually, however, I note that, unlike the case with non-avian dinosaurs, there is no way to scientifically examine God. As such, we can’t say for sure one way or the other. He could well be absent. Or He could be “hiding” (again, if God is as described, He would be pretty hard to pin down). How do we identify which is the case?

We can be fairly confident that dinosaurs aren’t just hiding because we know that species go extinct, we know a good deal about how evolution works, we have evidence for a cataclysmic event right around the time they disappeared, we know a good deal about how fossilization works, etc. In other words, we can extrapolate, based on more than simply their absence in the here and now. We can’t extrapolate God’s existence or non-existence because such hasn’t been confirmed from the start.

So, I guess I could ask you in return; does life exist elsewhere in the universe? Clearly, we have no evidence for such. But does that necessarily translate to evidence of absence?

123

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]

Now, where gods and the like are concerned, we have no direct, tangible evidence that they ever existed, or that they currently exist. So, why do I not simply dismiss the idea altogether and become a solid atheist? As noted, in terms of my personal beliefs, I am an atheist. Intellectually, however, I note that, unlike the case with non-avian dinosaurs, there is no way to scientifically examine God. As such, we can’t say for sure one way or the other. He could well be absent. Or He could be “hiding” (again, if God is as described, He would be pretty hard to pin down). How do we identify which is the case?

We can be fairly confident that dinosaurs aren’t just hiding because we know that species go extinct, we know a good deal about how evolution works, we have evidence for a cataclysmic event right around the time they disappeared, we know a good deal about how fossilization works, etc. In other words, we can extrapolate, based on more than simply their absence in the here and now. We can’t extrapolate God’s existence or non-existence because such hasn’t been confirmed from the start.

So, I guess I could ask you in return; does life exist elsewhere in the universe? Clearly, we have no evidence for such. But does that necessarily translate to evidence of absence?
[/QUOTE]

First of all, we’re talking about evidence of absence, not proof of absence. Absence of evidence certainly never proves absence.
Second, am I understanding you to be saying that we can be more confident in the current non-existence of (non-avian) dinosaurs as compared to god because we don’t have evidence that god ever existed in the first place?

As for your question, the important factor is whether we should expect to see evidence. For life, and for a deistic god, the answer is no, so absence of evidence is not evidence one way or another. The Western god, who supposedly interacted with us, is another story.

124

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Care to point out how that supports your Op?

Do you still not see a significant difference between agnostics and Atheist?

Please, as one of the ‘Goofy’ ones, I would love to know.

Jim
[/QUOTE]

It didn’t support my OP, but it gives some pretty convincing arguments for how to define the word “atheist”. One of the earlier arguments is that defining atheism as “belief that there is no god” puts the burden of proof on atheists, which isn’t right. A more correct definition of atheism is “no belief in god”, which I think is a more apt description.

The difference between agnostics and atheists are academic at best. Both have no belief in god, but one term is less likely to stir up trouble than the other. I still think that atheists and agnostics are the usually the same, and that the main purpose of distinguishing them is usually not for clarity.

125

What do you call someone who has no frickin idea whether god does or does not exist, but thinks that if he/she does exist then he/she deserves a swift kick in the nuts?

126

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Is he a put upon Atheist or Religious person, I am wondering? I cannot figure out which.
[/QUOTE]

Does it matter?

127

[QUOTE=Mosier]

The difference between agnostics and atheists are academic at best. Both have no belief in god
[/quote]

I’ll ask again, where are you getting the definition that precludes theists from being agnostic?

[QUOTE=Mosier]

I still think that atheists and agnostics are the usually the same, and that the main purpose of distinguishing them is usually not for clarity.
[/QUOTE]

Then you’re just being stubborn. Enough evidence has been given to you in this thread to show you that’s not the case.

128

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
I’ll ask again, where are you getting the definition that precludes theists from being agnostic?

Then you’re just being stubborn. Enough evidence has been given to you in this thread to show you that’s not the case.
[/QUOTE]

To be fair, the way many “agnostics” use the term the difference is not at all evident. They define agnosticism as equivalent to weak atheism, and then we all get confused about the difference.

129

[QUOTE=askeptic]
What do you call someone who has no frickin idea whether god does or does not exist, but thinks that if he/she does exist then he/she deserves a swift kick in the nuts?
[/QUOTE]

Clueless

130

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Clueless
[/QUOTE]

AHHHHHH!!!The IRONY!!!it BURNS!!!

131

I was an agnostic for many years before my personal experience with God. I like agnostics, they remain open-minded about the issue which is a logical position. There is no proof or evidence that shows the non-existence of God. Atheists work on faith whether they will admit it or not. I know this issue has graced this board many times, and will probably do so in the future because belief in God is personal and will remain so forever. Those who believe in God without personal experience do so on faith also. This is my thoughts and opinion.

132

[QUOTE=Mosier]
It didn’t support my OP, but it gives some pretty convincing arguments for how to define the word “atheist”. One of the earlier arguments is that defining atheism as “belief that there is no god” puts the burden of proof on atheists, which isn’t right. A more correct definition of atheism is “no belief in god”, which I think is a more apt description.

The difference between agnostics and atheists are academic at best. Both have no belief in god, but one term is less likely to stir up trouble than the other. I still think that atheists and agnostics are the usually the same, and that the main purpose of distinguishing them is usually not for clarity.
[/QUOTE]

I still see a fundamental difference between my beliefs and an Atheist’s belief. An Atheist does not believe in God. I don’t think we know enough and I see no proof to say for sure if there is a God or not. The cross-over in my case is that I don’t believe in any of the established religions I have run across.

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Does it matter?
[/QUOTE]

Not really, I am somewhat curious, mainly I said in jest.

Jim

133

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I still see a fundamental difference between my beliefs and an Atheist’s belief.
[/quote]

I don’t.

Neither do you.

Many atheists would say the same thing. Agnosticism on the other hand declares not only that we don’t have proof but that their can in fact be no proof.

I used to think I was an agnostic but as a result of this thread I think atheist better describes my position and from what you have posted it applies to you as well. Nothing about atheism requires you to BELIEVE anything be it that there is no god or that there can be no proof of god. Atheism is simply not believing in god. It goes no further than that. Many atheists take it farther but in it’s simplest form it is the absence of belief either way. To say that I do not believe in god does not mean I am saying that I believe god does not exist. Nor does it mean that I believe that god cannot exist. It simply means that as to god I have no opinion it is an open question.

If it turns out there is a god I want to be the first in line to kick it in the nuts though.

134

[QUOTE=Voyager]
First of all, we’re talking about evidence of absence, not proof of absence. Absence of evidence certainly never proves absence.
Second, am I understanding you to be saying that we can be more confident in the current non-existence of (non-avian) dinosaurs as compared to god because we don’t have evidence that god ever existed in the first place?

As for your question, the important factor is whether we should expect to see evidence. For life, and for a deistic god, the answer is no, so absence of evidence is not evidence one way or another. The Western god, who supposedly interacted with us, is another story.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not quite getting whether you’re disagreeing with me or agreeing with me…

We have evidence for the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs, along with a gazillion (give or take a few) other groups, at various times throughout Earth’s history. Now, sure, we could all pretend that just because we haven’t seen any lately doesn’t really mean they’ve gone extinct. Which would imply that we cannot really know that extinction even happens. And down that slope, madness lies.

However, the case of extinction is different from the case of God’s existence, or lack thereof. I can create the hypothesis: Dinosaurs are extinct. In order to falsify this statement one need only find a dinosaur. We could, in theory, scour the planet and eventually come up with one, should they be out there hiding somewhere. Not finding a dinosaur is necessary, but not sufficient, to validate the hypothesis. Making the case for extinction would involve indeirect evidence such as pinpointing the extinction event, demonstrating that there were dinosaurs before that event, and none have been found since that event, etc. It’s more complex than that, of course, but that’s the essence of what I’m getting at.

I can similarly create the hypothesis: Dinosaurs are not extinct. Finding a dinosaur, of course, would validate the hypothesis while not finding a dinosaur is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for falsifying it. Making the case that an extinction event didn’t happen would likely be a good deal more difficult.

I could then make the hypothesis: God does not exist. So, easy to falsify, right? Find God, and we’re golden. Except, we don’t know where to even look for God. What if He’s somehow “outside” of the universe, as many of His believers would have us believe? Is that even possible? In this case, as with dinosaurs, not finding God is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for validating the hypothesis. But without knowing where or how to look, how can we falsify the hypothesis? How do we know when we’ve looked in all the right places and come up empty-handed?

How about the hypothesis: God exists? Since we still don’t know where to look for God, we’ll have a difficult time validating the hypothesis. Not finding God, again, is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for falsifying the hypothesis. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then He could screen himself from attempted observation, thereby ensuring that even if He exists (in this hypothetical), we would still not find Him via direct observation.

Thus, we have the situation where because of God’s attributed omnipotence, He can basically do anything He pleases – including remain undetected despite our best efforts. We have no means of distinguishing between “does not exist” and “exists but cannot be observed”. Were He not attributed with omnipotence, the factuality or not of His existence would likely have been resolved long ago.

Anyway, the point of all this rambling is that by “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” I mean that absence of evidence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to establish evidence of absence. If that makes any sense; I’m not sure it does at this point, since I’m way too tired to be having philosophical discussions… I am atheistic in the sense that I do not believe God exists. I am agnostic in the sense that I do not believe it can be knowable with any degree of certainty whether that belief is correct or not.

135

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Not really, I am somewhat curious, mainly I said in jest.

Jim
[/QUOTE]

I’m a recovering zealot. :slight_smile:

But in my defense, it was mostly for the benefit of a girl in high school, which turned out to be a bad idea.

136

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I like agnostics, they remain open-minded about the issue which is a logical position. There is no proof or evidence that shows the non-existence of God.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree with your second sentence here. Agnosticism is believing that the existence of god is unknowable.

If it’s unknowable, then it’s not that there is “no proof for existence or non-existence of god”, but that there cannot be any proof for existence or non-existence of god.

Unknowable != Unknown.

137

I now regard myself as an athiest but haven’t always. As a young child I was sort of raised in the Christian faith and I would profess a mealy-mouthed belief in it but it always seemed a bit stupid and I was never quite convinced whether it all just wasn’t another grown up fable like the Easter Bunny. Quite early on I realised I didnt believe in gods but I continued for many years to class myself as an agnostic. I did this because it was the easy way. I grew up in a conservative area where religious belief was important to many people I know, including some family members. Calling myself agnostic was a way of avoiding recognising that people I cared about were in the grip of superstitious mumbo-jumbo. At some point I recognised I was kidding myself and that I fundamentally just did not believe, and have classed myself since as an athiest.

I am an athiest by temperament and conviction in the sense that I am without belief in any gods. I am an athiest because the notion of gods is an absurd one and the universe makes more sense to me without them. Personally I do not claim there is no proof that gods exist or that there is proof they don’t and the very notion of ‘proof’ seems odd to me. If I encounter a small child with an imaginary friend Wilbur, I am quite satisfied that Wilbur doesn’t exist and I feel no need to prove me right or her wrong.

138

I´ve always thought of my agnosicism on a broader meaning, that absolute knowledge it´s impossible; from that can be derived that the knowledge of a god can´t be achived… if that god doesn´t want to be known.
On the other hand the idea of deities is fundamentally silly on my comprehension of the universe, but I´m just human and I can be wrong.

On deeper and more personal level I think that my stance is based on natural curiosity, I can´t go around thinking I´m right or I already know what I need to know; I always look further and investigate trying to keep an open but critical mind.
For me, that´s what makes an agnostic, someone that knows that his/her knowledge is incomplete so keeps learning.

139

[QUOTE=askeptic]
I don’t.

Neither do you.

Many atheists would say the same thing. Agnosticism on the other hand declares not only that we don’t have proof but that their can in fact be no proof.

I used to think I was an agnostic but as a result of this thread I think atheist better describes my position and from what you have posted it applies to you as well. Nothing about atheism requires you to BELIEVE anything be it that there is no god or that there can be no proof of god. Atheism is simply not believing in god. It goes no further than that. Many atheists take it farther but in it’s simplest form it is the absence of belief either way. To say that I do not believe in god does not mean I am saying that I believe god does not exist. Nor does it mean that I believe that god cannot exist. It simply means that as to god I have no opinion it is an open question.

If it turns out there is a god I want to be the first in line to kick it in the nuts though.
[/QUOTE]

Tell you what, I will take this another step and keep my tag as an agnostic. I don’t believe we can ever be sure of anything. I do think the multiverse view is likely, once we accept a ridiculously large universe and a ridiculously large number of universes and that physical laws may vary in different universes and possibly even in different sections of our own universe, anything is not only possible but even likely. However, we will almost certainly never be able to verify any of it. If a Godlike creature came along and performed miracles and resurrected the dead etc., in the back on my mind would be the doubt that this is God, but merely a creature so powerful, I cannot understand its powers.

Sorry for the ramble, but in the end, I am more an agnostic than anything else, and somewhere, someplace in the multiverse there is a low gravity world with creature suspiciously dragon like and there might be a God or Gods manipulating the Dice despite what Uncle Albert said.

It is possible that my entire existence is the demented delirious dream of some sentient silicon base creature, sitting on the wretched remains of a broken world. It is far more likely that I am a Homo Sapiens Sapiens descended from a common ancestor of the hominids and Chimps. Which in turn descended from a small proto-simian, which in turn descended from mammal like reptiles, which in turn descend from a series of amphibians, fish and back to multi-cell animals.

Jim

140

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
I’m not quite getting whether you’re disagreeing with me or agreeing with me…

[/quote]

Actually asking for clarification.

I think the problem here is that you have an implicit assumption of a single definition of God. An atheist must not believe in any God. Also, there is a difference in the amount of interaction that a believer thinks his god has with humans. Some gods hide out. Your point works well with them. Some gods care if sparrows fall, give us laws, are worried about our sex lives, and talk to George Bush.

It’s fine to be agnostic about gods of the first category - I don’t know any other reasonable position. Whether you believe or don’t seems to be a matter of personal need. Those who feel that the universe has a reason might believe in a deistic god. My wife does. Those who don’t, like me, don’t believe. There is nothing to argue about, since the universe can support either position equally.

The Western god, on the other hand, is more of the second type. Those who believe in this call deists atheists (Jefferson, Paine) because they don’t believe in the right god. If a god of the second type did exist, he wouldn’t hide, and there should be plenty of historical evidence, at least. And there is historical evidence, but analysis of it contradicts the notion that a god is involved.
And I think agnosticism must say knowledge of God is impossible, not that we don’t currently have knowledge. Your omnipotent god may hide, but certainly can provide convincing evidence of his existence. Plus, if he has hidden throughout the history of the universe, it is functionally equivalent to him not existing.

Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism, so being an agnostic atheist is logically consistent. My point in this thread is to understand the positions of those who claim to be agnostic and not atheist, and sometimes to convince them that they can be both.