Presenting Agnosticism

[Seasanctuary]

A year or so ago I was asked to speak before a college youth group on Agnosticism. I was one of a series of guest speakers from non Christian religions (or religious viewpoints).

It must have gone over well, because I've been invited back for a similar series...this time for the high school youth group. It's meant to be instructional, more of a world religions class than anything apologetical. I'm laid back by nature, and have known this large church's leadership for a few years. So, I'm not worried about how this will go.

I am interested in hearing suggestions about how to best characterize Agnosticism, particularly in relation to Christianity and other religions. I'm also curious how many people in the world actually identify themselves as "agnostic" as oppossed to "atheist" or just don't identify with either of these labels even though they fit.

There are a few basic questions that they'll be asking all guest speakers, but I have a decent amount of freedom to take this where I like.

Thanks,
Sea

P.S. - If, by chance, you're part of this church and have therefore figured out my identity, I'd prefer you keep personal details off the forums. Thanks. ;)

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am interested in hearing suggestions about how to best characterize Agnosticism, particularly in relation to Christianity and other religions.Perhaps quote Huxley and focus on Agnosticism as an epistemology.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

- see Agnosticism (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html)

I'm also curious how many people in the world actually identify themselves as "agnostic" as oppossed to "atheist" or just don't identify with either of these labels even though they fit.I prefer "philosophical naturalist".

[Hail Mary]

I am interested in hearing suggestions about how to best characterize Agnosticism, particularly in relation to Christianity and other religions. I'm also curious how many people in the world actually identify themselves as "agnostic" as oppossed to "atheist" or just don't identify with either of these labels even though they fit.

Kids will understand this analogy.

Have you ever been in a big group trying to decide which movie to see? Some of the kids want to go see King Kong, the other kids want to see Narnia. Then there always seems to be someone that just can't make up their mind, they insist there isn't enough information to make a choice. So they leave all the hard work of actually making a choice to all the other kids, then they complain every step of the way how the movie sucked anyway.

That pretty much sums up agnosticism.
This area is for non-theists only. Please reveiw forum rules before posting. Thanks.

[technomage]

Kids will understand this analogy.

Have you ever been in a big group trying to decide which movie to see? Some of the kids want to go see King Kong, the other kids want to see Narnia. Then there always seems to be someone that just can't make up their mind, they insist there isn't enough information to make a choice. So they leave all the hard work of actually making a choice to all the other kids, then they complain every step of the way how the movie sucked anyway.

That pretty much sums up agnosticism.
General Ripper, you need to keep an eye on the category posts are in--this section is "Non-theists only," and you and I aren't supposed to be posting here.

(Drags GR away) ... Nothing to see, folks ... we were just leaving....

That goes for you to Justin, next time, just report it and let the cops beat down the offender!

[Rusty T]

Well, young people should be discovering the diversity of beliefs in the world. And not only that - high school kids are many times natural skeptics. It's part of growing up I suppose. I wouldn't necessarily appeal to the desire of some to question all authority, but I would use it to some degree. I would think that many could relate to the position of agnosticism - if only because of the cacophony of religious dogmas. I think agnosticism is an easy state of mind to slip into, even for the normally ardent believer. There are times in everyone's life where we wonder if all the answers given to us by all those who supposedly have the answers are simply guesses. And I think that most people would like to wiggle out of the must choose posture - even if they eventually do choose.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think agnosticism is an easy state of mind to slip into, even for the normally ardent believer.On the contrary, I would think that choosing to "not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" requires considerable discipline and intellectual integrity.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It appears to me that Huxley was trying to find a philosophical position between theist and (strong) atheist. He should have acknowledged that he was a "weak atheist."

Although "agnostic" is thought to be an intermediate position between theist and atheist, I prefer to treat it as an intermediate position between gnostic theist and gnostic atheist.

A gnostic theist is a person who not only believes, but knows, is certain that God exists. On the other hand, a gnostic atheist is a person who not only believes, but knows, is certain that God does not exist. If a gnostic atheist has a few percent confidence that God exists (therefore nearly 100% confidence that God does not exist) while a gnostic theist has nearly 100% confidence that God exists then agnostics fill the rest of the continuum.

You can have agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, and mere agnostics. An agnostic theist would be someone who believes, but doesn't know, isn't certain that God exists. It's a theist who has some doubts as to the existence of God. Having doubts about the attributes or behavior of God is irrelevant. An agnostic weak atheist would be someone who doesn't believe that God exists, but doesn't know, isn't certain. An agnostic strong atheist would be someone who believes that God doesn't exist, but doesn't know, isn't certain that God doesn't exist. A mere agnostic is someone who is so close to the 50% border between theist and atheist that he doesn't feel comfortable acknowledging either position.

I suspect that most theists are gnostic theists or close to it (say over 90% confident that God exists), while most atheists are agnostic atheists.

John Powell

[Rusty T]

On the contrary, I would think that choosing to "not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" requires considerable discipline and intellectual integrity.

I really do think that most believers, at some point in their lives, will find themselves questioning everything. Whether or not they stay at this point or eventually move on to embrace faith (which happens the vast majority of time) or even to atheism (much, much less so), I do think that most people experience brief bouts with agnosticism. I'm not saying that this happens at a purely intellectual level - but many times simply visceral. I've been around 'believers' all my life (as have all of the world's population) and I feel comfortable in standing by my position that agnosticism at some level is experienced by most people at some point in their lives.

rusty

[Jayhawker Soule]

I really do think that most believers, at some point in their lives, will find themselves questioning everything. ... I'm not saying that this happens at a purely intellectual level - but many times simply visceral. That's all very nice, but Huxley's agnosticism is not, in my opinion, a synonym for confused. Rather, "it is a method".

[Rusty T]

That's all very nice, but Huxley's agnosticism is not, in my opinion, a synonym for confused. Rather, "it is a method".

Bugger Huxley's agnosticism. He wasn't inventing a faith position - merely defining it.

rusty

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bugger Huxley's agnosticism. He wasn't inventing a faith position - merely defining it.Actually, neither - he coined the term.

[Seasanctuary]

POWELL:
It appears to me that Huxley was trying to find a philosophical position between theist and (strong) atheist. He should have acknowledged that he was a "weak atheist."

Would that term have been an anachronism?

At any rate, there should be a term to describe a person who says she doesn't know if there's a God or not...and it's insulting to have to be a "weak" version of some other term. It implies that a person is only partially applying a certain position, but is unwilling to follow through on its implications.

[lao tzu]

High schoolers, eh?

Can you engage them in your talk? That's always my favorite method to get kids' motors humming. I'd suggest, if you're interested, starting out by picking a victim (even a ringer if you like), and asking her a question.

"Tell me the name of Saturn's smallest moon." The idea is to fish for the answer, "I don't know." If you're working with a ringer, you can get downright pushy.

"What do you mean, you don't know? You know Saturn has moons, don't you? You know one of them has to be the smallest? So which one is it?"

I'd imagine any possible response would allow you to segue into a discussion of agnosticism.

The point is, your victim can't answer because she's missing information. More, there's no good definition for moon, so the question itself isn't fair. Does a three pound rock sitting in one of the rings qualify as a moon?

Answering the question, "Is there a god?", is just as ambiguous. We don't have the information we need to give a definitive answer. And we're not even sure if the question is meaningful. Do you mean "god" in the sense of a hindu deity or a monotheistic deity or a trinitarian deity or what?

Hey, I tried.

As ever, Jesse

[Seasanctuary]

I'm thinking I should point out that there's some hot contention among irreligious folks over whether Agnosticism is a respectable term. :tongue:

And Taoist, I like the idea of using an illustration of ignorance of some kind. I'd rather not put the kids on the spot, though. What I want to convey is that saying "I don't know" can be the only honest answer in some situations...and is therefore a respectable answer.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It appears to me that Huxley was trying to find a philosophical position between theist and (strong) atheist. He should have acknowledged that he was a "weak atheist."


SEASANCTUARY:
Would that term have been an anachronism?


POWELL:
I guess so. He could have coined a term for it.

SEASANCTUARY:
At any rate, there should be a term to describe a person who says she doesn't know if there's a God or not...and it's insulting to have to be a "weak" version of some other term.


POWELL:
There is a term. It's called "agnostic." If she believes there is a God, but doesn't know then under my suggested definitions she's an agnostic theist. If she doesn't believe there's a god, but she doesn't know, then she's an agnostic (weak) atheist. If she believes that there is no God, but she doesn't know then she's an agnostic (strong) atheist. If she neither believes nor disbelieves on the long term (she remains near the 50 "yard" line) then she's merely agnostic.

Rather than using the terms "strong" and "weak," alternative terms are "positive" and "negative". I recall two different theists, however, who misunderstood "positive" to mean "certain."

SEASANCTUARY:
It implies that a person is only partially applying a certain position, but is unwilling to follow through on its implications.


POWELL:
I think a lot of self proclaimed weak atheists are actually strong atheists who don't wish to take on the heavier burden of supporting the strong atheist position in Internet debates. I don't think you're one of those.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

Rather than using the terms "strong" and "weak," alternative terms are "positive" and "negative". I recall two different theists, however, who misunderstood "positive" to mean "certain."

I was poking around the net for Agnosticism definitions today and also saw the terms "open" vs "closed" correlating with "weak" vs "strong."

It'd be nice to have distinct terms without value judgements of the positions built in. I don't like going by "weak Agnostic," so it'd be hypocritical of me to expect the other kind of Agnostics to be fine with "closed Agnostic" -- since it's an obvious reference to "close minded" vs "open minded."

[Barry Desborough]

Perhaps quote Huxley and focus on Agnosticism as an epistemology.
I prefer "philosophical naturalist".

In common speech, agnosticism is taken to mean an attitude towards the existential status of God, and usually some version of the Christian God at that. That's why I don't like the term. An attitude that basically dispenses with any refererence to God at all might be called agnostic or atheist or a whole host of other things. I think there are two broad classes of people in this category, those who have never bothered to think about it (usually because of being brought up with very little exposure to religion) and those who have.

To me, even "philosophical naturalist" implies a 'position' too strongly.

[Jayhawker Soule]

In common speech, agnosticism is taken to mean an attitude towards the existential status of God, and usually some version of the Christian God at that. That's why I don't like the term. Nor do I.

To me, even "philosophical naturalist" implies a 'position' too strongly.It was offered in response to: "I'm also curious how many people in the world actually identify themselves as "agnostic" as oppossed to "atheist" or just don't identify with either of these labels even though they fit." Philosophical (or ontological) naturalism is the designation that I prefer for myself; the term was not offered as a synonym for agnosticism or atheism.

[John Powell]

SEASANCTUARY:
I was poking around the net for Agnosticism definitions today and also saw the terms "open" vs "closed" correlating with "weak" vs "strong."

It'd be nice to have distinct terms without value judgements of the positions built in. I don't like going by "weak Agnostic," so it'd be hypocritical of me to expect the other kind of Agnostics to be fine with "closed Agnostic" -- since it's an obvious reference to "close minded" vs "open minded."


POWELL:
"Close minded" as in "similarly minded" or as in "nearby minded"? He he.

That's new terminology (in that context) for me. If you called the typical theist a "closed theist" then at least you'd be consistent.

A common way to avoid value judgments is to make the values numerical. One possibility is to refer to the various philosophical positions in terms of the approximate confidence they have that God exists.

Confidence > 90% that God exists = a "90er" = gnostic theist
60% < Confidence < 90% that God exists = a "3/4er" = agnostic theist.
40% < Confidence < 60% that God exists = a "50er" = agnostic.
10% < Confidence < 40% that God exists = a "1/4er" = agnostic atheist.
Confidence < 10% that God exists = a "10er" = gnostic atheist.

The theists will tend to like their position having a higher value, while the atheists will tend to like their position having a lower (a more skeptical value) while the agnostics will tend to like being in the middle of the road. It's uncommon for everyone in the spectrum to be happy like that.

A simpler alternative is to have the scale go from 0 to 10 (where 10 is meant to mean about 100% confidence that God exists). Then people can claim to be a 9 or a 3 or whatever on the God belief scale.

Actually, an alternative that will likely be more popular with atheists is to have the scale go from -10 (most confident atheist) to +10 (most confident theist) with agnostics being close to zero. Then people can claim to be a +8 or a -5 or whatever on the God belief scale.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Confidence > 90% that God exists = a "90er" = gnostic theist
60% < Confidence < 90% that God exists = a "3/4er" = agnostic theist.
40% < Confidence < 60% that God exists = a "50er" = agnostic.
10% < Confidence < 40% that God exists = a "1/4er" = agnostic atheist.
Confidence < 10% that God exists = a "10er" = gnostic atheist. :no:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Confidence > 90% that God exists = a "90er" = gnostic theist
60% < Confidence < 90% that God exists = a "3/4er" = agnostic theist.
40% < Confidence < 60% that God exists = a "50er" = agnostic.
10% < Confidence < 40% that God exists = a "1/4er" = agnostic atheist.
Confidence < 10% that God exists = a "10er" = gnostic atheist.


Jayhawker Soule:
:no:


POWELL:
I think the -10 to +10 scale has a better chance of gaining acceptance from all three groups (theists, agnostics, and atheists) than the 0-100% confidence scale, but I'm unclear as to what in particular you find unacceptable about the 0-100% definition map.

Perhaps it's because you consider theism and atheism to deal with belief or lack thereof concerning the existence of God whereas gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge or lack thereof concerning the existence of God.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

A common way to avoid value judgments is to make the values numerical. One possibility is to refer to the various philosophical positions in terms of the approximate confidence they have that God exists.

I'm not so sure belief fits with quantitative analysis very well. Have you actually calculated numbers to represent your beliefs? If so, that's very unusual and I'd like to know how you measure.

I consider my agnosticism qualitatively distinct from strong atheism and theism, not some "in between on the scale" business.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
A common way to avoid value judgments is to make the values numerical. One possibility is to refer to the various philosophical positions in terms of the approximate confidence they have that God exists.


SEASANCTUARY:
I'm not so sure belief fits with quantitative analysis very well. Have you actually calculated numbers to represent your beliefs? If so, that's very unusual and I'd like to know how you measure.


POWELL:
Since the time of my big trauma in life my confidence that God exists has decreased, going from strong confidence that God exists (something approaching 100%) to a lack of belief in God (below 50% confidence) to a strong belief in the non existence of God (something approaching 0% confidence). It's as if I was living my life near the theist end zone, had some problems, and then slowly walked towards the other end zone, passing by the 50 yard line along the way.

My confidence level depends on which particular God definition is being considered. If the definition is self-contradictory then I'm 0% confident that it exists, 100% confident that it doesn't. If we're talking about the Christian God then I'm only a few percent from being certain that such a God does not exist. If we're talking about some other kind of creator, then I might not be so confident that it doesn't exist.

I figure that generally speaking, self-proclaimed mere agnostics have confidence values between about 40% and 60%, so close to 50% that they don't feel comfortable aligning themselves with either theists or atheists. Generally speaking, it's only when their confidence level gets significantly different from 50% that the person is willing to claim to be a theist or an atheist.

SEASANCTUARY:
I consider my agnosticism qualitatively distinct from strong atheism and theism, not some "in between on the scale" business.


POWELL:
Then you aren't being clear as to whether you believe there is a God, like the hypothetical survey respondent below.

Q: Do you or don't you believe that God exists?

A: I don't know.

Q: I'm not asking what you know, but what you believe. It's odd that you don't know what you believe. Next question: Do you or don't you think that President Bush is doing a good job?

A: I don't know.

Q: Again, I'm not asking what you know, but what you think. Again, it's odd that you don't know what you think.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps it's because you consider theism and atheism to deal with belief or lack thereof concerning the existence of God whereas gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge or lack thereof concerning the existence of God.Perhaps.

[Mentalist]

I find it difficult to distinguish between agnoticism and atheism. To me it seems logical to describe anyone who is not a theist as an atheist and therefore agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Agnositicism is a term that I have heard used to describe many positions including someone whom "does not know" as well as "to think god cannot be proved or disproved" or even"god is not well enough defined to warrant investigation". All of these positions seem to be subests of atheism and I dare say that the majority of those describing themselves as atheists would ascribe to some or all of these positions also.

So overall I'm just not sure what position agnosticism is supposed to describe or how it can be seperated from atheism. Then, if it is a subset of theism, I'm not sure what makes it distinct from "regular" atheism. What is it that you mean by agnosticism Sea?

[Jayhawker Soule]

So overall I'm just not sure what position agnosticism is supposed to describe or how it can be seperated from atheism.What of the person who does not believe a supernatural realm is in principle knowable, and does not believe in God(s) because of a percieved lack of evidence warranting such a belief?

[Mentalist]

What of the person who does not believe a supernatural realm is in principle knowable, and does not believe in God(s) because of a percieved lack of evidence warranting such a belief?

What about them?

As they do not believe in a god, that would make them an atheist.

As to whether they are also agnostic, I don't know, it depends upon your definition of agnostic. If your definition of an agnostic is someone holding the beliefs you described above then they are an agnostic as well as an atheist. In that case, as those beliefs are common amongst atheists then many atheists would also be agnostic.

[Seasanctuary]

I find it difficult to distinguish between agnoticism and atheism. To me it seems logical to describe anyone who is not a theist as an atheist and therefore agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

If it weren't for the general public's identification of atheism with general, "strong" atheism -- positing that no Gods exist -- I'd be fine with simply describing myself as an atheist. It'd be a one word standin for "No, I don't believe in a God."

I know that the sort of people who chat about atheism on the internet prefer the definition you gave. It's simple, and nicely covers everything that "I believe in a God" leaves out. I respect those who campaign for the word "atheist" being understood to mean "not a theist" and merely that, but it feels a bit disingenous to act misunderstood when the public thinks otherwise.

The rationale behind coining "agnosticism", appears to be that "atheism" was at that time also understood to be making a claim about the world...and not just about an individual's perspective on the world...so one fellow thought he'd coin a word to stand on its own that didn't make presumptive claims about the Nature of Everything, but instead focused on his own ignorance of the answer.

Unfortunately...

Agnositicism is a term that I have heard used to describe many positions including someone whom "does not know" as well as "to think god cannot be proved or disproved" or even"god is not well enough defined to warrant investigation".

...that happened. In addition to an individual "not knowing," the idea has been expanded to make very gnostic (knowing) comments about the available evidence to mankind and the ability of the human mind to know at all...and sometimes about the nature of God to be known. Amusingly, the person who coined the phrase is one of the people responsible for making agnosticism quite gnosticy in certain areas.

The reason I do identify myself as an agnostic is that the general public tends to be closer to thinking an agnostic is someone who doesn't say whether there's a God or not, than thinking agnostics posit human inability to know, or that the evidence is too scant everywhere, or that God is by nature unknowable.

The public does tend to have the idea that agnostics are indecisive, which misses the agnostic point that making positive statements about what you don't know is nothing to crow about...and that not deciding can be the most honest decision.

Oh well. It's mainly this last point that I'd like to make clear for my audience.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmm...

Agnostics are kinda like Christians. While varying Christians disagree about how to follow the bible, agnostics oftenly disagree about how much they don't believe in god(s).

[Jayhawker Soule]

The rationale behind coining "agnosticism", appears to be that "atheism" was at that time also understood to be making a claim about the world...and not just about an individual's perspective on the world...so one fellow thought he'd coin a word to stand on its own that didn't make presumptive claims about the Nature of Everything, but instead focused on his own ignorance of the answer.That was nicely put. Thanks.

[Barry Desborough]

The public does tend to have the idea that agnostics are indecisive, which misses the agnostic point that making positive statements about what you don't know is nothing to crow about...and that not deciding can be the most honest decision.

Oh well. It's mainly this last point that I'd like to make clear for my audience.

Maybe an analogy would help? I'm trying to think of closer ones, but this is what has poppesd into my head for the moment.

The teapot orbiting Pluto (occasionally used by Dawkins, but he got it from someone else - can't remember who). You can believe in the teapot or disbelieve it. You can also be of the opinion that the whole question is silly, or doesn't matter, and so labelling people according to their position on the question is also silly.

If you are not a Raelian, is it sensible to call yourself, or be called an a-Raelian? A 0.0000000001% Raelian?

Before enough was known, some people believed there was abundant, complex life on Mars. Some people did not. Some people had no position on the question because there was no evidence either way. Nobody was defined or labelled by their attitude to the possibility of life on Mars.

What label would I go for? None really. Believers can have their labels and I'm happy to remain labelless.

[John Powell]

SEASANCTUARY:
The public does tend to have the idea that agnostics are indecisive, which misses the agnostic point that making positive statements about what you don't know is nothing to crow about...and that not deciding can be the most honest decision.

Oh well. It's mainly this last point that I'd like to make clear for my audience.


Barry Desboroug:
Maybe an analogy would help? I'm trying to think of closer ones, but this is what has poppesd into my head for the moment.


POWELL:
If the Moon were made of spare ribs would you eat it?

Barry Desboroug:
The teapot orbiting Pluto (occasionally used by Dawkins, but he got it from someone else - can't remember who). You can believe in the teapot or disbelieve it. You can also be of the opinion that the whole question is silly, or doesn't matter, and so labelling people according to their position on the question is also silly.


POWELL:
It is likely that the person who claims the question is silly does not believe a teapot is orbiting Pluto.

Barry Desboroug:
If you are not a Raelian, is it sensible to call yourself, or be called an a-Raelian? A 0.0000000001% Raelian?


POWELL:
Not generally, but yes if you're in a situation where the dichotomy might be important such as at a Raelian convention.

One's position on the question of God is fairly important in society, although not as important as it used to be.

Barry Desboroug:
Before enough was known, some people believed there was abundant, complex life on Mars. Some people did not. Some people had no position on the question because there was no evidence either way.


POWELL:
There was evidence. The conditions on Mars were seen to be similar to those on Earth. Canals were allegedly seen. Seasonal changes were seen. People claimed that there was probably abundant complex life on Mars. Those kinds of things can count as evidence of abundant complex life on Mars. Perhaps what you meant is something like that there was no CONCLUSIVE evidence either way.

Barry Desboroug:
Nobody was defined or labelled by their attitude to the possibility of life on Mars.


POWELL:
Perhaps not but they could have been in specific circumstances such as at a debate about life on Mars. Your comparison isn't so good because people don't generally rate one's opinion on that question nearly as important as one's opinion on the existence of God. Notice that TWEB has a place for you to indicate your religious position, but none for your position on the question of abundant complex life on Mars.

Barry Desboroug:
What label would I go for? None really. Believers can have their labels and I'm happy to remain labelless.


POWELL:
You have the potential label of a nonbeliever in a teapot around Pluto, a nonbeliever in abundant complex life on Mars, and a nonbeliever in God (i.e. an atheist). Whether you worry much about such things is a separate question.

John Powell

[Kulindrichnus]

Maybe an analogy would help? I'm trying to think of closer ones, but this is what has poppesd into my head for the moment.

The teapot orbiting Pluto (occasionally used by Dawkins, but he got it from someone else - can't remember who).

The analogy is Bertrand Russell's. And the teapot is orbiting the sun, not Pluto.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history.

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/isThereGod.htm

As the above shows, the purpose of the analogy was to show that the onus is on dogmatists to give us a reason to believe their dogma and not on the doubter to disprove it. This is not quite the same as saying, "you can choose to believe in it or not".

K

[John Powell]

Kulindrichnus:
The analogy is Bertrand Russell's. And the teapot is orbiting the sun, not Pluto.

Russell:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.



POWELL:
It's the burden of both sides to SUPPORT their position if they wish to persuade their audience. The teapot believer needs to give reasons to believe the teapot. The disbeliever needs to give reasons to disbelieve.

RUSSELL:
This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.


POWELL:
If nobody can disprove it then apparently nobody can prove it either.

RUSSELL:
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.


POWELL:
Yes. The mere inability to disprove ~X is no proof that X.

RUSSELL:
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


POWELL:
I suppose.

RUSSELL:
It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history.


POWELL:
Not "must be" but "probably is."

Kulindrichnus:
As the above shows, the purpose of the analogy was to show that the onus is on dogmatists to give us a reason to believe their dogma and not on the doubter to disprove it. This is not quite the same as saying, "you can choose to believe in it or not".

K



POWELL:
Assuming both sides wish to persuade, the onus is on believers to give us reasons to believe and the onus is on us to give them reasons to disbelieve.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

There was evidence. The conditions on Mars were seen to be similar to those on Earth. Canals were allegedly seen. Seasonal changes were seen. People claimed that there was probably abundant complex life on Mars. Those kinds of things can count as evidence of abundant complex life on Mars. Not to me.

[Barry Desborough]

The analogy is Bertrand Russell's. And the teapot is orbiting the sun, not Pluto.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history.

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/isThereGod.htm

As the above shows, the purpose of the analogy was to show that the onus is on dogmatists to give us a reason to believe their dogma and not on the doubter to disprove it. This is not quite the same as saying, "you can choose to believe in it or not".

K

Thanks.

I'm just messing about with ideas here, asking myself if it is necessary to believe or even disbelieve anything at all. Certainly, I'd agree that the sensible position is that of not believing an improbable proposition for which there is no evidence. It just that actively disbelieving it (in my own head) would accord it a significance that it doesn't warrant, that's all.

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
Not to me.


POWELL:
I can live with that, I think.

However, just because it's not evidence to you (say because you didn't use it to help you come to your decision) doesn't mean it's not evidence to anyone else or that it's not evidence in general.

Let's consider some claims, going from those I challenge to those I support.


1. I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God.

Bad. That is the kind of absurd claim that I tend to challenge at TWEB. If you say something like that then don't be surprised if I respond to the flame bait.


2. I don't believe in God due to the lack of evidence.

That's likely to mislead since lack = deficiency is ok, but lack = absence isn't ok.


3. I don't believe in God because there is nothing that I see (i.e. use) as evidence for God.

I guess that's ok, but I doubt that it accurately reflects the person's situation, since I envision them weighing the evidence for and against.


4. I don't believe in God due to the deficiency / weakness of the evidence.

That one is pretty good.


5. I don't believe in God because the available evidence is not good enough to persuade me to believe such an extraordinary claim.

The final one I really like.


John Powell

[Kulindrichnus]

Thanks.

I'm just messing about with ideas here, asking myself if it is necessary to believe or even disbelieve anything at all. Certainly, I'd agree that the sensible position is that of not believing an improbable proposition for which there is no evidence. It just that actively disbelieving it (in my own head) would accord it a significance that it doesn't warrant, that's all.

I agree. Myself, I would agree with various propositions that describe disbelief, but the overriding one I tend to give is that I am an atheist because I think the question, 'is there a god?' is a purposeless one. Nowhere in philosophy does it add one iota to human knowledge to introduce a god to a chain of reasoning; this is itself borne out by the fact that all the theologians of all time have not made a single step forward in their thinking when they have had their God at the bottom of it. Gods are a step beyond reasonable logic and therefore the whole proposition is invalid.

In one sense I would agree in principle with the agnostic who says that they neither know that God exists nor that he does not, because I would agree with the hypothetical agnostic who says that there is no way of being certain either way. but in setting out such a position, the agnostic implies that it is meaningful to entertain at least the question of God's existence, and I maintain that it is not meaningful to do that. In that way, I think agnosticism as commonly understood is as absurd as theism.

This is of course an essentially positivistic attitude. I have had long debates about it in the past with Glenn who, interestingly enough, leans towards some positivistic ideas from a theistic standpoint.

Positivism, of course, has its problems, and some might say that my atheism is ill-founded as a consequence. But even if I accepted that, I should still be an atheist as a consequence of what I might call 'cumulative agnosticism'. Here's another bit of Russell:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Now in a strict sense I might say, "I cannot prove or disprove that Buluk-Kab (http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/mayan-mythology.php?deity=BULUK-KAB) does not exist, so I am agnostic about Buluk-Kab"; and, "I cannot prove or disprove that Chernobog (http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/slavic_baltic-mythology.php?deity=CHERNOBOG&ds=N) does not exist, so I am agnostic about Chernobog", and so on, going through the thousands of Gods at Godchecker (http://www.godchecker.com); but in practice nobody does this, because we all think it so improbable that any of these long-forgotten gods exist that we are willing to make the provisional assumption that they do not exist. I think everyone on this board will be a strict agnostic in principle but a strong atheist in practice with respect to Buluk-Kab; we understand that he is an anthropological artefact of a more primitive civilisation and not a possibly real character in the universe.

The question of whether God exists looks like such an important dilemma, and leads people to equivocate and call themselves agnostic, because we all tend to bring the Christian God, and only the Christian God, into the question when we consider it. This is, of course, a cultural hangover; there is no sensible reason to afford it such privilege. It should be considered in the same way that we consider Buluk-Kab, and given that there is no probability difference between these various propositions and we understand that Yahweh is just as unlikely as Buluk-Kab, then we can, to all intents and purposes, disregard them both.

Other things are covered by just this sort of reasoning. If the agnostic is going to maintain that he does not know whether God exists or not, then he must also maintain that he cannot know whether ghosts exist or not, since like gods the idea is inherently untestable, and there can be no way of knowing for certain that ghosts do not exist. Once one gets to this point, one realises that there are an infinite number of propositions of the sort, "there is a....." which cannot be disproven, and one is required to be agnostic about all of them; Russell's teapot is an example. None of us are seriously going to give time to the consideration of the teapot, even those who identify as agnostics, whose rationale suggests that they should; Even less are we likely to devote our lives to thinking up, and agonising over, endless "there is a...." propositions. If it is reasonable to do this, it is not reasonable to pick and choose our exceptions. If we are going to be agnostic about the Christian God, then we are agnostic about the teapot; and ultimately there is no proposition which we can say with confidence is absurd.

I do not personally think that is a very useful or easy position in which to find ones' self, no matter what its philosophical merits. In practice, we gain much more, in terms of our ability to make decisions and understand the world around us, by stepping away and provisionally declaring the teapot absurd than we do by holding to strict philosophical principle and entertaining it; and if we are to take that advantage then Yahweh, Buluk-Kab, will o' the wisp, leprechauns and any number of other things must go out the window with the teapot. For this reason, especially when I don't want to get into the positivistic side of my atheism, I will call myself an anti-supernaturalist rather than an atheist.

K

[Jayhawker Soule]

POWELL:
I can live with that, I think.Know it.

POWELL:
Let's consider some claims, going from those I challenge to those I support.Let's not. Rather, let's recognize that you and I use the word 'evidence' differently. You are free to do so with whatever equanimity you deem appropriate.

As for the topic at hand, I do not believe in God(s) for precisely the same reason I do not believe in the Daoine Sidhe, i.e., I know of no evidence for either, meaning that I've seen nothing rendering God(s) or the Daoine Sidhe evident or manifest. As for the relationship betwen this atheism (or nontheism) and agnosticism, I am reminded of the following quote ...

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler, quoted in Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html)

[Seasanctuary]

I agree. Myself, I would agree with various propositions that describe disbelief, but the overriding one I tend to give is that I am an atheist because I think the question, 'is there a god?' is a purposeless one. Nowhere in philosophy does it add one iota to human knowledge to introduce a god to a chain of reasoning; this is itself borne out by the fact that all the theologians of all time have not made a single step forward in their thinking when they have had their God at the bottom of it. Gods are a step beyond reasonable logic and therefore the whole proposition is invalid.

Whether or not there's a God can be important to someone -- or at least interesting -- for reasons besides whether reasoning is affected.

In one sense I would agree in principle with the agnostic who says that they neither know that God exists nor that he does not, because I would agree with the hypothetical agnostic who says that there is no way of being certain either way. but in setting out such a position, the agnostic implies that it is meaningful to entertain at least the question of God's existence, and I maintain that it is not meaningful to do that. In that way, I think agnosticism as commonly understood is as absurd as theism.

I'm the least assuming kind of agnostic. I just say that I don't know...not that I can't know...or that God can't be known...or that it's a meaningless question.

The term "agnostic" has also been applied to those who subscribe to something like logical positivism and therefore don't answer "yes" or "no" to "is there a God." Sounds like your take on things.

I do wish there was not such a variety of meaning carried by "agnostic."

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I can live with that, I think.


Jayhawker Soule:
Know it.

POWELL:
Let's consider some claims, going from those I challenge to those I support.


Jayhawker Soule:
Let's not. Rather, let's recognize that you and I use the word 'evidence' differently.


POWELL:
About other issues this doesn't matter so much, but I strongly suggest that my fellow nontheists use the word "evidence" something like the way I do rather than in the way that suggests our rational opponents have no evidence for their beliefs. The reason I strongly suggest this is to avoid nontheists being seen by them as irrational for denying what is obvious to them and to avoid being seen as inconsistent.

Jayhawker Soule:
You are free to do so with whatever equanimity you deem appropriate.


POWELL:
So are you.

Jayhawker Soule:
As for the topic at hand, I do not believe in God(s) for precisely the same reason I do not believe in the Daoine Sidhe, i.e., I know of no evidence for either, meaning that I've seen nothing rendering God(s) or the Daoine Sidhe evident or manifest.


POWELL:
Then to be consistent, given the controversy over issues such as evolution, you should concede that you know of no evidence rendering macroevolution "evident" or "manifest." All you know of are claims, arguments, and experiences that scientists publish and teach which persuades them and the vast majority of other scientists to believe it has occurred many times down through biological history. If macroevolution were "evident" or "manifest" then there shouldn't be all the controversy among educated people about whether it has occurred.

If you don't like the analogy of macroevolution, but are willing to consider this kind of issue, then propose an alternative scientific claim for which there is great controversy and for which you think there is "evidence" as you use the term above.

"Evident" and "apparent" can be synonymous.

Notice Merriam Webster's definition 3 for "apparent" (taken from www.dictionary.com).

Merriam Webster's:
3. : appearing to one's senses and esp. one's vision or to one's understanding as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be correct or factual <an apparent ability to cause injury> <the apparent scope of the agent's authority> —ap·par·ent·ly adverb

POWELL:
Notice that Webster's Dictionary allows for evidence that may or may not be correct or factual but leads the observer to conclude that such and such is real or true. Does your usage of "evidence" allow for that?

You claim to know of no evidence for God. What planet do you live on? I'm aware of claims, arguments, and experiences which rational theists use to conclude that God exists. Aren't you aware of theists claiming that God exists? Aren't you aware of scriptures claiming that God exists? Aren't you aware of arguments for God? Aren't you aware of experiences that people have had that they attribute to God? What planet do you live on that you aren't aware of these things?

If you don't think evidence consists of claims, arguments or experiences then what does it consist of? What evidence do you have for anything that isn't one of those?

Jayhawker Soule:
As for the relationship betwen this atheism (or nontheism) and agnosticism, I am reminded of the following quote ...

STRAHLER:
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry.


POWELL:
Contrary to Strahler's claim, the supernatural is knowable since we are able, we have the sensory and mental tools, to study God's supernatural miracles. If God were to appear today and begin doing supernatural miracles do you really think scientists would be unable to study them? Would their eyes and minds stop working because the events are supernatural miracles? Of course not.

The reason that scientists ignore the supernatural is not for the reasons Strahler gives. An important reason scientists ignore it is because they haven't been given sufficient reason to seriously pursue it. If God were to appear in a big way then that would be sufficient reason to start studying such things.

STRAHLER:
Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.


POWELL:
Just because the claimant does not provide the means to fully test his beliefs does not mean that it's impossible that he do so. The problem is not that those kinds of religious beliefs are impossible of being known, but that the claimants haven't yet provided enough information to properly test them.

If I claim to have superpowers but won't show them to you then is it impossible for you to test my claims? No, it's just very difficult until I cooperate.

When the Utah electrochemists Pons and Fleishman claimed to have produced cold fusion they purposely neglected to provide certain information as to their experiment. Their defense was that they sought patents. Consequently, efforts to test the claims were hampered. Those who did so figured they had enough information to justify trying.

Miraculous superpowers can be studied by scientists because they have functional eyes and brains and it's possible that the possessor cooperates.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm the least assuming kind of agnostic. I just say that I don't know...not that I can't know...or that God can't be known...or that it's a meaningless question.

< -- snip -- >

I do wish there was not such a variety of meaning carried by "agnostic."There is an unassuming elegance to intending nothing other than "I don't know." But if we relieve Huxley of his word 'agnosticism', what should we offer him in its place?

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule (to Seasanctuary):
There is an unassuming elegance to intending nothing other than "I don't know." But if we relieve Huxley of his word 'agnosticism', what should we offer him in its place?

POWELL:
I think we should relieve Huxley of his word. It's a great word better suited for other things than he intended.

Perhaps we should offer in its place the "Believe only up to the level of confidence that the evidence warrants" principle in general and the "Certainty requires a sound deductive argument" principle for the highest level of confidence.

HUXLEY:
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html


POWELL:
I agree that if one is certain then he should be reasonably able to provide something like a sound deductive argument, but lesser levels of high confidence (such as the loose use of "certain") do not require that the claimant be reasonably able to provide high levels of evidence to anyone other than to himself to justify him having that high level of confidence.

For example, if some aliens clearly take you on a ride in their spaceship then you are justified in saying you are certain (in the loose sense) that aliens exist even if you are not reasonably able to provide better evidence to others beyond things like your testimony.

As a religious example, if you are Thomas and see and touch the living body then you are justified in saying that you are certain (in the loose sense) that Jesus resurrected, even if you are not reasonably able to arrange that experience for anyone else.

Actually, you are "able" to provide them with that evidence, you just aren't "reasonably able", because you can lead them to where they are able to have a similar experience, but the problem is that neither the aliens nor Jesus cooperate.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

POWELL:
I think we should relieve Huxley of his word. It's a great word better suited for other things than he intended.And replace it with what?

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
And replace it with what?


POWELL:
Replace it with something that adequately represents what Huxley asserted and which he thought is all that is essential to what he called "agnosticism." Huxley said: ". . . it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

I suggest the principle "Certainty requires supremely good evidence such as a persuasive supporting sound deductive argument." Notice that I've revised this from my earlier suggestion.

A companion principle that has wider application is the other one I suggested: "Believe only up to the level of confidence that the evidence warrants."

If there are other claims that Huxley meant to be uniquely associated with what he called "agnosticism" then we might need to come up with something to replace those too.

We should use "agnostic" to represent the position "doesn't know." We should use "gnostic incapable" for the more extreme position "it can't be known."

Do you have any suggestions?

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Replace it with something that adequately represents what Huxley asserted ...Yes, I agree that if we appropriate Huxley's term we should, at the very least, replace it with something that adequately represents what Huxley asserted. But, since neither of us can seem to come up with a suggestion, I'm willing to defer to Huxley. I can always use terms like 'unsure' or 'uncertain' to cover the vernacular.

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
Yes, I agree that if we appropriate Huxley's term we should, at the very least, replace it with something that adequately represents what Huxley asserted. But, since neither of us can seem to come up with a suggestion, I'm willing to defer to Huxley. I can always use terms like 'unsure' or 'uncertain' to cover the vernacular.


POWELL:
I came up with a suggestion. Perhaps you meant "adequate suggestion."

Fine, then I'll take the easy, reliable road. Let's just call Huxley's method "Huxleyism" and appropriate his great word "agnosticism" for a better use.

John Powell

[Bagger_Vance]

Agnosticism to me means not seeing adequate evidence either way for the existence of a god/gods. That is totally different than organized religions. Since we don't know about god then an agnostic can say with certainty that all religions are guesswork and wishful thinking. I hate when agnostics are called "weak" atheists because we aren't. When it comes to Christianity or Islam an agnostic can say they are false because they contradict themselves and make no sense. Now the idea of some god...maybe but none of the ones described so far in religions has presented enough evidence or a consistent message to make sense. Deism is the only one that comes to my mind that an agnostic couldn't denounce along with an atheist as false.

The atheist pretends to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk. The agnostic doesn't pretend and only sticks in the relam of what we can and can't know.

[John Powell]

BAGGER_VANCE:
Agnosticism to me means not seeing adequate evidence either way for the existence of a god/gods. That is totally different than organized religions. Since we don't know about god then an agnostic can say with certainty that all religions are guesswork and wishful thinking.


POWELL:
If you're certain that it's just guesswork, there's no truth to it then you would seem to be a strong atheist.

BAGGER_VANCE:
I hate when agnostics are called "weak" atheists because we aren't.


POWELL:
Then throw off the timidity of merely not believing God exists and proclaim that you believe that God does not exist.

BAGGER_VANCE:
When it comes to Christianity or Islam an agnostic can say they are false because they contradict themselves and make no sense.


POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are a strong atheist with respect to the God of Christianity and the God of Islam. You not only lack a belief that they exist, but you believe they don't exist, you believe they are false.

BAGGER_VANCE:
Now the idea of some god...maybe but none of the ones described so far in religions has presented enough evidence or a consistent message to make sense. Deism is the only one that comes to my mind that an agnostic couldn't denounce along with an atheist as false.


POWELL:
Then you might be agnostic or weak atheistic with respect to the Deistic God.

BAGGER_VANCE:
The atheist pretends to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk.


POWELL:
Some do, others don't.

BAGGER_VANCE:
The agnostic doesn't pretend and [but?] only sticks in the relam [realm?] of what we can and can't know.


POWELL:
That last sentence confuses me. The agnostic doesn't pretend to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk but . . . [then what do you mean?]

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

The atheist pretends to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk.That seems to me awefully judgemental and dismissive. It also seems wrong.

First, the position that "the very idea of god is bunk" - termed noncognitivism or, more recently, igtheism - is only held by a minority of atheists. Even so, you might wish to consider reading those like Ayers before arrogantly dismissing the position as mere pretence.

Beyond that, many, many atheist claim to know nothing other than the fact that God is an extraordinary, and wholly unverified, claim.

The agnostic doesn't pretend and only sticks in the relam of what we can and can't know.OK

[John Powell]

POWELL:
You seem to understand something that I don't.

Would you please rewrite or explain Bagger_Vance's last sentence?

BAGGER_VANCE:
The agnostic doesn't pretend and only sticks in the relam of what we can and can't know.


POWELL:
Thanks!

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem to understand something that I don't.OK

Would you please rewrite or explain Bagger_Vance's last sentence?Sure ...

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

- see Agnosticism by Huxley

[Bagger_Vance]

POWELL:
If you're certain that it's just guesswork, there's no truth to it then you would seem to be a strong atheist.

The reason I can say that the god's of religious lore are false is because they've been outlined and drawn out well enough that you can see whether or not they are true. I think most agnostics are "strong" on the idea that the gods presented to us through religions are on weak ground otherwise we would follow one of them.

The question comes in this broad shady god character that isn't in books or legends. Does a god of some hitherto undescribed nature/will exist? Well...I can't know that so I don't pretend or worry about it. I figure on that one I can't know and so I probably am not supposed to worry.



POWELL:
Then throw off the timidity of merely not believing God exists and proclaim that you believe that God does not exist.

I think you are confusing or mixing words here. "GAWD" or the personal crutch of religions that is all loving while creating natural disasters. "GAWD" who creates an instinct within man and then sets the rules in exaxt opposition. "GAWD" who condoned slavery and genocide. etc. All agnostics are "strong" on this notion of god that doesn't make sense otherwise we'd pick a religion. The concept of god as an unknowable unconceivable entity that may or may not be good etc. When you loosely draw god as merely a instigator or something we can't know then what an agnostic says is that we simply don't know. I'm not scared about the unknown. I figure that the unknown is something I won't be held accountable for so I'll stick with what I can know. I can know that the "GAWD" of religions is nonsense. But the possibilities for a real god of some sort are endless and I'm not going to discount any possibility for some god just because man's ideas of him/her/it are so wrong.



POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are a strong atheist with respect to the God of Christianity and the God of Islam. You not only lack a belief that they exist, but you believe they don't exist, you believe they are false.

Absolutely. I think the thinking on agnosticism that suggests that we think christianity is possible is wrong. Agnosticism is an embrace on the limits of our knowledge sure but we never deny that we can know some things. When you lay out an example of God that is contradictory to what we see in nature, man, and existence we can call a spade a spade just like anyone else. Agnostics aren't paralyzed fence sitters that can't make up their minds. We've decided that religions presented to us are not accurate. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water though. Could a god of some sort exist? I don't know therefore I will not say that he/she/it doesn't exist? Is Jesus the son of the Christian God who made us all and is all knowing, loving, and powerful? Well of course not. The religion presents scenarios and makes claims that are absurd and can't be believed. Is there some designer that set the stage and balances the universe? Who knows? Do you honestly know or do you believe that a god doesn't exist? I think more than anything an agnostic eschews faith of any form. We try to stick to what we can know and don't allow what we can't know to bother us either way.





[/QUOTE]POWELL:
Then you might be agnostic or weak atheistic with respect to the Deistic God.[/QUOTE]

Once you draw back from the idea of a omnimax all loving creator who writes books and sends prophets I become a "weak" atheist aka agnostic.







POWELL:
That last sentence confuses me. The agnostic doesn't pretend to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk but . . . [then what do you mean?]

John Powell

Well it was a poorly written and spelled sentence so I can see how it confused you.

What I was trying to say is that while the atheist contends that he/she knows that no god of any sort exists with no proof the agnostic says there is no evidence either way. When you retreat from debunking established religions the possibilities are endless about what this unknown entity called god is so how can you debunk something when you don't even have a definition?

[Bagger_Vance]

POWELL:
If you're certain that it's just guesswork, there's no truth to it then you would seem to be a strong atheist.

The reason I can say that the god's of religious lore are false is because they've been outlined and drawn out well enough that you can see whether or not they are true. I think most agnostics are "strong" on the idea that the gods presented to us through religions are on weak ground otherwise we would follow one of them.

The question comes in this broad shady god character that isn't in books or legends. Does a god of some hitherto undescribed nature/will exist? Well...I can't know that so I don't pretend or worry about it. I figure on that one I can't know and so I probably am not supposed to worry.



POWELL:
Then throw off the timidity of merely not believing God exists and proclaim that you believe that God does not exist.

I think you are confusing or mixing words here. "GAWD" or the personal crutch of religions that is all loving while creating natural disasters. "GAWD" who creates an instinct within man and then sets the rules in exaxt opposition. "GAWD" who condoned slavery and genocide. etc. All agnostics are "strong" on this notion of god that doesn't make sense otherwise we'd pick a religion. The concept of god as an unknowable unconceivable entity that may or may not be good etc. When you loosely draw god as merely a instigator or something we can't know then what an agnostic says is that we simply don't know. I'm not scared about the unknown. I figure that the unknown is something I won't be held accountable for so I'll stick with what I can know. I can know that the "GAWD" of religions is nonsense. But the possibilities for a real god of some sort are endless and I'm not going to discount any possibility for some god just because man's ideas of him/her/it are so wrong.



POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are a strong atheist with respect to the God of Christianity and the God of Islam. You not only lack a belief that they exist, but you believe they don't exist, you believe they are false.

Absolutely. I think the thinking on agnosticism that suggests that we think christianity is possible is wrong. Agnosticism is an embrace on the limits of our knowledge sure but we never deny that we can know some things. When you lay out an example of God that is contradictory to what we see in nature, man, and existence we can call a spade a spade just like anyone else. Agnostics aren't paralyzed fence sitters that can't make up their minds. We've decided that religions presented to us are not accurate. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water though. Could a god of some sort exist? I don't know therefore I will not say that he/she/it doesn't exist? Is Jesus the son of the Christian God who made us all and is all knowing, loving, and powerful? Well of course not. The religion presents scenarios and makes claims that are absurd and can't be believed. Is there some designer that set the stage and balances the universe? Who knows? Do you honestly know or do you believe that a god doesn't exist? I think more than anything an agnostic eschews faith of any form. We try to stick to what we can know and don't allow what we can't know to bother us either way.





[/QUOTE]POWELL:
Then you might be agnostic or weak atheistic with respect to the Deistic God.[/QUOTE]

Once you draw back from the idea of a omnimax all loving creator who writes books and sends prophets I become a "weak" atheist aka agnostic.







POWELL:
That last sentence confuses me. The agnostic doesn't pretend to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk but . . . [then what do you mean?]

John Powell

Well it was a poorly written and spelled sentence so I can see how it confused you.

What I was trying to say is that while the atheist contends that he/she knows that no god of any sort exists with no proof the agnostic says there is no evidence either way. When you retreat from debunking established religions the possibilities are endless about what this unknown entity called god is so how can you debunk something when you don't even have a definition?

[Seasanctuary]

When you retreat from debunking established religions the possibilities are endless about what this unknown entity called god is so how can you debunk something when you don't even have a definition?

I would add that there is considerable and significant variability in ways to understand even the well-known Gods. There are alternate versions which have (or once had) human adherents who would be labelled as heretics by more mainstream interpretations. There are also alternate versions which haven't had adherents, but could still be true.

I'm not a strong atheist toward everything that resembles the popular versions. I haven't even looked sufficiently into all the popular versions to be a strong atheist toward those. An important aspect of Agnosticism is being able to just state my current condition as not believing, without this necessatating any particular "Well, that's certainly not true."

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If you're certain that it's just guesswork, there's no truth to it then you would seem to be a strong atheist.


BAGGER_VANCE:
The reason I can say that the god's of religious lore are false is because they've been outlined and drawn out well enough that you can see whether or not they are true. I think most agnostics are "strong" on the idea that the gods presented to us through religions are on weak ground otherwise we would follow one of them.

The question comes in this broad shady god character that isn't in books or legends. Does a god of some hitherto undescribed nature/will exist? Well...I can't know that so I don't pretend or worry about it. I figure on that one I can't know and so I probably am not supposed to worry.


POWELL:
It appears to me that you are best characterized as a strong atheist with respect to the conventional gods, the ones people are promoting, but you recognize that you might believe in a God that hasn't yet been described to you, so you're agnostic with respect to those undescribed God concepts.

It is rare the strong atheist who foolishly claims that there is no God concept that is actual. I can merely use the dictionary definition, point out that "god = the universe" is one and watch them try to deny they believe the universe exists.

POWELL:
Then throw off the timidity of merely not believing God exists and proclaim that you believe that God does not exist.


BAGGER_VANCE:
I think you are confusing or mixing words here. "GAWD" or the personal crutch of religions that is all loving while creating natural disasters. "GAWD" who creates an instinct within man and then sets the rules in exaxt opposition. "GAWD" who condoned slavery and genocide. etc. All agnostics are "strong" on this notion of god that doesn't make sense otherwise we'd pick a religion.


POWELL:
I doubt that. I think lots of self-proclaimed agnostics aren't strong on that notion. I think you don't fit the typical self-proclaimed agnostic mold, but better fit the mold of an agnostic strong atheist: someone who believes that God doesn't exist, but doesn't know.

BAGGER_VANCE:
The concept of god as an unknowable unconceivable entity that may or may not be good etc. When you loosely draw god as merely a instigator or something we can't know then what an agnostic says is that we simply don't know. I'm not scared about the unknown. I figure that the unknown is something I won't be held accountable for so I'll stick with what I can know. I can know that the "GAWD" of religions is nonsense. But the possibilities for a real god of some sort are endless and I'm not going to discount any possibility for some god just because man's ideas of him/her/it are so wrong.


POWELL:
The typical self-proclaimed agnostic tends to avoid using derogatory language like "GAWD" or claim it's nonsense. That's more like what strong atheists do. Self-proclaimed agnostics are more inclined to be respectful towards the name of God and to claim they don't understand. Actually, I'm not the typical agnostic strong atheist. I'm extra polite.

POWELL:
Then it would seem that you are a strong atheist with respect to the God of Christianity and the God of Islam. You not only lack a belief that they exist, but you believe they don't exist, you believe they are false.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Absolutely.


POWELL:
Then, when a Christian or Muslim asks you, it would seem to be helpful to them to say you're a (strong) atheist rather than merely an agnostic since it is your beliefs concerning their God that matters to them. If someone presses you then you can clarify that you're agnostic with respect to Gods you haven't heard about and you believe God exists if God is the universe.

BAGGER_VANCE:
I think the thinking on agnosticism that suggests that we think christianity is possible is wrong.


POWELL:
This is more akin to what a strong atheist would say than what a mere agnostic would say.

BAGGER_VANCE:
Agnosticism is an embrace on the limits of our knowledge sure but we never deny that we can know some things. When you lay out an example of God that is contradictory to what we see in nature, man, and existence we can call a spade a spade just like anyone else.


POWELL:
Every logically-minded person should be a strong atheist with respect to self-contradictory God concepts.

BAGGER_VANCE:
Agnostics aren't paralyzed fence sitters that can't make up their minds.


POWELL:
You aren't one of them. You belong with us.

BAGGER_VANCE:
We've decided that religions presented to us are not accurate. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water though. Could a god of some sort exist? I don't know therefore I will not say that he/she/it doesn't exist?


POWELL:
Fine. You're agnostic with respect to the ultimate question. What's important is that you're strong atheistic towards the God of Christianity, the one we tend to focus on here at TWEB.

BAGGER_VANCE:
Is Jesus the son of the Christian God who made us all and is all knowing, loving, and powerful? Well of course not. The religion presents scenarios and makes claims that are absurd and can't be believed. Is there some designer that set the stage and balances the universe? Who knows? Do you honestly know or do you believe that a god doesn't exist? I think more than anything an agnostic eschews faith of any form. We try to stick to what we can know and don't allow what we can't know to bother us either way.


POWELL:
I think the pure agnostics should revoke your membership card. You don't belong with them.

POWELL:
Then you might be agnostic or weak atheistic with respect to the Deistic God.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Once you draw back from the idea of a omnimax all loving creator who writes books and sends prophets I become a "weak" atheist aka agnostic.


POWELL:
Fine. Since we're usually referring to that omnimax entity, you're strong atheistic.

POWELL:
That last sentence confuses me. The agnostic doesn't pretend to be able to know that the very idea of god is bunk but . . . [then what do you mean?]

John Powell


BAGGER_VANCE:
Well it was a poorly written and spelled sentence so I can see how it confused you.

What I was trying to say is that while the atheist contends that he/she knows that no god of any sort exists with no proof the agnostic says there is no evidence either way.


POWELL:
A ha. That's not what the wise atheist claims. What you describe is what I would call a Gnostic strong atheist: someone who believes that God doesn't exist, and knows it. That kind of atheist is rare among discussion forums. Those that start off that way tend to back off from the extreme view after getting burned.

BAGGER_VANCE:
When you retreat from debunking established religions the possibilities are endless about what this unknown entity called god is so how can you debunk something when you don't even have a definition?


POWELL:
It's difficult.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Look at Seasanctuary's language, Bagger_Vance.

Although I think she's coming around to admitting to a stronger version of nontheism, Seasanctuary's language is more akin to that of the self-proclaimed agnostic.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

A ha. That's not what the wise atheist claims. What you describe is what I would call a Gnostic strong atheist: ...Ya gotta love it. One thing must be said of Powell's world. A world replete with ...
WAWA: Weak Agnostic Weak Atheists
WAWT: Weak Agnostic Weak Theists
WASA: Weak Agnostic Strong Atheists
WAST: Weak Agnostic Strong Theists
WGWA: Weak Gnostic Weak Atheists
WGWT: Weak Gnostic Weak Theists
WGSA: Weak Gnostic Strong Atheists
WGST: Weak Gnostic Strong Theists
SAWA: Strong Agnostic Weak Atheists
SAWT: Strong Agnostic Weak Theists
SASA: Strong Agnostic Strong Atheists
SAST: Strong Agnostic Strong Theists
SGWA: Strong Gnostic Weak Atheists
SGWT: Strong Gnostic Weak Theists
SGSA: Strong Gnostic Strong Atheists
SGST: Strong Gnostic Strong Theists seems hardly evidence of Intelligent Design. And we haven't even begun to tall about igtheism.

Luckily, "the map is not the territoy," and, in the real world, most of us get by just fine - not by agonizing over labels but by supplementing designation with dialogue. The trick is to have the dialogue focus on the position and not the designation.

By the way, for those who have not seen it, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html) by Theodore M. Drange may prove worth reading.

[Bagger_Vance]

POWELL:
It appears to me that you are best characterized as a strong atheist with respect to the conventional gods, the ones people are promoting, but you recognize that you might believe in a God that hasn't yet been described to you, so you're agnostic with respect to those undescribed God concepts.

It is rare the strong atheist who foolishly claims that there is no God concept that is actual. I can merely use the dictionary definition, point out that "god = the universe" is one and watch them try to deny they believe the universe exists.

Here is the thing though. Aren't all agnostics "strong" on the point of conventional gods? I only ask that because surely if they weren't strong on it they would be in a religion. I think the agnostic/atheist distinction is only one of unconventional gods for both have pulled out of organized religion.

And you are correct about strong atheists rarely saying no god concept can work. Where does pantheism for example work in that to you? I'm very open to the idea of pantheism personally and it is one of those god concepts that I don't think we can rationally reject yet.



POWELL:
I doubt that. I think lots of self-proclaimed agnostics aren't strong on that notion. I think you don't fit the typical self-proclaimed agnostic mold, but better fit the mold of an agnostic strong atheist: someone who believes that God doesn't exist, but doesn't know.

I think all versions of God presented don't exist. But beyond that I have no idea.



POWELL:
The typical self-proclaimed agnostic tends to avoid using derogatory language like "GAWD" or claim it's nonsense. That's more like what strong atheists do. Self-proclaimed agnostics are more inclined to be respectful towards the name of God and to claim they don't understand. Actually, I'm not the typical agnostic strong atheist. I'm extra polite.

Then I may not be a typical agnostic but I am one nonetheless. I try to be more satirical of the conventional god concepts for personal amusement.



POWELL:
Then, when a Christian or Muslim asks you, it would seem to be helpful to them to say you're a (strong) atheist rather than merely an agnostic since it is your beliefs concerning their God that matters to them. If someone presses you then you can clarify that you're agnostic with respect to Gods you haven't heard about and you believe God exists if God is the universe.

How about a strong agnostic? :teeth:



POWELL:
This is more akin to what a strong atheist would say than what a mere agnostic would say.

A "mere" agnostic? :lol:



POWELL:
Every logically-minded person should be a strong atheist with respect to self-contradictory God concepts.

One would hope.



POWELL:
You aren't one of them. You belong with us.

I say you belong with me.



POWELL:
Fine. You're agnostic with respect to the ultimate question. What's important is that you're strong atheistic towards the God of Christianity, the one we tend to focus on here at TWEB.

You mean the gods of christianity, right? You see I don't think the father and son are real but that holy ghost fella...I dig him. He makes old people flail around and speak in tongues which is always amusing.



POWELL:
I think the pure agnostics should revoke your membership card. You don't belong with them.

Oh no. Next you'll be talking about a universal agnostic "worldview" that is responsible for the French surrendering before the fight starts or something. :lol:



POWELL:
Fine. Since we're usually referring to that omnimax entity, you're strong atheistic.

Here indeed for the most part I only get to show my disagreement with the strong theists that claim to know while also saying they don't know. They know God is all loving but then when you ask uncomfortable questions they become agnostics in an instant. They don't know. Who can know? etc. I'm an angostic atheist and this board is filled with agnostic theists.



POWELL:
A ha. That's not what the wise atheist claims. What you describe is what I would call a Gnostic strong atheist: someone who believes that God doesn't exist, and knows it. That kind of atheist is rare among discussion forums. Those that start off that way tend to back off from the extreme view after getting burned.

Yeah it as impossible a position as the theist position.



POWELL:
It's difficult.

John Powell

Touche.

[Bagger_Vance]

I would add that there is considerable and significant variability in ways to understand even the well-known Gods. There are alternate versions which have (or once had) human adherents who would be labelled as heretics by more mainstream interpretations. There are also alternate versions which haven't had adherents, but could still be true.

I'm not a strong atheist toward everything that resembles the popular versions. I haven't even looked sufficiently into all the popular versions to be a strong atheist toward those. An important aspect of Agnosticism is being able to just state my current condition as not believing, without this necessatating any particular "Well, that's certainly not true."

But would you say that there are some god/god concepts that you have looked at and can reject as not true? It seems obvious to me that you do reject the christian view that you know otherwise you'd be in the religion. It doesn't mean you shut off every possible avenue that might be true but when a case is presented to you and you see that it is wrong then you can be an agnostic while rejecting it as wrong. The agnostic position is that we don't know however that isn't an all encompassing position. There are things we can know. Or do you think I'm off base there?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The agnostic position is that we don't know however that isn't an all encompassing position. There are things we can know. Or do you think I'm off base there?Let's assume a Supernatural. What can be known?

[Bagger_Vance]

Let's assume a Supernatural. What can be known?

I don't know!

/agnostic :lol:

[John Powell]

Ya gotta love it. One thing must be said of Powell's world. A world replete with ...
WAWA: Weak Agnostic Weak Atheists
WAWT: Weak Agnostic Weak Theists
WASA: Weak Agnostic Strong Atheists
WAST: Weak Agnostic Strong Theists
WGWA: Weak Gnostic Weak Atheists
WGWT: Weak Gnostic Weak Theists
WGSA: Weak Gnostic Strong Atheists
WGST: Weak Gnostic Strong Theists
SAWA: Strong Agnostic Weak Atheists
SAWT: Strong Agnostic Weak Theists
SASA: Strong Agnostic Strong Atheists
SAST: Strong Agnostic Strong Theists
SGWA: Strong Gnostic Weak Atheists
SGWT: Strong Gnostic Weak Theists
SGSA: Strong Gnostic Strong Atheists
SGST: Strong Gnostic Strong Theists seems hardly evidence of Intelligent Design. And we haven't even begun to tall about igtheism.

Luckily, "the map is not the territoy," and, in the real world, most of us get by just fine - not by agonizing over labels but by supplementing designation with dialogue. The trick is to have the dialogue focus on the position and not the designation.


POWELL:
I have not posted all those designations. I don't usually need to put so much effort into clarifying the situation. The question of how to deal with theism-atheism and gnosticism-agnosticism is one that's worth the effort.

Ok then, if you wanted to give distinct labels to someone who was over 95% confident that God existed versus someone who was between 90-95% confident then what labels would you suggest?

You don't seem to have much experience with math, Jayhawker. Apparently, your world is filled with a small number of categories rather than a continuum.

Jayhawker Soule:
By the way, for those who have not seen it, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html) by Theodore M. Drange may prove worth reading.

POWELL:
IIRC, Drange makes some mistakes.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule
Let's assume a Supernatural. What can be known?


BAGGER_VANCE:
I don't know!

/agnostic


POWELL:
Not only it could be known but it would be known that it is

of or relating to existence outside the natural world
or
attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
or
of or relating to a deity
or
of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous
or
of or relating to the miraculous (see www.dictionary.com)

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

You don't seem to have much experience with math, Jayhawker. :ahem:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It appears to me that you are best characterized as a strong atheist with respect to the conventional gods, the ones people are promoting, but you recognize that you might believe in a God that hasn't yet been described to you, so you're agnostic with respect to those undescribed God concepts.

It is rare the strong atheist who foolishly claims that there is no God concept that is actual. I can merely use the dictionary definition, point out that "god = the universe" is one and watch them try to deny they believe the universe exists.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Here is the thing though. Aren't all agnostics "strong" on the point of conventional gods?


POWELL:
Not in my experience. Generally speaking, they are "iffy."

BAGGER_VANCE:
I only ask that because surely if they weren't strong on it they would be in a religion.


POWELL:
They don't feel confident enough that there is a God to join a religion. They're very close to the 50 yard line between the atheist and theist sides of the field.

BAGGER_VANCE:
I think the agnostic/atheist distinction is only one of unconventional gods for both have pulled out of organized religion.


POWELL:
Those other Gods have little relevance to the debate so they should have little relevance in the labels we create.

BAGGER_VANCE:
And you are correct about strong atheists rarely saying no god concept can work. Where does pantheism for example work in that to you?

I'm very open to the idea of pantheism personally and it is one of those god concepts that I don't think we can rationally reject yet.


POWELL:

Pantheism (American Heritage Dictionary at www.dictionary.com)
1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2. Belief in and worship of all gods.

If God is the universe then I believe that God exists. Who doesn't believe the universe exists? As to the second definition, I don't believe in all gods.

POWELL:
I doubt that. I think lots of self-proclaimed agnostics aren't strong on that notion. I think you don't fit the typical self-proclaimed agnostic mold, but better fit the mold of an agnostic strong atheist: someone who believes that God doesn't exist, but doesn't know.


BAGGER_VANCE:
I think all versions of God presented don't exist. But beyond that I have no idea.


POWELL:
That sure sounds like a strong atheist position to me.

POWELL:
The typical self-proclaimed agnostic tends to avoid using derogatory language like "GAWD" or claim it's nonsense. That's more like what strong atheists do. Self-proclaimed agnostics are more inclined to be respectful towards the name of God and to claim they don't understand. Actually, I'm not the typical agnostic strong atheist. I'm extra polite.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Then I may not be a typical agnostic but I am one nonetheless.


POWELL:
I think you're an agnostic strong atheist. You believe that God (the one that's usually spoken of) doesn't exist, but you don't know for sure.

BAGGER_VANCE:
I try to be more satirical of the conventional god concepts for personal amusement.


POWELL:
Fine.

POWELL:
Then, when a Christian or Muslim asks you, it would seem to be helpful to them to say you're a (strong) atheist rather than merely an agnostic since it is your beliefs concerning their God that matters to them. If someone presses you then you can clarify that you're agnostic with respect to Gods you haven't heard about and you believe God exists if God is the universe.


BAGGER_VANCE:
How about a strong agnostic?


POWELL:
You mean like a "strong" fence sitter? You mean like "strongly" midway between the opposing end zones? I don't think so.

POWELL:
This is more akin to what a strong atheist would say than what a mere agnostic would say.


BAGGER_VANCE:
A "mere" agnostic?


POWELL:
Yes, someone who only uses that label without adding a label indicating whether they believe or disbelieve in God (i.e. theist or atheist). I am not a mere agnostic, I'm an agnostic strong atheist.

POWELL:
Every logically-minded person should be a strong atheist with respect to self-contradictory God concepts.


BAGGER_VANCE:
One would hope.

POWELL:
You aren't one of them. You belong with us.


BAGGER_VANCE:
I say you belong with me.


POWELL:
I do, but you need to acknowledge that you're not merely agnostic with respect to the existence of God, you believe God does not exist, you are a strong atheist.

POWELL:
Fine. You're agnostic with respect to the ultimate question. What's important is that you're strong atheistic towards the God of Christianity, the one we tend to focus on here at TWEB.


BAGGER_VANCE:
You mean the gods of christianity, right? You see I don't think the father and son are real but that holy ghost fella...I dig him. He makes old people flail around and speak in tongues which is always amusing.


POWELL:
Yes, the Gods of Christianity. That's a good point!

POWELL:
I think the pure agnostics should revoke your membership card. You don't belong with them.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Oh no. Next you'll be talking about a universal agnostic "worldview" that is responsible for the French surrendering before the fight starts or something.


POWELL:
I don't think so.

POWELL:
Fine. Since we're usually referring to that omnimax entity, you're strong atheistic.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Here indeed for the most part I only get to show my disagreement with the strong theists that claim to know while also saying they don't know. They know God is all loving but then when you ask uncomfortable questions they become agnostics in an instant. They don't know. Who can know? etc. I'm an angostic [agnostic] atheist and this board is filled with agnostic theists.


POWELL:
Yes. The gnostic theists don't stick around very long.

POWELL:
A ha. That's not what the wise atheist claims. What you describe is what I would call a Gnostic strong atheist: someone who believes that God doesn't exist, and knows it. That kind of atheist is rare among discussion forums. Those that start off that way tend to back off from the extreme view after getting burned.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Yeah it as impossible a position as the theist position.


POWELL:
It is as problematic as the GNOSTIC theist position.

POWELL:
It's difficult.


BAGGER_VANCE:
Touche.


POWELL:
:fencing:

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

But would you say that there are some god/god concepts that you have looked at and can reject as not true? It seems obvious to me that you do reject the christian view that you know otherwise you'd be in the religion.

I disbelieve in a Christian God which inspired an inerrant Bible.
I disbelieve in a Christian God who can be called "morally good," yet allow evil to be carried out against innocent victims when he could easily stop the attempt.
I disbelieve in a Christian God who can be called "just" and "interested in saving us," yet torments people forever for not discovering religious truth in this lifetime.

These are three attributes of the God I once believed in. However, I don't reject the notion offhand that some kind of Christian God without these attributes exists. It could be the case he does; in fact there are Christians with alternate beliefs in some of these areas. Only...they appear to be molding Christian doctrine until they've found something they can believe rather than having a good reason to think that their particular version is actually the case.

So there are versions of the Christian God I don't disbelieve in, nor do I believe in them because I don't have a particularly good reason to think that this one or that one actually exists.

When I say that a God might exist, I'm not merely trying to avoid demonstrating that such a God doesn't exist. I do mean that it's a real possibility. At the same time, I don't feel the need to believe that any given possibility is actual...particularly when there are so many and that "no God at all" is one of them.

The agnostic position is that we don't know however that isn't an all encompassing position. There are things we can know. Or do you think I'm off base there?

You're on base. The "I don't know" kind of agnosticism is not supposed to be an all encompassing position. The agnostic position itself doesn't necessitate any "I know that not"s, but it is compatible with any "I know that not"s a particular agnostic might also happen to have. And I suspect that most agnostics can think up some flagrantly self-contradictory God definitions to disbelieve in.

[Seasanctuary]

Ok then, if you wanted to give distinct labels to someone who was over 95% confident that God existed versus someone who was between 90-95% confident then what labels would you suggest?

You don't seem to have much experience with math, Jayhawker. Apparently, your world is filled with a small number of categories rather than a continuum.

I haven't seen evidence that Jayhawker has any particular inexperience with math.

He -- and I -- question the application of math to this situation. Characterizing these beliefs as merely quantitative variations on the same continuum strikes me as wrong, though I have had a hard time coming up with a good explanation why. It has something to do with me thinking there are qualitative differences and my suspicion that the numbers you come up with can't be manipulated by mathematical operations to produce sensible results.

I haven't made a lot of noise about it because I've been content to just understand that's your way of expressing things. Today, I wanted to point out that unfamiliarity with math itself isn't the only reason someone might be reluctant to agree with your method.

[John Powell]

Seasanctuary:
I haven't seen evidence that Jayhawker has any particular inexperience with math.

He -- and I -- question the application of math to this situation.


POWELL:
That's fair. However, I'm encouraged to try since, to the extent that numbers can be properly assigned to concepts, they become more objective.

If "to know" in this case means "to be 100% confident in a belief" then it would seem that gnostic-agnostic theist-atheist all lie on the same continuum. If "to know" is sufficiently different from that then it would seem gnostic-agnostic belongs on a different continuum than theist-atheist. Occam's razor encourages choosing the simpler, one continuum idea, provided that adequately represents the relevant "facts." If there are facts that aren't explained, it might be possible to merely point out the limitations of the model, the restrictions on it.

Seasanctuary:
Characterizing these beliefs as merely quantitative variations on the same continuum strikes me as wrong, though I have had a hard time coming up with a good explanation why.


POWELL:
Besides its ability to characterize the various belief-confidence levels of persons with respect to God, my model looks like a promising one to help explain some parts of human behavior with respect to the dynamics of believing/disbelieving in God. It seems to be capable of dealing with interesting questions such as whether the tendency is to centralize or to polarize or to change cyclically or to remain static or some combination of these under different conditions.

What comparable power is there in Jayhawker's model that theism-atheism is distinct from agnosticism which is a method, and agnosticism is what Huxley said it was? What predictions does his model make? Probably he doesn't care because he doesn't think like a scientist does. He's a philosopher, a lover of ideas, rather than a scientist, an expert who knows.

Seasanctuary:
It has something to do with me thinking there are qualitative differences and my suspicion that the numbers you come up with can't be manipulated by mathematical operations to produce sensible results.


POWELL:
I'm open to those kind of criticisms. Will you give me a good example?

Do you think the mass of a 100-kg person is qualitatively different than the mass of a 100-kg rock because people and rocks are so different? Should scientists avoid quantifying things like that because doing so ignores all the differences?

Seasanctuary:
I haven't made a lot of noise about it because I've been content to just understand that's your way of expressing things. Today, I wanted to point out that unfamiliarity with math itself isn't the only reason someone might be reluctant to agree with your method.


POWELL:
If nobody reasonably challenges a wrong idea then the proponent tends to develop a misguided notion that his idea is correct.

There is no rule that only math-types can discuss these things.

I respect your opinion. Tell me what your problems are with my model. Can my model be revised by dealing with your concerns or will it have to be discarded or what?

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

I respect your opinion. Tell me what your problems are with my model. Can my model be revised by dealing with your concerns or will it have to be discarded or what?

I've been thinking about it off and on lately, but didn't intend to argue about it just yet. Right now I'm content to say that I have reservations and will keep thinking about it. Maybe that means I'll have something for you later today, or a couple months from now. I do find your approach interesting, which is why it's gotten my attention at all. In other words: raincheck! ;)

- Sea

[John Powell]

I've been thinking about it off and on lately, but didn't intend to argue about it just yet. Right now I'm content to say that I have reservations and will keep thinking about it. Maybe that means I'll have something for you later today, or a couple months from now. I do find your approach interesting, which is why it's gotten my attention at all. In other words: raincheck! ;)

- Sea

POWELL:
OK.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Probably he doesn't care because he doesn't think like a scientist does. One does not have to dismiss science to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. You previously asked:Ok then, if you wanted to give distinct labels to someone who was over 95% confident that God existed versus someone who was between 90-95% confident then what labels would you suggest?Perhaps you, with your pretentions of 'thinking like a scientist', could tell us how one distinguishes between 94% and 96% confidence.

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
One does not have to dismiss science to distinguish between ontology and epistemology.


POWELL:
Correct. One only has to look up the definitions in the dictionary.

Jayhawker Soule:
You previously asked:Ok then, if you wanted to give distinct labels to someone who was over 95% confident that God existed versus someone who was between 90-95% confident then what labels would you suggest?Perhaps you, with your pretentions of 'thinking like a scientist', could tell us how one distinguishes between 94% and 96% confidence.


POWELL:
By taking measurements with an error bar of a few percentage points or smaller. Taking multiple measurements and averaging will reduce the mean errors.

I used the 5% order numbers in my question to you because the number of different groupings you were sarcastically recommending (16) implied something of that order. If you'll look at the 5 groups I recommended then you'll see that I adopted 10% order numbers, a more realistic precision level.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

Had a thought...

I've been a little annoyed at adding "because there isn't sufficient evidence" onto what I consider the essential of agnosticism "I don't know." It always seemed to me to be a gnosticy kind of statement to say that there definitely isn't sufficient evidence out there. 'cause heck: there could be.

Now I think there's something to it, though it might need a tweak. I was trying to think up non-religious examples of agnosticism and considered some scary looking equation:

Solve for x:
[picture a really scary looking equation here]

a) y + 87.34
b) 85
c) [picture an even scarier looking equation here]
d) none of the above
e) I don't know.

Now it might seem like (e) would represent an agnostic answer. ...except if you took the time to learn to solve scary equations you could answer it correctly. It's true that you don't know, but you also know that you could figure it out if you're willing to expend the effort. Someone might therefore characterize (e) as "lazy"...which some people are quick to label agnostics.

Yet agnostics don't know that if they did x, y, and z they would discover whether or not a God exists. For instance, I don't think that if I read all the religious scriptures of the world that I'll come away for sure knowing the truth. I don't think that following the moral code of this religion or that will result in the answer. There's not something I'm aware of that guarantees the end of my agnosticism if only I weren't so lazy.

So agnosticism is more than just "I don't know." Neither is it "no sufficient evidence exists"...because such evidence might exist. Reading the works of Van Til or going on a Shinto pilgrammage might be efforts which would result in me knowing whether a God exists. It may be that dying would reveal the truth to me; it may be that abstaining from unclean foods for a decade would do the trick.

I've learned that agnosticism is also not knowing that a decider exists. Decider is a term from theory of computing that describes a decision making process guaranteed to come to a final conclusion: to decide. Other abstract machines might not have any final conclusions, or they may have final conclusions but you can run on forever without finding your way to one.

[John Powell]

Seasanctuary:
Had a thought...

I've been a little annoyed at adding "because there isn't sufficient evidence" onto what I consider the essential of agnosticism "I don't know." It always seemed to me to be a gnosticy kind of statement to say that there definitely isn't sufficient evidence out there. 'cause heck: there could be.


POWELL:
That statement you're annoyed at is one of the reasons I see agnostics as being in the middle. The theist believes the preponderance of all the evidence favors the existence of God. The atheist believe the preponderance of all the evidence is against God. The agnostic thinks the evidence is so close to being equal for both sides that only a little bit of evidence could tip the scales either way.

Seasanctuary:
Now I think there's something to it, though it might need a tweak. I was trying to think up non-religious examples of agnosticism and considered some scary looking equation:

Solve for x:
[picture a really scary looking equation here]

a) y + 87.34
b) 85
c) [picture an even scarier looking equation here]
d) none of the above
e) I don't know.

Now it might seem like (e) would represent an agnostic answer. ...except if you took the time to learn to solve scary equations you could answer it correctly. It's true that you don't know, but you also know that you could figure it out if you're willing to expend the effort. Someone might therefore characterize (e) as "lazy"...which some people are quick to label agnostics.


POWELL:
Yes. LGM recently called it a "weasel" position.

Seasanctuary:
Yet agnostics don't know that if they did x, y, and z they would discover whether or not a God exists. For instance, I don't think that if I read all the religious scriptures of the world that I'll come away for sure knowing the truth. I don't think that following the moral code of this religion or that will result in the answer. There's not something I'm aware of that guarantees the end of my agnosticism if only I weren't so lazy.

So agnosticism is more than just "I don't know." Neither is it "no sufficient evidence exists"...because such evidence might exist.


POWELL:
Perhaps you'd prefer saying "the available evidence isn't sufficient."

Seasanctuary:
Reading the works of Van Til or going on a Shinto pilgrammage might be efforts which would result in me knowing whether a God exists. It may be that dying would reveal the truth to me; it may be that abstaining from unclean foods for a decade would do the trick.

I've learned that agnosticism is also not knowing that a decider exists. Decider is a term from theory of computing that describes a decision making process guaranteed to come to a final conclusion: to decide. Other abstract machines might not have any final conclusions, or they may have final conclusions but you can run on forever without finding your way to one.

POWELL:
Interesting. Maybe agnostics tend to be brain wired a little differently than theists and atheists.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

Addendum:

I did come up with a non-religious example of agnosticism after discarding the use of "scary looking equations" in general:

the problem from Complexity Theory of whether P = NP (http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/)

Unfortunately, I don't think it'll fly too well to a high school audience...or any non specialist audience. For those of you have some idea what I'm talking about, I found this interesting quote on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_classes_P_and_NP) devoted to the problem (agnostics believe Wikipedia is absolute truth):

"In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer is no, 9 believed the answer is yes, 22 were unsure, and 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms, and so impossible to prove or disprove."

Mind you, these are mathematical experts who have devoted time to this problem. Remarkable answers, hmm?

[Seasanctuary]

POWELL:
Interesting. Maybe agnostics tend to be brain wired a little differently than theists and atheists.

That's the best "what the heck are you thinking" line I've seen yet.

The agnostic thinks the evidence is so close to being equal for both sides that only a little bit of evidence could tip the scales either way.

I don't view it as a precarious situation. So yeah, obviously some different perspectives in play here.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Interesting.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

One does not have to dismiss science to distinguish between ontology and epistemology.Correct. One only has to look up the definitions in the dictionary.Or an encyclopedia ...

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of a god, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge).

Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist).

Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

- Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) [reformatted for emphasis - JS]

[John Powell]

POWELL:
As I use the terms, theism / atheism have to do with belief while gnosticism / agnosticism have to do with knowledge. If you want to call the first ontology and the second epistemology then be my guest, but don't be surprised if I don't follow your lead very far.

A gnostic theist is someone who believes and knows God exists. Well, at least that's the claim.

An agnostic theist is someone who believes but doesn't know God exists.

A mere agnostic is in between theist and atheist. He's agnostic as to whether he believes or disbelieves in God. (He he).

An agnostic (weak) atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a God, but doesn't go so far as to claim he believes God doesn't exist. This person, like all agnostics, doesn't know whether or not God exists.

An agnostic (strong) atheist believes God doesn't exist but doesn't know.

A gnostic (strong) atheist is someone who believes and knows God doesn't exist. Well, at least that's the claim.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I use the terms, ...Yes, that is how you use the terms.

[Seasanctuary]

Mischief managed. Just got back from the speaking engagement.

I liked the Q&A session afterward since I didn't know what what coming. The high schoolers were particularly interested in whether those who don't believe in a God have a "purpose" in life, whether we feel guilty when we do bad things, where we think people came from (evolution?), and whether we're worried about the afterlife.

Well, actually their questions were what I thought about those things but I figure they would've asked the same sort of thing about any nontheist.

Before I started the youth leaders and kids were telling legendary Chuck Norris stories (guess that's a big fad in high school these days and not just on the internet). So when they asked me what I thought of Jesus, one thing I mentioned was that people are quite capable of adding legendary and superhuman aspects to regular people...and cited Chuck Norris.

Overall it went well and not all of them looked bored out of their skulls.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
You did well.

John Powell

[Griggsy]

Very good John! I am an ignostic, strong atheist:: as an ignostic i find the termGod as just an empty word and thus no possible god; as a strong atheist, I let it go at that there is probaly no god.I see no evidence for one and causalism as adequately giving real explanations.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Perhaps quote Huxley and focus on Agnosticism as an epistemology.

That would be my suggestion at the very least. Like POWELL mentioned, most people see agnosticism as some sort of medium between theism or atheism, as though the agnostic is on the fence on the issue waiting to be tipped in either direction based someone's convincing argument.

Theism and atheism are both metaphysical claims—statements about the nature of reality. Agnosticism is an epistemological claim—a statement about the nature of knowledge itself, at least in regards to God or gods. It's essentially a narrow form of epistemic solipsism regarding God.

edit: I should have read the entire thread. Sheesh! Glad it went well for you.