# Technically, is agnosticism the only valid option? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 21, 2015, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460 "2015-05-21T00:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/321 "2015-06-08T17:59:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Oops; this comes back to the “two kinds of atheist” idea. I’m the kind who says “I know there are no gods,” but you’re the (objectively more reasonable) “There is no evidence” variety. I think this has been the cause of a lot of my confusion, because I wasn’t aware that the second type existed. My understanding was that atheists were making a statement of belief: I _believe_ there is/are no god(s). And it confuses me when I’m trying to dig into beliefs and I’m getting back answers that amount to what science does or does not “know”. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/322 "2015-06-08T18:06:11Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > in the case of god, we have deliberately imagined/insisted on a ‘beginning’ or ‘creation’ of the ‘universe’ and created a god for it. then we have special pleaded our arses off to exempt him from any beginning. I think there are people who do that, but I don’t think I’m one of them. It seems that a great many people assume that agnostics are specifically attached to a specifically deist god. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/323 "2015-06-08T18:08:06Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But your thoughts on the matter seemed to be that a lot of the people on here who claim they are atheists actually seemed to match up to what you’d consider to be an agnostic viewpoint. > > So with that in mind, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to say that it’s agnostics despising agnostics? Yeah, that’s basically what I have been implying. -VM ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/324 "2015-06-08T18:36:40Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > There are various theorems on this, I believe some physicists say that they _all_ break down, I think quite a few others say only _some,_ … Perhaps you’d care to tell us what physical laws exist in the absence of space and time. > [@razncain](#): > > It’s a very natural world, there really is nothing else left for God to do, not that he ever had anything to do, … And you are in possession of this cosmic wisdom, exactly how? > [@razncain](#): > > … the oscillations of a vacuum fluctuation energy that ties in nicely with Einstein’s theories give an explanation of what was certainly possible what caused the BB, with God once again not required … Wrong on all points. Quantum fluctuations don’t arise from any of Einstein’s theories, but from Heisenberg’s, with whom Einstein had fundamental differences. Their implications have been extended by relativity theory but certainly don’t arise from it, so in that sense you got it backwards. Most importantly, though, vacuum energy is the result of quantum uncertainty **in spacetime** , so it has exactly zero relevance to the Big Bang. Finally, whether God is “required” to explain either the BB or some deeper underlying phenomenon is the core of the argument, to which apparently only you have arrived at a definitive answer through an amazing combination of incorrect facts and circular logic. > [@razncain](#): > > The long and short of it, is, mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed and in the universe it has always remained constant. And you are in possession of this other piece of cosmic wisdom, exactly how? ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/325 "2015-06-08T19:28:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Which demonstrates that agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism. They are talking about different aspects of thoughts about gods, and can therefore overlap. I think we’re way past “can”. > [@Voyager](#): > > Here you switch to statements about knowledge, not belief, as makes sense in defining agnosticism… I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. The point is, any time I let a statement slip out that doesn’t specifically allow for multiple gods, I have to be reminded that there might be more than one. At some point, it seems like it’s just a way to derail the discussion. After having acknowledged the possibility a dozen or so times, I’m thinking I should get a pass for trying for less awkward sentences. > [@Voyager](#): > > Yes we do. Multiple gods are a perfectly acceptable answer to the definition question. And how many times must I acknowledge this in order to turn off the reflexive reminders? > [@Voyager](#): > > Neither. The insult is that agnostics are scared to come out of the atheist closet because of the real bias against atheism. If agnosticism is defined as “I haven’t made up my mind yet” the theist majority treats them better, not wanting to drive them into atheism. All I can say is that this does not match my personal experience. > [@Voyager](#): > > Then there is the refusal to acknowledge that the position “it is impossible to know if there is a god” makes no sense, as we’ve already discussed. Agreed. > [@Voyager](#): > > And you seem to be evading the question. Do you believe that a god can make himself known or not? If you do, then you shouldn’t talk about unknowable gods in general. Yes, I believe that a god could show itself. However, I don’t believe that it will. That is, I believe that if there was a god that wanted us to know something about it, then it already would have. So, I tend to think that, if there is a god, it’s not a God that’s looking to be acknowledged by us. > [@Voyager](#): > > Of course not by your definition of atheism, the definition no atheists accept. I got the impression that Trinopus would, but I don’t want to speak for him/her… > [@Voyager](#): > > You do distinguish them above, and you wind up showing how atheism and agnosticism as orthogonal. For me, orthogonal is a mathematical term, and I am failing to see how using it here clarifies the relationship between atheism and agnosticism. They seem to me to be a lot closer to parallel–going generally in the same direction but not quite touching. > [@Voyager](#): > > And the threshold doesn’t matter. However there are only two choice at some moment in time - belief or lack of belief. [ol] [li]I believe that I’m having pizza for lunch.[/li][li]I believe that I’m not having pizza for lunch. It may be anything else, but it won’t be pizza.[/li][li]I have no idea whether I’m having pizza for lunch, and don’t have any beliefs associated with the possibility.[/li][/ol] Regardless of atheism or agnosticism, it seems like you’re denying the second of these is meaningfully different from the third. It sure seems different to me. > [@Voyager](#): > > What you said in your previous post about the choice being belief in something or belief that the thing does not exist ignores the lack of belief option. You seem to be using this as a definition of agnosticism at times - atheists say lack of belief is atheism (weak atheism) also. Well, clearly some do. > [@Voyager](#): > > And contradicts your use of knowledge in your definition above. And forget definitely. Being definite has nothing to do with anything. I believe that you definitely missed the point of what I was trying to say. > [@Voyager](#): > > What have you gotten wrong? Ignoring the lack of belief option. Thinking that strong atheism is the only atheism that there is. The positions are orthogonal, so some people may be both. And what would you say was the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism? What makes them “orthogonal”? > [@Voyager](#): > > First, lack of belief in any god is atheism. Er, is this the same as “lack of belief in any gods”? Or, are you saying that any time a person doesn’t believe in a particular god, “that is atheism.” So, then Christians would be “atheistic” about Vishnu. Is that what you’re saying, or are you referring to something else? > [@Voyager](#): > > Say someone thinks that the universe is so awful that the very concept of any god ruling it makes him sick. To not be sick, he believes no gods exist. I don’t think he’s concluded anything… Seems to me if I believe something, then I’ve drawn a conclusion. It could be an _incorrect_ conclusion…so, you’re making a distinction that I can’t follow. > [@Voyager](#): > > We’ve said a zillion times it is not about knowledge. Just belief. You can believe in things you don’t know, and certainly can lack belief in them. I don’t think I’ve suggested otherwise. > [@Voyager](#): > > Me. I believe aliens exist…I lack belief, period. Though I’m very willing to start believing in an alien when we get evidence of one. I think I know what you’re trying to say, but I found that last bit difficult to follow. > [@Voyager](#): > > Why do I believe there are no gods but don’t believe there are no aliens? Because the model of the universe I have says that aliens which do exist might be unknown to us, while if a god existed he would have dropped in and left evidence. I believe that UFOs don’t exist for this very reason. Thanks for clarifying. I think it’s interesting that you assume that we would be of such importance to god. Maybe god has shown itself to aliens on another world but figures we’re too crazy to be bothered with… > [@Voyager](#): > > That would be equating Occam’s Razor and the Null hypothesis. Don’t think I quite equated them. However, the whole idea of using the null hypothesis is that the “test” hypothesis is not true. Then I look for evidence that refutes the null hypothesis. If I find no evidence, then I can’t reject it. Now, I COULD assume that my test hypothesis WAS true, but that the universe is hiding evidence from me. However, that would be operating in opposition to Occam’s Razor. Which is not to say that the two are equivalent, but they represent two ways of expressing an essentially pragmatic approach to trying to understand the world. To me, this is so obvious that it surprises me that pointing this out would lead to being offered a remedial course in experimental design. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/326 "2015-06-08T19:33:36Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > i don’t think i’ll meet a westerner before i die that hasn’t already had the concept of a magic, personal god squirted into their skull. For what it’s worth, I’ve raised my daughters to be as close to that ideal as possible (without actively keeping them away from theists). -VM ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/327 "2015-06-08T21:55:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . An atheist non-agnostic. Of course not by your definition of atheism, the definition no atheists accept. . . . > [@Smartass](#): > > . . . I got the impression that Trinopus would, but I don’t want to speak for him/her… . . . I wanted to respond, but I got lost following this thread backwards. If it helps, I believe there are at least two kinds of atheists – and quite possibly more. There are those who, seeing no evidence for the existence of gods, hold the matter to be of no interest. It’s as if you asked, “Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos?” and they say, “There isn’t any evidence for it, so, for our practical purposes, the answer is no.” Then there are those who say, “No, gods do not exist; they’re inventions of primitive minds, like ghosts, elves, demons, wind-spirits, and dragons.” I find the former variety more admirable, because they deal with fact. No evidence for the existence of gods has ever been presented. However, I, personally, am of the latter variety: gods are pure myth, just made-up stories. I have no more reason to believe in Jehovah than in Paul Bunyan. However, this latter viewpoint involves making an assertion, a priori, about the world, which the former viewpoint does not. Dunno if that answers the question, but, honest, I re-read you guys’ posts quite a ways back, and couldn’t figure what the question was. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/328 "2015-06-08T22:38:20Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I find the former variety more admirable, because they deal with fact. No evidence for the existence of gods has ever been presented. However, I, personally, am of the latter variety: gods are pure myth, just made-up stories. I have no more reason to believe in Jehovah than in Paul Bunyan. However, this latter viewpoint involves making an assertion, a priori, about the world, which the former viewpoint does not. > > Dunno if that answers the question, but, honest, I re-read you guys’ posts quite a ways back, and couldn’t figure what the question was. In retrospect, I think I may have inadvertently derailed the whole thread. I came in thinking that the tension between atheists and agnostics was way higher than there’s any good reason for, and trying to understand it. Of course, it seems that my understanding of what “atheist” means was based on a variant definition compared to the atheists posting here…and there’s been a whole lot of back-and-forth around a) my trying to figure out what atheists actually, um, believe and b) trying to convince them that I’m not a closet Deist. Not trying to pull you into the fray, but the position you just described is one that I believe **Voyager** was saying no actual atheists accept. So, congratulations, you’re my counter-example. Thanks for following along and jumping in… -VM ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/329 "2015-06-09T01:22:44Z")
I sometimes think there are as many varieties of atheism as there are individual atheists. Other times, I think there are actually more. We are all not only alone, but incomplete. (But, then, I’m the kinda guy who believes we all should have lots and lots of monomanias.) ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/330 "2015-06-09T01:47:17Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > (But, then, I’m the kinda guy who believes we all should have lots and lots of monomanias.) I hang mine on my monopole. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/331 "2015-06-09T02:10:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Perhaps you’d care to tell us what physical laws exist in the absence of space and time. Don’t need to, since I don’t take a side as to whether they all break down or some. > [@razncain](#): > > It’s a very natural world, there really is nothing else left for God to do, not that he ever had anything to do, … > [@wolfpup](#): > > And you are in possession of this cosmic wisdom, exactly how? As opposed to what world do you propose? Science is based on a very strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism and for good reason. There is a vast embodiment of knowledge it has accumulated empirically that continues to show us it’s a very natural world. Imagine the world we would be living in today if it wasn’t. If I ever observe gravity just once acting differently, or any other supernatural event occurring, I’ll get back to you. As far as the God not having anything to do with it, including the BB, I’ll let you take it up with Stephen Hawking and company, and let you explain to him where he is getting his cosmic wisdom, perhaps you didn’t get the memo. I am in possession of various books which deal with this: Stenger, Asimov, Rothman, Sagan, Hawking, Mills, etc, and haven’t seen where I have erred in their interpretation of things. I don’t pretend to do the math, or grasp many aspects of it, but I do feel like I understand just fine what some of their work entails, even if it sometimes is with the help of other writers. > [@razncain](#): > > … the oscillations of a vacuum fluctuation energy that ties in nicely with Einstein’s theories give an explanation of what was certainly possible what caused the BB, with God once again not required … > [@wolfpup](#): > > Wrong on all points. Quantum fluctuations don’t arise from any of Einstein’s theories, but from Heisenberg’s, with whom Einstein had fundamental differences. Their implications have been extended by relativity theory but certainly don’t arise from it, so in that sense you got it backwards. Most importantly, though, vacuum energy is the result of quantum uncertainty **in spacetime** , so it has exactly zero relevance to the Big Bang. Finally, whether God is “required” to explain either the BB or some deeper underlying phenomenon is the core of the argument, to which apparently only you have arrived at a definitive answer through an amazing combination of incorrect facts and circular logic. Then you weren’t paying attention to Einstein who did a lot of work with the conservation laws, and it does play a role in that a quantum fluctuation can produce matter in what we have often thought was a perfect vacuum. Nor have you been keeping up with Hawking’s work. I just know how other writers translate it. Here is a brief excerpt from a chapter entitled _Origin of the Universe, Natural or Supernatural_ of _Atheist Universe_ that covers some of Hawkings and other important physicists work: > [@](#): > > Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the _nothingness_ of a perfect vacuum in empty space can and does spontaneously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein’s long-established laws. Mills goes into much further detail than this, as does Stenger and Rothman on what we can do with conservation laws, but the point is, there are plenty of scientists who have at least some working models, where God has nothing to do, and that includes the BB. For those that want more, you can turn to theologians that will still give God work, but his credits have been shrinking over the years, and it’s been rumored He is on some kind of life support system. Of course, these working models by Hawking and others could also be wrong, and there is a bit of philosophy in some of these pre-BB arguments. Not saying one is absolutely correct, only that some of their models work just fine without any work for God to do. > [@razncain](#): > > The long and short of it, is, mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed and in the universe it has always remained constant. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And you are in possession of this other piece of cosmic wisdom, exactly how? I thought this was taught in any basic physics class. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/332 "2015-06-09T06:58:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I wanted to respond, but I got lost following this thread backwards. > > If it helps, I believe there are at least two kinds of atheists – and quite possibly more. There are those who, seeing no evidence for the existence of gods, hold the matter to be of no interest. It’s as if you asked, “Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos?” and they say, “There isn’t any evidence for it, so, for our practical purposes, the answer is no.” But the level of interest in gods, or aliens, doesn’t help us much in defining them. Someone who sees no evidence and holds the matter to be of no interest lacks god belief, and is a weak atheist. In my life outside the Dope I act as if the matter has no interest. The only possible exception would be to challenge someone wishing to make laws dependent on what god supposedly says to show evidence of this god. As for aliens, with the exception of those engaged in SETI and your common variety saucer nut, those who believe in alien life or not are going to live exactly the same way. > [@](#): > > Then there are those who say, “No, gods do not exist; they’re inventions of primitive minds, like ghosts, elves, demons, wind-spirits, and dragons.” These people are tacitly only considering human gods. I think if pressed they’d fall into the first category with regard to other gods. And rewritten to eliminate the insult to primitive minds stuff, it means that we can more or less see where gods came from and how the concept evolved over time. > [@](#): > > I find the former variety more admirable, because they deal with fact. No evidence for the existence of gods has ever been presented. However, I, personally, am of the latter variety: gods are pure myth, just made-up stories. I have no more reason to believe in Jehovah than in Paul Bunyan. However, this latter viewpoint involves making an assertion, a priori, about the world, which the former viewpoint does not. Both categories seem to deal with facts, but trying to understand the evolution of the god concept seems more interesting than just stating there is no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/333 "2015-06-09T07:04:44Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > Not trying to pull you into the fray, but the position you just described is one that I believe **Voyager** was saying no actual atheists accept. So, congratulations, you’re my counter-example. > > Thanks for following along and jumping in… > > -VM No, because he limited his answer to earth gods. (We all fall into the trap of limiting what gods are possible in some way.) Just about every earth god (by which I mean god created by people on earth) which has some verifiable statement about it has been demonstrated not to be true. This does not include deist gods or traditional gods whose adherents say just about every thing the god did in any kind of writing was a myth. To know no gods exist means you know none of the gods of that planet where intelligent life flourished three billion years ago exist. A tall order indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/334 "2015-06-09T07:35:41Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. The point is, any time I let a statement slip out that doesn’t specifically allow for multiple gods, I have to be reminded that there might be more than one. At some point, it seems like it’s just a way to derail the discussion. After having acknowledged the possibility a dozen or so times, I’m thinking I should get a pass for trying for less awkward sentences. I was just saying that you were tying agnosticism to knowledge, which is correct. Nothing to do with multiple gods. > [@](#): > > All I can say is that this does not match my personal experience. Interesting. Have you seen bias against agnostics? > [@](#): > > Yes, I believe that a god could show itself. However, I don’t believe that it will. That is, I believe that if there was a god that wanted us to know something about it, then it already would have. So, I tend to think that, if there is a god, it’s not a God that’s looking to be acknowledged by us. So you don’t believe in any gods, but if you did believe in one the one you’d believe in would be invisible. Okay. But it is logically possible for the god to make herself known to us, so if agnosticism means the belief that gods are unknowable, this goes against it. > [@](#): > > [ol] > [li]I believe that I’m having pizza for lunch.[/li][li]I believe that I’m not having pizza for lunch. It may be anything else, but it won’t be pizza.[/li][li]I have no idea whether I’m having pizza for lunch, and don’t have any beliefs associated with the possibility.[/li][/ol] > Regardless of atheism or agnosticism, it seems like you’re denying the second of these is meaningfully different from the third. It sure seems different to me. They are different. The second is much stronger. But they are both types of lack of belief that you’ll have pizza. And neither has anything to do with knowledge. In case two, if you smelled some pizza, or you found you lacked other options, and wound up having pizza, the statement that you believed you would not eat pizza is still correct. The statement that you knew you would not eat pizza would be wrong. > [@](#): > > And what would you say was the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism? What makes them “orthogonal”? Here are the options. A person can be a weak atheist (lack god belief) and still think that knowledge of a god is possible, if one existed. One can certainly be a weak atheist and think knowledge of god is impossible. I’m not sure how this would be justified, but the concepts are not contradictory. One can certainly be a theist and think god can be known. Pretty common. One can believe in a god, and believe that god cannot be known - a deist. Since a deist has convinced himself that the only possible god is hidden and doesn’t interfere, this position makes sense. Since all four possibilities exist, the concepts are orthogonal. > [@](#): > > Er, is this the same as “lack of belief in any gods”? Or, are you saying that any time a person doesn’t believe in a particular god, “that is atheism.” So, then Christians would be “atheistic” about Vishnu. Is that what you’re saying, or are you referring to something else? Sorry. Nor precisely for any god G I lack belief in that god. Changing god to gods in my statement is fine. My new definition certainly includes multiple gods - there is no requirement that the existence of god G contradicts the existence of God H. (Though it might.) > [@](#): > > Seems to me if I believe something, then I’ve drawn a conclusion. It could be an _incorrect_ conclusion…so, you’re making a distinction that I can’t follow. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. > [@](#): > > Thanks for clarifying. I think it’s interesting that you assume that we would be of such importance to god. Maybe god has shown itself to aliens on another world but figures we’re too crazy to be bothered with… Any god worthy of the name could show himself. I agree he might want to. Since there are lots of planets older than ours, it would make sense for a creator god to put the life he is interested in fiddling with on one of the earlier planets. If he had to make a full universe for that life, the conditions are right for other life to evolve. So, perhaps we are just contamination. Maybe he took his people off to heaven or wherever billions of years ago. Let’s just hope this god is too busy to clean up. Uplifting philosophy, no? > [@](#): > > Don’t think I quite equated them. However, the whole idea of using the null hypothesis is that the “test” hypothesis is not true. Then I look for evidence that refutes the null hypothesis. If I find no evidence, then I can’t reject it. Now, I COULD assume that my test hypothesis WAS true, but that the universe is hiding evidence from me. However, that would be operating in opposition to Occam’s Razor. No, the null hypothesis is not the hypothesis you are looking for evidence for - and trying to refute at the same time. Because if it is you are left with no hypothesis at all. Some people try to refute the null hypothesis and then declare their own unverified hypothesis the winner by default. The null hypothesis can be totally null (no gods exist) or what has been accepted. 200 or more years ago the null hypothesis was that the Bible was correct about the origin of species, Darwin did not refute the Bible directly, but introduced a new hypothesis and demonstrated it. Creationists today, on the other hand, spend a lot of time not demonstrating that the flood happened but instead they try to find tiny holes in evolution, and if they think they have done so, announce that this proves they are correct. They are trying to disprove the null hypothesis, not demonstrate theirs. You can see how this gets them into trouble. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/335 "2015-06-09T07:59:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I was listening to a Bible radio station, and the commentator was bemoaning secularism in Britain. She told an amusing story about a delivery man who asked, “What is Easter about, then?” > > I can’t really say I’d like to live in a land where the meaning of Easter is unknown; I can’t find myself celebrating ignorance of any kind. And…I really doubt that the “man on the street” in Britain is that ignorant. I wouldn’t be surprised if that delivery man was one of the many neo-pagans we have in the UK these days. If this commentator had bothered to talk to him rather than dismiss him as ignorant, he or she might have learnt all about [Eostre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre) and the way Her festival was co-opted by the Christians way back in the dark ages. Of course, most of this history is imaginary, having been reconstructed from a sentence or two in Bede. Knowing all about Eostre is as meaningless as knowing about Easter, since they are both imaginary histories reconstructed from inadequate documentary evidence. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/336 "2015-06-09T09:07:28Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > I wouldn’t be surprised if that delivery man was one of the many neo-pagans we have in the UK these days. I’d think it would be _far_ more likely he’s Muslim, Sikh or Hindu, and so didn’t have any cultural reference points for how the Great Feast of Chocolate Eggs and Rabbits relates to Jesus dying on the cross. Western Neo-pagans are hardly ignorant of Christianity, most having been brought up nominally Christian or at least in a Chritianity-saturated culture. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/337 "2015-06-09T12:48:32Z")
True that. My closest neo-pagan acquaintance is a vicar’s daughter, so she’d know the ins and outs of the Easter story backwards. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/338 "2015-06-09T22:34:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . These people are tacitly only considering human gods. I think if pressed they’d fall into the first category with regard to other gods. . . . What other gods would these be? I don’t get your point here. When talking about mythological gods, I have no objection to extending it to “…Folklore and fables made up by hypothetical intelligent aliens elsewhere in the cosmos.” It just seems an unnecessary filip. Acts 17:23 talks about a monument dedicated to “An Unknown God,” so, if the story is true, people were covering that possibility a long, long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/339 "2015-06-10T00:39:52Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > What other gods would these be? I don’t get your point here. > > When talking about mythological gods, I have no objection to extending it to “…Folklore and fables made up by hypothetical intelligent aliens elsewhere in the cosmos.” It just seems an unnecessary filip. > > Acts 17:23 talks about a monument dedicated to “An Unknown God,” so, if the story is true, people were covering that possibility a long, long time ago. if we’re talking about gods made up by human cultures, we can investigate their origins and the claims made about them, and in every case be pretty certain there is no god there. I think we both agree on that. I think **Smartass** would agree with that. But if I make up a god that is concerned with some other world, and who has never had anything to do with us, what can we say about it? By default we don’t believe in it, of course. Given that the universe looks naturally made, we can even believe it doesn’t exist. But be certain? Know? Not at all. Not that this lack of knowledge should affect our behavior one little bit. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/340 "2015-06-10T00:42:11Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Your argument is false under a reasonable definition of “god”. A “god” which is so impotent that its existence has no measurable effect on the world is no god at all. A “god” worthy of the name would leave evidence of its existence, and so the absence of such evidence is evidence of its absence, the same way that having no evidence that there is an elephant in my living room is sufficient to conclusively say that there isn’t one. Can’t agree. Your position assumes we have the ability to measure to measure a supposedly omnipotent and all encompassing entity. There’s no reason to assume that’s the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460.md?page=18)