Logical Agnosticism is just non-commital pedantry.

Great Debates
21

Perhaps it says nothing about what the person actually believes because they themselves don’t really know.
I know I don’t. I can’t call myself an atheist, because for whatever reason I can’t outright deny the possibility that god exists in some way shape or form. Not in the sense any specific religion presents of course, but the concept seems likely, to me.
Likewise, I can’t call myself a theist, because for whatever reason I can’t outright accept god without some sort of rational proof. And then there’s the question - which god? Am I god? etc etc.

It probably seems wishy washy, non-commital, pedantic and whatnot to the OP and the rest who agreed, because that’s exactly what it is. But how does that invalidate the position? And if you stop calling us agnostic, what do you start calling us? People Who Cannot Make Up Their Minds, is rather unwieldy.

22

Interesting.

I always considered gnosticism/agnosticism as opposite positions in the field of knowledge, with theism/atheism being positions relevant to faith.

23

What makes you think agnostics haven’t looked? Seems a bit - well, presumptuous - to assume it’s not the case.

I give. What in that (admittedly, interesting) cite lends credence to a creator?

24

Just to add some pedantry to the topic, but I’ll note that agnosticism shouldn’t be concerned with the existence/non-existence of “God”, but rather of a spiritually fulfilling underlying meaning to life. That might be a single, sentient being, but some sort of animistic force would also fit the definition of agnosticism.

Personally I’m an atheist. I doubt there is any underlying human-meaningful explanation to our existence, but that’s because I don’t feel any necessity for a God of the Gaps. Our current level of knowledge of reality does have gaps which you could put such a benevolent existence into but I’m personally fine to let gaps in our knowledge stand as gaps in our knowledge.

25

Agnostic checking in.

Props to Lobsang of the OP: I don’t think there are enough atheist vs agnostic debates here.

That’s Russell’s Celestial Teapot argument. It’s a good one.
I’m an empirical agnostic. When presented with an hypothesis I can believe it, disbelieve it or withhold judgment. Whether I withhold judgment depends upon the quality of the existing evidence, the costs of waiting and the aversion to plonking for an incorrect choice. In this context, it’s the last element which is most relevant.

I understand God to be a conscious entity (if He exists). I don’t know of a decent model of consciousness though. If I knew of one, I could probably determine whether it was necessarily tied to animals (or sufficiently constructed computers) or whether it could arise from complex systems such as -er- volcanic processes, stars, rocks, swirling water glasses, message boards or other social collectives.

Present a decent model of consciousness to me, then we can talk. Physicians who practiced prior to the construction of the germ theory of disease might have benefited from adopting a stance of humility.

Admittedly, there’s another puzzle. Roger Penrose convinced me that mathematics is discovered, not invented. But if math is discovered, that means that it’s an entity that exists without mass or other physical properties. I suspect that God or perhaps other ideas (unicorns? freedom?) could be said to exist in a similar fashion. Possibly, some philosopher has already proffered an acceptable taxonomy that might cover this.

Well atheism seems valid to me. And generally speaking, you can’t prove a negative. But I agree: that seems to me to be an argument for radical skepticism or perhaps solipsism, which is something different than a narrower discounting of atheism.

26

If you replace “maybe there’s a god” with “I don’t think there is a god” in that statement then I’m one of those.

I find such a distinction between atheists/agnostics to be a little pointless as it’s not the belief that one has/doesn’t have that creates problems, it’s how those beliefs/lack of beliefs are applied to the real world. I would imagine that the vast majority of atheists/agnostics probably live their lives in the same way, and if caught up in an argument on the topic (as we are now) would be able to say quite simply “let’s agree to disagree” if no further compromise can be made.

It doesn’t matter to me if someone believes in god or not, they can believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden too for all I care. If that belief stays in their head and/or with others who share it, it’s not a problem. If they start agitating for that belief to receive special privileges or “respect” and that others treat them different/better as a result (which religious people tend to do) then we’re dealing with a different kettle of fish.

I suppose what I’m saying is that I don’t think it matters - if the practical outcome of your view of god is that its existence/lack of has no impact on the world or us in how we live our lives, then why bother arguing over the difference?

27

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
"The question is, " said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

28

i guess the difference for me with gravity and magic fairies vs god, is theres this whole life after death thing that tends to go with god.

Ie its sort of testable whether theres life after death (in that I could wake up and see theres pitchforks and red scaly dudes around me but of course if there isnt one I’ll never know), but im happy to wait rather than take that test right now. ie its sort of testable but not in a useful way for anyone other than the actual person taking the test.

That to me is why agnosticism isnt quite the same as magic fairy arguments.

Otara

29

Well, atheists agree with theists that we can say something about the existence of god, but atheists do not think there is any evidence to consider god to be more than a fantasy, which for practically any other entity we can think of (including most gods) means we (all of us) assume it doesn’t exist. This is not a belief.

If an agnostic claims that “supernatural” entities don’t require at least the same kind of evidence as any other thing to be likely, then that is already more of a belief than atheism.

30

You’re just relying on hearsay that jumping off a cliff will be dangerous. There’s a particular test you can take–though it’s only useful to the actual person taking the test–to determine the validity of the claim.

I.e. there’s lots of things that don’t stand to reason, but have stupid tests you could undertake to prove it to yourself. Choosing to believe in the thing that doesn’t stand to reason has only anything to do with wanting to believe something “interesting” and not with logical rigor.

31

I think agnostics who claim that atheism is invalid because it is not possible to prove that god does not exist are normally unwilling theistic refugees. That is to say, part of their thinking is still based on a tendency to accept theism.

As for myself, I note that many different cultures around the world independently developed theistic beliefs and that, for my part at least, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence.
Similarly with deluge myths, it seems possible that there could have been unusually large local floods that inspired them. Or perhaps they noticed marine fossils and seashells inland (and even on mountains). My geology history is dire though, but I do recall reading that much of the world was once covered in ocean. Or at least a lot of it, and the land was different back then too. Then I suppose the deluge myths are based on some sort of fact.

Or perhaps I could invoke aliens. I’m not going to attempt to deny that alien life cannot possibly exist, similarly I am not going to attempt to deny that alien life could not evolve to a point where they could be considered a ‘god’. I suppose we start stretching definitions here though, I would accept something as a god if it was simply exceptionally more powerful than I, and was capable of rational thought etc (I’m not going to start worshipping blackholes or the sun, but they could be worthy candidates if you feel like you need to worship something).

Flying Spaghetti Monsters have published origins. I know there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster, since I think he was invented by Bobby Henderson (or at the very least, he founded the church). Although it is a parody, so that’s not fair.

But things like Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, well, their non-existence can be demonstrated.

I suppose as an agnostic I am interested in the concept of god, rather than the person. You can’t equate ‘god’ to ‘unicorn’ but you can equate ‘god’ to ‘mythical beast’. And then we find dinosaurs.

I’ve rambled a bit there, forgive me.

32

I’ve never heard this definition before. It assumes god exists, so how can it be agnosticism?

33

Sorry…missed the edit window. I don’t understand the god-as-nature concept. If it was just an accident, if there was no thought, no plan, and no control, how can it be called god?

34

Sorry, you can’t stratify agnostics into two classes, it’s like herding cats.

For instance, there are also the rat’s ass agnostics, of which I am a non-card carrying member. There could have been some meta-consciousness at the dawn of the universe that led to the creation of all we know, but we don’t give a rat’s ass. It is wholly irrelevant to our lives.

I have flirted with the idea of atheism, but frankly it’s too much work and there are seldom cookies.

35

This is my opinion, as well. I would assume that Catholics, for instance, should properly consider themselves agnostics, especially given that the Church has set itself as directly opposed to gnosticism. Alas, “agnostic” used reflexively is about as wishy-washy and meaningless as “christian,” now; if someone describes themselves as either you really just don’t even know what they believe or don’t believe.

36

Does cognizance, volition, the ability to plan, the capacity to control, exist at all, anywhere? I assume you aren’t totally unfamiliar with the arguments that there is no free will, nor the arguments that what we think of as the “self” is a product of socialization or an illusion wrought by the interface of individual and context. I am most vehemently NOT saying you can’t answer “yes” with any validity, but I will say that in order to address and dispense with those types of questions, the notions of both “self” and “will” (or cognizance, or volition, etc etc) get reexamined, unpacked, disassembled, qualified, and so forth.

So, assuming you DO think they exist somewhere, i.e., are NOT meaningless constructs that we should really dispense with and cease referring to in our conversation, where are they located and how do you reconcile their existence with the claims for a causal deterministic universe?

Would you at this point concede that however we wrap up such a discussion, we are at least out of the sound-bite baby-talk zone?

To say, in the course of such a discussion, that participants to the discussion should not use the term “God” or in any way state or imply that the terms they DO use refer to realities and processes to which the term “God” does or has applied, would strike me as rather inappropriate.

37

Can they? Can you absolutely PROVE that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? I can’t.

I, too, find agnosticism kind of silly. We can’t prove ANYTHING, absolutely. Somehow the fact that we can’t absolutely prove that God doesn’t exist is held up as something meaningful … but the fact that we can’t absolutely prove that unicorns don’t exist isn’t.

If you’re going to be an agnostic, at least be consistent with your agnosticism. You should live your life as though ALL hyptotheticals, no matter how outlandish, are potentially true. Otherwise you’re just a closet theist. Or a timid atheist.

38

The problem with these discussions is that people tend to talk past each other, since each has a personal definition of agnosticism and atheism unshared by others. Some have given their definition, some have not. If everyone gives one, we can at least separate things into how reasonable the definition is vs how reasonable it is to hold a given position given an agreed upon definition.

For me, atheism is the lack of belief in any god. Forget about how justified this is - I think everyone, asked whether they have god belief, is able to answer yes or no. “Not sure” means no. Both an atheist and a theist can believe or not believe for stupid reasons, to be sure. So, atheism is a statement of belief.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge - basically, is it possible to know that some god exists. I define “know” here loosely, in the sense that we know the Eiffel Tower is in Paris even before we go there. Now, I don’t think we can ever know that no gods exist, since there are so many possibilities, but I think we can reasonably know that at least one did, if he came down and did God-like miracles. Yeah, it could be aliens etc., but I can define tests to make that very unlikely. It also depends on your definition of god, which must be more than a version from the West.

Since I believe that the existence of at least some gods can be known, but have no belief in any, I’m an atheist but not an agnostic.

39

Achilles Bogart’s cite that the universe may be a giant hologram falls into what agnostic tendencies I may have. It is on the point that if there is a god, or merely something godlike, that science and mathematics should be able demonstrate it. There may even be currently unknown, unthinking phenomenon that occasionally effect coincidence, or lend credence to cultural folk tales which might have been a partial source of religiosity. But if so, at this time we currently cannot see any such thing either because we cannot yet define that thing to look for or we do not yet have the tools to make subtle enough measurements.

Why should such considerations be made? The universe as a hologram simply implies that we may neeed to re-examine what we know about the universe, perhaps within the context of a multiverse, or the possibility that our univese in influenced by something non-relatavistic. It may or may not have to do with gods. With current developments in string theory developed from quantum physics there is some possibilities that other universes may exist. Because gravity is such a weak force in a way that is not understood there is a line of research being pursued that assumes it may be a shared resource within a multiverse. Thus, to talk about influences outside our universe is actually a line of reasoning being taken today in a quest for a unified theory. If gravity does have an effect, could there be other things that do as well? Perhaps not a god, but something that could have led many to think there was one?

Or since early days of quantum physics, the possibility of alternate timelines where all probabilities that don’t happen in our universe may (must?) be played out elsewhere. My understanding of the many worlds theory (correct me if I’m wrong) is that quantum physics seems to demand that all probabilities must occur and that there should be accounting of, for example, all coins tossed that don’t come up heads in our universe. While the possibility of other timelines having an effect on ours is likely nothing more than science-fictional story telling, it can’t be 100% ruled out at this time, if ever.

It’s also not beyond the realm of the possible that something finite, in our universe, behaving according to the laws of physics such as an alien civilization which is thousands or millions of years more technologically advanced, could have at some time or even now stealthily interacted with us in ways that could be god-like. I’m not a proponent of in the last example in the least. Nevertheless if it were so, the question remains, how would we know? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is reputed to alter all of our scientific data so that we do not see its noodley appendage. How would we detect a significantly advanced cloak of invisibility as it were? It might only be found if we look for it. Likewise, while Intelligent Design has no scientific footing whatsoever, I welcome the idea simply to see if someone can come up with a rational definition for a creator solid enough to test for it. I expect there will be no such definition found, but again, sometimes until one tries, one never knows. Until then the null hypothesis rules - without any evidence it doesn’t exist.

So, if I have any agnosticism at all, it is that something god-ish should be detectable by scientific means, and has not. It must at least have an effect on the laws of physics to interact with us and our universe in some fashion. But the question I ask is, are we simply not advanced enough to look for it yet either because we can’t define it, or we haven’t stumbled across its footprint elsewhere in math or science, or we don’t have the technological means that would let us make such an inquiry?

40

Not to be a pedant, but as far as I know this is precisely the opposite of the classical definition of agnostic. If you are agnostic, then you do not believe that it is possible to be proven - regardless of observations or evidence. Universe a hologram? Doesn’t prove there’s a god. Strange statistical anomolaies surrounding the supposed miracles of a given church? Doesn’t prove there’s a god. Booming voice speaks in your head and predicts the future with unerring accuracy? Doesn’t prove there’s a god. A bearded dude in white robes comes down and starts turning water into wine, parting seas, summoning holy choirs of angels to fill the sky and praise him, and calls down lightning bolts to smite the unfaithful? Doesn’t prove there’s a god.

So far as I understand it, that’s agnosticism. If you think you have a test that should prove it, and it doesn’t, that doesn’t make you an agnostic. That makes you an atheist.

I’m agnostic (and atheistic) about non-interventionist gods and invisible unicorns and the like, but I’m not, and can’t be, agnostic about any god that supposedly effects the real world in any way at all.