Is atheism the only thing you feel the need to preface with the agnostic “disclaimer”? Do you say you agnostically accept the current knowledge of gravity? Do you agnostically accept our knowledge of American history?
Yes, some findings in science are given with caveats and probabilities, and any scientific finding is open to falsification and modification, but for the ones with the strongest foundation I have no trouble saying we know for sure. For instance we know for sure life on Earth today is the result of millions of years of evolution.
To me the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of every bit of religious belief being the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution paired with more and more well known and documented psychological factors. I’m not an agnostic atheist any more than I am an agnostic acceptor of the fact of evolution.
Now in my NSHO atheism is about rejecting or accepting the existing hypotheses of deities, not about any and all future hypotheses, but I also think it’s clear that if you philosophically came up with one of the more sterile versions of Deism as a hypothesis, without being steeped in the cultural heritage of religion, and then learned of religion, you would not consider the two to be in the same cathegory.
I don’t recall saying any such thing. What I am saying is that there is a universe full of real things out there to think about, things for which there are evidence for, so why waste what little time we have on earth putting those things aside and worrying about something for which there is no evidence whatsoever? “Is there a god” isn’t even a question worth bringing to the table until there is evidence that there might be a god. When that evidence is presented, words like “agnostic” start to make sense to me.
Imagine I postulate a supernatural being. I offer no evidence for its existence, and I can’t or won’t even define exactly what it can or can’t do, or perhaps my friends and joint believers give you contradictory descriptions of its powers and motivations.
If you don’t join in my belief in its existence are you being illogical?
[QUOTE=naita]
Is atheism the only thing you feel the need to preface with the agnostic “disclaimer”? Do you say you agnostically accept the current knowledge of gravity? Do you agnostically accept our knowledge of American history?
[/QUOTE]
I think saying I have a scientific outlook on those things is the equivalent of saying I’m an agnostic on them, yes. There are still plenty of unknowns wrt gravity, and as for American history…man, that’s a pretty soft subject wrt the ‘facts’ and what is known and not knows (or that folks THINK they know). I’m not sure where you are going with this, to be honest.
And that’s the trouble with ‘knowing’. Actually, life (as far as we know) is the result of BILLIONS of years of evolution, and probably arose on the planet several times and possibly was wiped out a few before it got really rolling…and there is the possibility that it came to this planet from somewhere else via something like panspermia (or alien space bats for that matter).
Right…you are one of those who just knows things and is 100% confident in your knowledge, even when, as with your evolution comment you are wrong or at least not completely correct (and you are making assumptions that a real scientist wouldn’t). I get that. And I got, earlier, that you think folks who don’t have your rock certainty are ‘uninteresting’. Personally, I feel uncomfortable with folks like you who ARE so certain, but that’s just me. Different strokes and all that.
Technically correct, sure. Always open to new evidence and all that. But are you also agnostic about elves, fairies, bigfoot, and Russell’s teapot? I don’t think most people are.
I can see that most of the standard rebuttals to the OP have been posted, in particular the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Last-Thursdayism, and the All-Gods-But-One List. But I couldn’t see Russell’s Teapot amywhere so here it is. Okay it’s the same as the IPU really, but it came first and is British/Neptunian and at least concerns objects known to exist, if not in that particular location. Plus some stupid tea thread just got resurrected.
ETA: and, huh, I got the teapot’s location wrong. Well, suck it Russell, my location’s waaaay better.
Sure. Being agnostic doesn’t mean I have no opinion on those things or actually believe in them, it means I don’t know with certain knowledge that they are or aren’t real. Again, it’s all about probability curves. There is either zero or very little bordering on zero evidence for most of those things, so the probability that they are real is pretty low (somewhere just above ‘The US Government actually faked the Moon Landings’ or ‘9/11 was an inside job between the Bush Administration and the Jews!’). I’d rate Bigfoot as slightly higher on the possible scale than elves or fairies (perhaps it’s only 99.99% certainty of being false, as opposed to 99.9999%), but I don’t know, for a fact that any of them are flat out impossible (especially when you start thinking about infinite universes and infinite numbers of infinite universes, or multi-world theories…or, hell, video games where I’ve PLAYED and elf and fought bigfoot using a teapot!).
My personal opinion/scale? I’m going to go with ‘God’ (i.e. the God of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths) as 99.99% unlikely, with the various gods/goddesses from every other human religion at the same level. I’m less certain that there is no god or gods in the universe/multiverse however, but I’ve seen no evidence that there is any such being…but I’d rate it at 95% (purely arbitrary and in my own opinion) improbable. Currently it’s only that high because of the whole multiverse, infinite universes, multi-worlds theory and half baked stuff about this all being a simulation as being very vague possibilities that something we (humanity) might think of as a god or gods. YMMV of course, and probably does.
Here I could have been snarky and mentioned that confusing evolution with abiogenesis is more often seen with creationists, and that thousands of millions are still millions. But although I’ve now mentioned it that’s only to lead into accepting that I wasn’t as accurate as I could have been and assume you’d acknowledge you weren’t either when given the chance.
Obviously we disagree on, at least, the definition of agnostic. I think my definition is closer to the one used by the OP, and my impression of the soft sciences is that the malleability of language requires any discussion to start by agreeing on the terms. But since I can see how someone could argue your definition is just as valid an interpretation, I’d much rather discuss the underlying disagreement.
And yet you haven’t felt the need to preface this analysis of me and my statement with a disclaimer of agnosticism.
I don’t “just know things” and I’m certainly not 100% confident in everything. If, for instance, you had asked me how many millions of years evolution has been going on, I would not have been particularly confident in my guess. Memories is a fickle thing, but I think, again with nothing like 100% confidence, that I chose to write millions instead of billions because I wasn’t confident on what the available evidence shows, and that it was better to be “inaccurate” than wrong. It doesn’t change my confidence that a process of evolution, not too dissimilar from how it’s currently described, has been going on for millions of years. I’m not as certain that it’s been going on for billions, even after checking how old the oldest stromatolites are, since there is more room for very unlikely, but possible events.
Now I could state that my confidence in the knowledge of all multicellular life I know of on Earth being my cousins is 99.some arbitrary number of nines, but I find it more meaningful to say that I consider it a certain fact.
Now it could still be wrong. This could all be a simulation. Everything could have come into existence 15 seconds ago. Earthworms could be the result of extremely convergent evolution from a separate event of abiogenesis. But I’m comfortable dismissing those as uninteresting and irrelevant hypotheses unless (until) some pretty hard core evidence is shown for them.
Now of course comparing evidence for the general properties of something existing with evidence for the non-existence of something with a lot more loosely defined properties is more of a rhetorical exercise than one of formal logic. But I put the non-existence of gods in the same box as my knowledge of a existence of a process of evolution, and extreme deism in the same box as the uninteresting hypotheses of the previous paragraph.
That’s not to say I necessarily find people who hold them uninteresting, nor is that how I feel about people who don’t agree with me that there should be a “dead certain” box at all, but I’ve found the latter to be a much more rare breed.
And since there are some things I’m rarely anywhere near dead certain of, such as the personalities of and real intentions of people posting on internet message boards, I’m now really curious if you’ll acknowledge that your choice of language when describing your analysis of me was a lot more confident than you had empirical evidence for.
Congratulations. By declaring that you are “agnostic” about every single idea out there because nothing can be 100% disproven, you have made the word “agnostic” pretty much meaningless.
I don’t think we have the proper tools yet to judge how “probable” our existence is yet, so to say that it is improbable is jumping the gun just a bit.
Our own existence can be seen as evidence that we exist. I’m happy with that.
I am not agnostic when it comes to the existence of “gods” - I can’t be agnostic about that which there is no evidence.
I am agnostic as far as my ability to “know everything” or that there might be critters considered “god like” to various cultures/people of time.
SO- being open to evidence does not make me “agnostic” as to the existence. At this point in time - I “know” there are no “god(s)” as the term is commonly meant.
Agnosticism doesn’t mean that no one knows today whether or not there is a god, but that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. We can only know that certain gods don’t exist, not all of them, so it is fair to say we will never know for sure that no god exists somewhere in the universe. But any god worthy of the name can demonstrate its existence at least as well as we know about the existence of cars and pencils. (Using a loose definition of “know”.)
The creators of many religions were sure to include stories where God did just this. So it is not too much to ask, is it.
You might as well be agnostic about the existence of some nerd’s hot girlfriend. You can’t prove she doesn’t exist, but if she does he can sure demonstrate it. The longer he claims to be hiding her the less likely her existence is.
This is just an argument over definitions. Sure, agnosticism is the only logical choice, as long as you’re equally agnostic about unicorns, Darth Vader, the moon landing conspiracy, and Zeebleflark. Zeebleflark works in mysterious ways, as you know.
