Rationally, it would seem that agnosticism is the only answer to the question of god that is without assumption, and therefore is the best position to hold when based on objectivity. However, this assertion is only true in a scenario where the likelihood of god existing or not existing is more or less equivalent. If we truly know nothing of the caveats and prerequisites entailed, or of the restrictions garnered as a result of either option, then pure agnosticism is the best bet. We grant nothing because we know nothing. Seems reasonable, right?
Unfortunately for agnosticism, this is not the case. Because of the existence of information and our ability to interpret it, pure agnosticism becomes obsolete rather quickly. As we gather more information about the universe that a creator did or didn't create, we piece together the narrative of the universe and its concepts. The more information we gather, the closer we come to a definite conclusion.
Let's apply this to something much more mundane. Before medical science, epilepsy was thought of as something akin to possession by demons. A divine illness. With no information, any and all answers are possible to accept rationally. But as people began to search for information, fewer and fewer of those conclusions seemed probable, or even possible. Now pure agnosticism is not so rational.
Returning to god, let's apply some of that knowledge. We know that no holy book has ever gotten its creation myth even close to scientifically accurate, or even possible in most cases. This means that god is likely not among any recognized pantheon, if it exists. We know that events in nature follow a strict set of rules that determine the behavior of every single particle in existence. This means that events are orchestrated by physics, and can have no inherent intent beyond the intent of their perpetrators. From this we can gather that all events are either perpetrated or are triggered by previous events and are themselves accidents. Since there is no evidence to suggest that events occur for the benefit or hindrance of anyone, we can infer that either nothing exists to have intent behind the events, or it does exist it's just clumsy. We also know that the existence of the universe is not predicated on the existence of a creator, because a creator could not exist outside the constraints of natural laws, of which there were none before the universe existed. Creation takes time, and time cannot pass before it exists.
That seems like enough to reasonably conclude that the existence of God is improbable compared to the leading alternative. Of course, infinitely many alternatives exist, but most are illogical so I just went with the big two. Not to create a false dichotomy fallacy or anything.
Thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Jared Alesi: @ seems like enough to reasonably conclude that the existence of God is improbable compared to the leading alternative. @
improbable is not the same as known to a certainty. Since I agree with all that you've said, except for the part about agnosticism, I remain an agnostic atheist. By that I mean that I have no good reason to believe in any gods, yet I know of no way of proving it, (as I understand it . . . proof is a mathematical concept). That lack of proof means that I do not have sure and certain knowledge, hence agnosticism.
But feel free to define *yourself*, however you want :-)
Mu.
From what I gathered, you view agnosticism as perfectly balanced on the 50-50 line. Any increase towards one direction, and it'll be tipped over towards that side.
I think its more useful, if instead of balancing the bar on a single point like a see-saw "T", its resting on top of two like a bench "TT". In such a scenario you have this wide middle range in which the information is not significant, and you remain agnostic. But at either end of you have cutoff points, beyond which you view the information as significant enough to accept either claim. For example, if you cross the 95% line.
@ Jared Alesi "Rationally, it would seem that agnosticism is the only answer to the question of god that is without assumption, and therefore is the best position."
You apparently do not have a good grasp of what Agnostic means. Like a million other people you are using the word incorrectly.
Agnostic - Without knowledge of god.
EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC - with regards to observable facts, empirical analysis, or valid and verifiable experiences. There is no knowledge of god that can stand up to critical inquiry.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with "belief." If you ask a person, "Do you believe in God." and they respond, "I am agnostic." They are avoiding your question. Agnostic has to do with what is KNOWN. KNOWLEDGE. The question posed is about BELIEF. Theists - believe in god based on FAITH not KNOWLEDGE. Atheists do not believe in a god, generally, but not always, based on a lack of knowledge.
The two words, Atheism and Agnosticism address completely different issues. Knowledge and Belief respectively. Agnosticism - is a fact. (There is no good evidence for the existence of a god and anyone who pretends to know something about any kind of god is not basing that knowledge on anything substantial. Atheism - is a lack of belief.
The only problem with agnosticism is that people are always using the word incorrectly.
In that case, you yourself are using the word incorrectly, since the word is a philosophical position on what can be known, not what you do know. When you step from the philosophical to the practical, then I side with Jared
EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC - Covered! Now how about writing 3 or 4 pages of breezy fluff to make your point?
I don't mind writing four pages, I'm articulate enough to do so. In philosophy agnosticism is a belief about knowledge, not a measure of knowledge. In everyday practice, agnosticism is being indecisive, indifferent, or non-committal about something.
Epistemologically speaking agnosticism is a valid position for all unfalsifiable claims. So in theistic terms an unfalsifiable deity is indistinguishable from a non-existent deity. What's more agnosticism and atheism can be held as two positions simultaneously, since atheism is not a knowledge claim but a lack or absence of belief.
If a claim about a deity is unfalsifiable I accept this and am agnostic, however I would remain an atheist about that deity as no one can by definition demonstrate objective evidence for something that is unfalsiable.
Something does not have to be proved or even evidenced as false in order for the rational position to be that I withhold belief in that claim.
Most theistic claims are falsifiable though, but theists ignore negative evidence and use selection bias. This is the very definition of faith.
Touche! Perhaps it will keep the Breeze from blowing. LOL
For me, agnosticism is a bit like a person who decides not to live their life because they are unable to be sure whether they really exist or not. I know that may strike many as highly unfair.
I agree with @Sheldon's point re: "Epistemologically speaking agnosticism is a valid position for all unfalsifiable claims." - so perhaps my mild annoyance with agnostics is really for those who claim their position is the only neutral position...the only logical position etc. in regards deities that I am sure cannot exist, like the variants of the Abrahamic god. (This includes acting as though the agnostic position is one you are born with, even though it absolutely is a position a person comes to adopt).
"my mild annoyance with agnostics is really for those who claim their position is the only neutral position...the only logical position etc."
I agree when the claim is used as if atheism is equally valid and compatible with the claim they're agnostic. The irony in this inherent bias is that people only seem to apply this to religious beliefs.
As I have said many times before you wouldn't get away with sucharbitrary caveats for any other unfalsifiable claim.
If I claimed I could fly, but only when no one can see ordered me doing so, the immedoatecreaction would be disbelief, coupled with the suspicion I was bonkers. Yet itsxa claim one must beagnostic about, while at the same time withholding belief.
How is the claim any different to claiming a deity answers your prayers but that this claim can't be tested in any empirical way?
Theist usually respond to this fact with a fallacious appeal to numbers, as if the amount of people who share the belief not only trumps the argument that just refuted it, but as if a logical fallacy can rationally support a belief as well.
Agnostics, can't live with them, but can't rationally refute their hypothesis.
articulate: having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently.
Breezy.. You may actually have the ability. I seriously do not doubt that. You seem to have a good mind with a lot of interesting concepts bouncing about in there. However; fluently and coherently? Really?
These are the shortest posts I have ever seen you make. I figured your tag was "Breezy"
because you were so long winded.
@ In everyday practice, agnosticism is being indecisive, indifferent, or non-committal about something.
And its everyday usage is incorrect because those using it do not understand it's meaning. It is used to avoid the "Belief" question. No one is asking what people know. The question is about belief.
"So given that one is agnostic and does not know and has no knowledge, and that one does not want to commit to an answer, what does he or she believe?" It's a simple question about "belief."
There is no middle ground on the question of belief. You believe or you do not believe. It quite possibly is not a true dichotomy as a belief is rationally held to the degree it may or may not be true. Therefore a rational answer might be, "Well, I'm about fifty -fifty on the question." Thus asserting both belief and non-belief. Agnosticism is not a response to the question of belief. (Obviously IMO)
To respond to multiple comments, I realize that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism or theism. I myself identify as an agnostic atheist, on the simple principle of certainty. We can't really get a definite answer for an unjustifiable question. However, I was meaning to criticize pure agnosticism, which is, as I understand it (which could be totally incorrect), the assertion that not only can we not know, but either option is equally possible. On Richard Dawkins' scale, this is the exact middle.
Agnosticism is a state of capacity for knowledge. Knowing something is information, not knowing something is ignorance. Being able to know is gnosticism, being unable is agnosticism, at least in the mechanical sense. In the philosophical sense (which seems to be the source of most the confusion and/or obfuscation of debates), these terms denote level of certainty on a subject. Being certain is gnostic, being uncertain is agnostic. Please note that many people use up to three different definitions of agnosticism in any debate, sometimes all in the same paragraph. Sometimes it means ignorance, sometimes inability to know, and sometimes uncertainty.
We are all agnostic in the sense that we are ignorant of God if it exists, as we have no compelling evidence for it, and no conclusive evidence against it. We are not necessarily agnostic in the second way, since information is gathered and studied constantly, perhaps eventually yielding a definite answer. And in the third way, everyone is different.
Rationally, we should all be agnostic when it comes to certainty, but not agnostic in the sense that we withhold any kind of judgement on the matter. God being a possibility does nothing to change its sheer improbability. After all, if I were to assert that a vampire was adrift in space, but our telescopes could never see it because they use mirrors, you would easily dismiss the notion. But still, I might be right.
Jared Alesi: I am with you right up to "Rationally, we should all be agnostic when it comes to certainty, but not agnostic in the sense that we withhold any kind of judgement on the matter."
And as soon as you make that "Judgment" you have left agnosticism and are now discussing "belief." Atheism or Theism.
Agnosticism is fairly clear. There is either knowledge about the existence of god or there is no knowledge about the existence of god. Where theists and atheists disagree is on the quality of that knowledge. Theists will cite personal experience, feelings, impressions of being touched by their god or the holy ghost, being moved by a spirit, hearing god's voice or the typical apologetics that atheists reject. Atheists simply assert this is not sufficient knowledge, information, etc... to make the assertion (belief) that a god exists. Theists disagree. Theists think the knowledge they have is sufficient for belief,
Agnostic - does not answer the question of belief. Agnosticism -knowledge, leads us to and justifies our belief. Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually distinct from one another but used conjointly.
Once you leave the realm of KNOWLEDGE you enter BELIEF.