Is agnosticism inconsistent with the logic of reductio ad absurdum?
"... if we are agnostic regarding the existence of a single god, the same argument holds for multiple gods. So, we must, to be consistent, be agnostic toward polytheism. Additionally, what about the argument that gravity is not simply caused by a really large number of ridiculously strong invisible fairies dressed in drag pushing down on you and other objects? Using the argument from agnosticism, this cannot be disproved so we need to maintain an agnostic stance…which is absurd".
1
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
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Not at all, if you are agnostic about one issue, why should you be agnostic about all of them. I may be agnostic about is 'C' equal to 'D' but sure that 'A' does not equal 'B'.
Why is it wrong to be inconsistent ? When going out, I put a warm coat in my car in winter and a sun hat in summer. How is my inconsistency wrong ?
Fernapple
Level 9
Feb 14, 2021
0
I suspect you're thinking more of the the principle of Occam's razor. From Wikipedia, this philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. That is, the simplest explanation is the best.
Cyklone
Level 7
Feb 14, 2021
0
Provide at least one exanple of inconsistency or its opposite.
yvilletom
Level 8
Feb 13, 2021
2
Word:
I am not the original poster, but though I would share what I looked up myself. [en.m.wikipedia.org]
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:
The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a "smallest" number and yet there is a number smaller than it).[8]
Word:
How to be inconsistent with that, IDK
I second this request. What absurd claim is being made of agnostism?
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
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.