Agnostic.com

23 6

What is agnosticism? Agnosticism is uncertainty. But there is no absolute certainty for mere human intelligence. And yet, in rational science, the burden of evidentiary support remains upon the positive. Without good evidence, the default is disbelief. And agnosticism is a weasel word for atheism. In order honestly to remain on the fence, there must be at least any grounds for suspicion. And there isn't. All views seek support from the same body of evidence. The question ever remains as to which among competing viable hypotheses is better supported by that same body of evidence. And Theism isn't even viable. Know more at:: [FoolQuest.com]

AaronAgassi 4 Oct 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

23 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

6

Slight flaw on the declaration that agnosticism is uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates an agreement that a hypothesis or conjecture is a possibility.

Agnosticism is not uncertainty because it does not consider the question viable.

Uncertainty is halfway to acceptance. Agnostic says I don’t know the validity of this.

I like the distinction you make. I would call this Strong Agnosticism.

Come now, if the conjecture of God or gods is deemed locially impossible, ten surely that would constitute the strongest conceivable atheism.

@AaronAgassi But conjecture? It was the medieval conjecture that the sun went around the earth, because that is what was logically plausible by observation

5

I agree when you say that there’s no absolute certainty for mere human intelligence. By disbelief, do you mean belief that an assertion is false, or do just mean that you are not convinced by the evidence you’ve seen so far?

“And there isn’t”? Which assertion are you referring to? There’s all kind of evidence for some kind of a God concept. You might not be persuaded by that evidence, but evidence there is.

If I want to persuade someone of something, then yes, it is up to me to point to evidence and logic, but in general there is no “burden of proof”. That pseudo-legal term has no place in ordinary discourse. Whether or not an assertion is couched in positive or negative terms has nothing to do with it.

What is wrong with saying that you don’t know—that you are agnostic? You yourself said that there’s no absolute certainty. Now you are saying that there IS absolute certainty—that there’s only one conclusion that fits the evidence, and that that evidence is universal for everyone.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you suggest. Some of those web sites will lead you astray.

Well said Bill. These pop websites are fine to kick off an interest but for the real stuff follow published academic references in the field.

If the site doesn’t have such references then there is no need to waste your time with them. They are probably re-enforcing an already held belief with some ads embedded in them for good measure!

I am aware of no real evidence for any sort of God or gods.

@AaronAgassi There is all kinds of evidence. There is the fact that anything exists in the first place. There is the appearance of life, unexplained by science. There is conscious awareness. There are the opinions of some very astute scientists. All of these are evidence of sorts. It is not testable scientific evidence but it is evidence nevertheless. You are simply not persuaded by the evidence.

Unless we could agree on a definition of God it’s silly and juvenile to argue. We know little or nothing of ultimate reality beyond the senses. IMO the appropriate reaction to the staggering implications of the mystery of existence is abject bewilderment. Belief and disbelief are nothing but human emotions and have no bearing on the issue.

Competing hypotheses all seek support from the same existing body of evidence. The question is as to which hypotheses are better supported by the same evidence. Which hypotheses remain viable? When I say I remain unaware of evidence for God or gods, I mean evidence that better supports Theism that any alternative. I mean credible evidence. I certainly do not mean simply assuming the consequent, as for example, how the existence of the pyramids supports the contention that the pyramids were built using alien technology, or that the existence of the universe demonstrates the work of a Creator. In truth, God is a non explanation barring explanation of God. God only removes to a greater degree of complexity. Theism isn't serious and cannot be taken seriously.

@AaronAgassi I agree 100% that “God” is a non-explanation. In so far as we have no idea what we are talking about it would be better to not even speak of God.

To pretend that we are going to sort through the evidence and get to the bottom of this issue is nothing but posturing. The nature of ultimate reality beyond our sense world is a profound mystery and can not be understood in human terms. IMO the only rational response to the staggering implications of existence is an admission of ignorance, along with awe and gratitude.

A claim that you believe or disbelieve in God Is just empty talk with no meaning from a cosmic perspective.

Not so. All science is inference of reality not directly accessible to the senses. It's just that evidence has yet to be discovered of any Creator.

@AaronAgassi Sure, scientists write mathematical equations that model natural phenomena and give some limited superficial understanding, but science doesn’t even address. Much less answer the deep questions of existence.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Albert Einstein

5

Just because disbelief is a chosen default position, doesn't make it right.

Just because people centuries ago didnt have enough evidence that the earth orbited the Sun doesn't make them right to believe or disbelieve based on lack of evidence.

The proper position is "I don't know". That's agnosticism. And it's the best way to not fool yourself into taking a position without complete evidence.

No, indeed, "Just because disbelief is a chosen default position, doesn't make it right." MakeItGood
Rather, one out to choose, to the best of ones knowledge, to choose the likeliest positions. And there is a reason why the default is that an assertion is likelier un true. Allow me a simple illustration. Contradictory assertions are such as that logically cannot be true at the same time. And for every true assertion, there are even an infinite number of variations and permutations that are false. Therefor, from amid all possible assertions, all things being equal, any one chosen at random is probably false. This is why, in science, the burden of evidence remains upon the positive. Simply because mosdt possible assertions are false. True statements are the exception. The truth must be ferreted out from the mass of falsehood.

4

Agnosticism is disbelief. Agnosticism is honesty. To claim that agnosticism is nothing more than closet atheism is narrow-minded arrogant militant atheistic dishonesty and intolerance. It's just another way of claiming that everyone must see the universe as I do, they just won't admit it. There is, of course, grounds for suspicion as any honest scientist will tell you. The suspicion is that, first of all, science is not omniscient and hasn't discovered everything significant yet, and secondly and even more importantly, the empirical scientific method is not omnipotent and hence not the only possible manner of discovering everything in the universe. It is refusing to make a god out of science. To deny this is also to deny Agnostic Atheism, which is what most atheists actually are, though there are different ways of being an atheist just as there are different ways of being an agnostic. Intolerance of different viewpoints is not the way to truth, but rather a serious impediment to truth.

Thank you Well said. Though I question the term "agnostic atheism" as self-contradictory, I acknowledge the point (while disputing it).
Do you mean to say, atheists are really agnostic and just don't know it? If so, I'd demur. They SAY they disbelieve; I'd be predisposed to take them at their word.
Just because WE know such a claim of certain KNOWLEDGE cannot be correct, THEY insist such is the case. It is a fallacious position; we both know that, just as we know theists are also wrong.
But what are you going to do?

@Storm1752 First of all, I agree with you that STRONG ATHEISTISM or GNOSTIC ATHEISM is a logically untenable position. One can be convinced that god/s do not exist, as well as considering such a belief absurd, but I don't see how certainty can be logically claimed since God is supposed to immaterial and cannot be either proven or disproven empirically.
Secondly, AGNOSTIC ATHEISM is not at all contradictory. Unfortunately, theists often get the definitions of agnosticism and atheism wrong. This goes back, as I understand it, to incorrect definitions of agnosticism and atheism in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the 1920s. (I was raised Catholic.) Actually, agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge, whereas atheism/theism is about belief. AGNOSTIC ATHEISM is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. In other words, an agnostic atheist would say "I neither believe in god nor do I think that such a proposed being is knowable," but would never claim that such a proposed being can be disproved with certainty.

Sounds like the argument from ignorance, Heraclitus.

@AaronAgassi Actually, the argument from ignorance, or the negative proof fallacy, is claiming that something is true because it has not been proven false. Appeals to ignorance are usually used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. The AFI is precisely what theists argue when they say that God must exist because it has not been proven that he does not exist. The AFI also includes the false assumption there are only two options (true or false), whereas there may be as many as four choices:

true
false
unknown
unknowable.

The agnostic assertion that something may be either unknown or unknowable is not the AFI, but rather an honest and logical admission of the limits of human knowledge.

4

I don't agree that agnosticism is a "weasel" word. I am agnostic because I don't know for sure whether god(s) exist(s), and I am atheist because I do not believe they do. I do agree that non-belief is the default position and the likelihood of any deity's existence is infinitesimal, but if faced with overwhelming evidence of a divine entity, I could no longer disbelieve. I still wouldn't worship it, but I'd have to accept that it's real.

God is a lot like sasquatch in that area.

JimG Level 8 Oct 28, 2019

You have failed to address my argument, You don't know for sure, you say. But there is no absolute certainty. If you do not actually believe in God or gods, then you are an Atheist. In order to truly straddle that fence, there must be so evidence, some reason in particular, even to suspect the existence of any Divinity. If you cannot with good reason even harbors such a suspicion, then you simply do not believe. Moreover, how blatant must the lack of evidence become, before you can attain disbelief or at least manifest credulity and doubt?

3

Another atheist who is dead wrong
Atheist and theism are two sides of the same coin.
Without firm evidence either way--for the existence or non-existence of "god"--the "default position" is uncertainty, open-mindedness, and an inquisitive mind.
Both atheists AND theists have closed minds. They both claim to "know" the truth, when in fact they KNOW precisely nothing.
NOW do you get it?

You have nailed it sir! I agree totally.

The default position in science is doubt, not incredulity . .

3

Call it what you may, I am an agnostic atheist. It means "I do not know" but this is the same answer the other side would give if they were truthful.

2

There is nothing to make me think there is a god, or gods, but I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist. I do not add the "agnostic" because I am uncertain, or on the fence, but because it is arrogant to make a claim of absolute knowledge; and agnosticism is a claim about knowledge.

Science cannot, and does not, make the claim that there definitely are no gods--it does not care. It simply wants evidence if a claim is made; and, so far, none has been provided.

Science shows us that no god/consciousness is necessary for the universe to behave as it does and that there is no reason to think that one (or more) does exist. But, again, it cannot state there are no gods without having to provide evidence for that claim.

2

That is exactly why I call myself TheoryNumber3. There is no viable alternate theory to explain all of this. Until there is, I will hold my position as a weasly agnostic 🙂 . I'm pretty certain there is no god as currently offered, but if not, then what?

However, according to @OldMetalHead's chart below, I guess I am a de-facto atheist.

Even if we do not know who killed JFK, that does not mean it was Bigfoot!

@AaronAgassi Exactly. It's not a binary world.

1

I agree agnosticism is uncertainty, but there are varying degrees of that. I don't agree it's a "weasel word" for atheism.

Atheist: I don't believe in any gods.
Agnostic: I don't know if there are any gods.

Both describe me. Personally, I haven't met a god that I would want to believe in. Since gods are figments of the imagination, they can only be believed in or not believed in.

By definition of being supernatural, Gods aren't real in the natural world. They can only exist in the minds of believers. While I'm 99.9% sure there are no gods, there is 1 tenth of a percent I will reserve for the unknowable.

If there are gods who have chosen not to make themselves known to me, then that is likely how they want it. So I will carry on with the life best I can by using the wisdom I've gained by real experiences in the natural world and the insights shared by the myriad other real people before me who have shared their wisdom through their writing, the arts, and just by example for living a good life. That's all I need.

Is there something more than simple nature? I don't know, but just living in harmony with nature and natural consequences is good enough for me.

You simply do not address my argument.

1

Agnosticism in general is the view that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agnosticism in the context of spiritualism and Theism means we acknowledge there is no proof either way and so knowledge in this case is not possible. We leave it at that. We neither belive nor disbelieve. We accept it for what it is.

1

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:
Agnostic: We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: without knowledge
Atheist: There ain't no all powerful invisible critters: there is no reliable proof of such a being.

And I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... 'Atheist' is a word created by theists to identify their 'enemies.' No words for not believing in santa, unicorns, astrology,...

I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

But not anti-agnostic, I hope.
I oppose belief systems, whatever the sacred cow.
Atheism is as much a sacred cow as theism.
Agnostics don't HAVE sacred cows. They have opinions, speculations, theories, educated guesses, postulations, which can change on a dime. Depends on which "true believer," theorist, or wild-eyed dreamer you happen to be talking to at the moment.
Atheists hate that.
They KNOW, god-d*mn-it, and that's all there is to it!
lol

@Storm1752 You are generalizing way too much.

I am "atheist" in that i am sure there are no supernatural entities demanding tribute.

1

Agnostic: the word is being used inappropriately which is based on Huxley's definition. See: Agnostos Theos - Unknown God in Wikipedia. Those agnostics believed in an unknown (unrevealed) god so they weren't atheists or agnostic atheists.

Interesting, and yet, clearly, usage has changed.

@AaronAgassi So true! There is the common vernacular & then the original meaning. Just finished a book wherein these Greeks are referred to as an Athenian agnostic cult. lol

1

There is an absolute certainty that Human Intelligence WILL expand exponentially as our understanding of the things around us continues to grow.
as to religion and belief that there is a God/Sky Daddy Being,then I, for one, AM absolutely 100% certain that none has ever existed NOR ever will truly exist since ALL religions, in my opinion, are MERELY the INVENTIONS created in the minds of Humans and EXPLOITED by those who see those INVENTIONS as a means to enhance their lives and living standards.
I have had almost 60 years of life to ponder and consider the 'Is there a God question,' I have done it by using logic, reasoning and often intensive studying and the result has ALWAYS been exactly the same, i.e. THERE IS no God/Sky Daddy.

1

Labels, hate them, I just don't believe in bs.

1

I predict this discussion will go nowhere as most of these ‘what words mean’ discussions do.

0

If you are going to cite Foolquest, then please cite the author you are referring to as there doesn’t seem to be any academic references at that site.

0

Agnosticism is nothing of the kind! You will find that most agnostics don’t care one way or the other. They don’t even know they are agnostic.

They are more interested in getting on with their life, raising their families, pursuing their careers so forth.

0

“Without good evidence” the default is “I don’t know” Disbelief before experimentation will automatically draw experimental bias.

The spirit of exploration is belief or conjecture which are the first steps in creating a hypothesis.

0

Do people really talk like this? I'm pretty sure I'd get punched in the mouth if I said "weasel word" out loud at home.
Slow your roll there, friend. Let the others catch up huh?

0

FYI: Never heard of the website, "FoolQuest", so here is their claim about thrmselves:

FoolQuest.com is the website dedicated towards collaborative social engineering of new and better alternatives in how we lead our lives, anything conceivably more honest, congenial, user-friendly and rewarding in human existence. This ensues largely in accord with a sweeping condemnation of the range of conventionally oppressive life options, very much including religion. But religion is ever more largely supplanted with all manner of dangerous and no less heteronymous secular ideological substitutes likewise receiving all due merciless scrutiny herein. What remains is that when any or other belief, let alone emotional dependency thereupon, is promulgated and embraced as any sort of moral obligation, via by Divine commandment or else by whatever secular ideological substitute or purpose, thereby then is constrained not only free expression but even private thought, let alone honest open minded investigation. For there can be no other values without truthfulness first.

[foolquest.com]?

Want to try that again in plain language?

@Storm1752 i

It's not my words. It the explanation that the website FoolsQuest uses on its home page to describe itself.

@Storm1752 holy Batman Batman he's right. That website is so full of rederick you can scroll for miles!

@th3d3stroy3d There are some interesting articles there but they don’t seem to reference them that I can see. Am I missing something?

@Geoffrey51

Good question. I've been posting about websites or media services that I run across that I have not heard of before. Trying to bring some form of accountability to some of the references cited by people on here. Expose incredible sources from credible sources. Ferret out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

@t1nick absolutely agree. There are so many rabbit holes out there which is why I always call out the ones that I know, or discover, are wrong.

It’s like this Epicurean trilemna that crops up every week or so as a quote from Epicurus. Fine to call it that but it’s deceiving. Epicurus would never have conceived of such a thing because the gods didn’t have the slightest interest in what mankind was up to. If one needs to call the argument go to Liebniz!

I also get annoyed when some people make bold claims and cannot back up their source. There are a lot of people here who want to learn, and when some dolderhead declares something to be so, but then can only back it by opinion, it is no different to the religious dogma they are railing about.

I’ll get off the soapbox now and let someone else have a go!

@Geoffrey51 nah don't waste your eyes, you'll never find it. We have to just trust that it came from there and roll with it.

0

You need to read Thomas Huxley's (coiner of the word agnostic) information, even on Wikipedia. He simply said that without evidence one can not know something. For example, in the absence of evidence for either the existence or not existence of a supreme being, one can not know whether such a being exists or does not exist. And, yes, if one defined post modern atheism as not believing in a supreme being, we agnostics are atheists. In fact we are the most definite of non-believers.

However, the agnostic philosophy is not confined to the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, but applies to all knowledge. For example, scientists are agnostic about what happened before the Big Bang.

I respectfully disagree, my friend.
You are correct Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God.
HOWEVER, to say I'm therefore an atheist because I don't believe in God is incorrect, because I DON'T DISBELIEVE EITHER.
That's the defining difference, I aver: Atheists DO disbelieve in God.
Is that a fair distinction?

I guess the difference in our ideas comes down to how people use the word atheist. Some people who identify as atheists say there is no god. That statement, for an agnostic, requires evidence to be true. Others say that they don't believe in gods, a statement consistent with the agnostic philosophy since agnostcs do not believe in anything when the word believe means the acceptance of an idea without evidence. The distinction between "don't believe" and "disbelieve", at least base on common English etymology. would be that the former is just a statemtent of current thought, while the latter implies that one did believe in god(s), but now does not. For example to say something has disintegrated is to suggest that it once was integrated. So, since I was raised in the Christian religion, but then abandoned it and its beliefs, one could say that a disbelieved in God, but now I simply don't believe in god. This, by the way, is the state of affairs for approximateliy 80% of Canadian non-believers (atheists and agnostics).

An argument from equivocation. Anyone can define a word anyway that they want so it fits their argument.

0

To give people the idea that science always produces positive results would be wrong . Yes you have to have positive ways of thinking that helps one get over disappointments and even catastrophes. Then taking it to the extreme leaves science open to criticism if it constantly raises expectations. Instead scientists (and everyone) learn from their mistakes.

I would prefer to say that science maximizes certainty always but does it in stages upon which a a fair number of scientist professionals agree which then forms a platform on which to build other discoveries advances in applications.

I think "And agnosticism is a weasel word for atheism." is wrong. Atheism is a single fact that is true of each separate person that says it is them, but is one dimensional in that a whole lot of other concepts are linked to it and we would like to know more about these persons.

Have your beliefs developed beyond atheism? If so you may be in the right place. I invite you to think more about the true meaning of science.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:419282
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.