tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post9112413340181588550..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: What’s Left to be Agnostic About?Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90862957627261337352014-09-24T06:18:52.909-07:002014-09-24T06:18:52.909-07:00If you're asking what 40‒60% convincing eviden...If you're asking what 40‒60% convincing evidence, what halfway persuasive argument, there might be that could justify a nonreligious preference for agnosticism over atheism, please look at the lucid continued fraction representations of π, a few paragraphs after the following anchorlink:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction#Generalized_continued_fraction<br /><br />Pi and e and φ are among several so-called “irrational” real numbers that, when viewed in such a lucid representation, suggest a higher rationality. The system of mathematics that includes them seems to have been designed by something mindlike, yet more fluent than my mortal mind is in the interweaving of infinities. My argument is that patterns in these numeric representations could indicate the deliberate designs of a mindlike mathmaker. If impressions of design in these numbers are correct, therefore, they could lead us to accept the involvement of a designer in creating math, but this kind of argument faces at least two inherent challenges.<br /><br />First, arguments for the existence of a divine designer from the appearance of design in nature have generally not fared well. The illusion of design in the forms and fitness of living creatures is rightly explained away by the evidence for unguided evolution. The illusion of design in the finely tuned habitability of our cosmos can likewise be explained away by the anthropic principle. The illusion of divinity in the manifest presence of something instead of nothing is likely explainable by the quantum-mechanical instability of utter nothingness. What are the odds that the appearance of deliberate design in math will buck this trend, never being explained away as illusory? Even if I beat those odds and prove math was deliberate, wouldn't evolution, the anthropic principle and quantum instability still mean that life, the universe and everything but math were accidental?<br /><br />Second, how could anything mindlike have emerged in math's absence, and how could it have put its design for math into effect? <br /><br />These are strong challenges, but the impressions of design in the braided infinity patterns found in lucid continued fractions are also very strong, and I never been exposed to any plausible explanation for those patterns other than deliberate design. The frequently offered suggestion that math, including irrational real numbers, might be a mere artifact of human perception, “all in our heads,” is neither plausible nor serious, as it contradicts the evidence for our heads having biologically evolved in a world where physics, chemistry and biology already followed mathematical rules long before humans arrived on the scene. (Quantum instability and the power of the anthropic principle to select among proliferating universes also presuppose the polycosmic reality of math at stages when human perception did not yet exist.) Besides, frankly, much of math is +over+ my head, rather than +in+ it.<br /><br />So I offer this argument from the appearance of design in math as a reason to remain open to the thought that something mindlike played a role in determining some aspect of polycosmic reality, but conceding in advance that my argument, while impressionistically inescapable since the braided infinity patterns in some real numbers cannot be denied, is just not fully persuasive. That, for me, approaches the 40‒60% level of confidence in deliberate polycosmic design required to justify a nonreligious preference for agnosticism over atheism.<br /><br />Your confidence level may differ, such that you might prefer to self-identify as an atheist, or as a secular deist or maybe a Taoist or Spinozan pantheist or panentheist, instead of an agnostic. If so, while my argument is nowhere near strong enough to make the atheist position unreasonable, it may be strong enough to convince you that the other positions along the secular spectrum are somewhat reasonable too.visitor herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00235819775131354919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73494387697646270062012-05-14T16:33:45.614-07:002012-05-14T16:33:45.614-07:00Accepting only the atheists No God exists and the ...Accepting only the atheists No God exists and the theists A God exists is an incorrect limitation of logical possibilities.<br />Let’s take this example: X is a man or X is a woman. <br />This is obviously true because we have only two genders. However if we have a reasonable doubt about the gender of X the question should be approached in this way: Can X be man? Can X be woman?<br />In our case: Can God exist? Can god not exist? <br />X could be male or female, but we do not know because of the insufficient data we have. What we know does not yet define the gender of X.<br />This third position of doubt and uncertainty is the essence of agnosticism, not knowing whether God exists or not.<br />Turning now to epistemology, we would say that the existence of a creator or intelligent designer of the material, physical, world, us humans included (the cosmos theory) is a possibility as valid as accepting that the material world is merely a physical random happening, without creator or designer (the chaos theory). Both possibilities, cosmos or chaos, are valid.<br />Since we have no certainty about the existence of rational creation (cosmos) all religions, whether natural or revealed, are unacceptable to the agnostic. Should God or the creators exist, either in their own interest or ours, they have chosen not to reveal their plans or designs for humanity. For the agnostic religion, any religion, is nonsense. <br />However for the agnostic a creationist theory (cosmos) is a possibility but not a certainty, just as materialism or physicalism is a possibility, but not a certainty.<br />In short, I would say that for the agnostic the ultimate meaning of the universe (be it a cosmos or chaos) is a mystery.<br />One day, when sufficient evidence exists, the agnostic will admit the ultimate truth of either a cosmos or a chaos. <br />Meanwhile, there remains the deep mystery of existence.<br />This position of uncertainty, of accepting the absolute mystery of our existence and the world around us, seems to me the best reason for being an agnostic.<br />AgnosticusUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00853509407375925373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56350440309284391782011-04-10T13:35:07.735-07:002011-04-10T13:35:07.735-07:00I think that your basic premise that most agnostic...I think that your basic premise that most agnostics have dismissed the possibility of an anthropomorphized "God," to be a false generalization set up to make your attack easier. This is known in philosophy circles as a straw man fallacy. I think the truer statement is that most agnostics have chosen to reserve judgment on the subject of a higher power until they have found more evidence on the subject.Nick Huberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10697331647565848732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35896092260008440792011-04-10T04:22:17.103-07:002011-04-10T04:22:17.103-07:00"But it cannot be merely that it is possible ..."But it cannot be merely that it is possible that these things are brought about by an SF that will warrant agnosticism about it—they could possibly be the work of Sobek too"<br /><br />This sentence seems weak to me. You've already established disbelief in an OG, so the second part of this sentence offers no support to the first. It's actually the presence of unexplained phenomenon, along with the inability to explain sources of the universe's existence, that warrant enough reason for many to feel agnostic.<br /><br />And on the matter of a "supernatural force", I don't agree with atheists using the word "supernatural" in their arguments against something that could actually exist. I have a hard time understanding the concept of something that could exist being supernatural, since it can not be perceived and breaks the laws of nature. Rather, something that is supernatural either does not exist or simply has not been discovered. I am certain a pistol would have been perceived as supernatural to ancient civilizations, yet it is not.<br /><br />The idea that science has not successfully presented a source of the universe's creation that is any more believable than a "supernatural" source is not an old one. An example would be Thomas Paine's questioning of perpetual motion. Even if the primordial elements somehow "always existed", somehow lacking origin, what set them in to motion? How is the universe moving when nothing pushed it? Do you ever see matter get up and move without a stimuli? And back to my former point, the claim that the universe was made by a supernatural source is less of a claim that some magic man wiggled his nose and planets appeared, and more an asertion that with the limited knowledge we have of the event, the cause is likely something scientists have yet to consider likely or even possible.<br /><br />Oh, and saying you can prove a negative makes your line of reasoning look weaker to me, after everything I had read up to that point seemed very well thought out and explained. That would require more explaining, and it's likely that I still wouldn't agree with you. Logic seems to dictate that you can't prove there is no Santa, but I like your explanation that you can put him at .001 on your belief scale.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18428416329344310059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35116261370280202332010-07-08T16:14:41.235-07:002010-07-08T16:14:41.235-07:00Thanks for your input, John. I've written abo...Thanks for your input, John. I've written about this issue extensively. For starters, look at the essays linked in the upper left corner of the blog: The Basics: What is Atheism? and Influential Arguments for Atheism. <br /><br />A great many deductive disproofs for the existence of God have been offered. And many inductive disproofs as well. I don't suspect you will find them convincing, but your question is, how can you prove the negative? The answer is, several ways, over and over and over again. <br /><br />But I'd also offer that as I see it, what typically happens is that the atheist is artificially saddled with an inordinately high standard of proof that virtually no claims can meet, including lots of clams that we take to be proven and known, and then when the atheist (purportedly) cannot meet this unachievable standard, the critic proudly announces that atheism is not justified. Meanwhile the critic and everyone else take countless other obvious claims to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt even though they cannot meet that burden too. That may be why it seems like the atheist responds by trying to lower the bar. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84341780634306336772010-07-08T06:58:55.288-07:002010-07-08T06:58:55.288-07:00Interesting comments. Still, I'm left wonderin...Interesting comments. Still, I'm left wondering about the central question of the title of this blog: how can one prove the negative? It seems that whenever an atheist is challenged regarding this point, he or she lowers the expectation, and states the criteria for discussion as "reasonable conclusion based on probability and logic, not proof." How can one who claims to follow scientific theory essentially pick-and-choose what ideas should be accepted based on proof and based on theory? For instance, consider the theory of evolution; the idea has volumes of evidence to support it, but we still hesitate to call it fact because such designation runs counter to the tenants of scientific logic. The structure of DNA, on the other hand, can be scientifically determined and proven. Now consider the aforementioned specious examples of medical diagnosis; a doctor makes a reasonable judgment based on the symptoms but, unless proven by a test, his or her diagnosis is still simply a hypothesis. In this sense, atheism requires us to take, on faith, the principle that God does not exist - thus undermining the central concept of the rhetoric based philosophy of proof. One cannot believe only in proof, and yet take things on faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86335776282504971202010-01-30T12:26:36.476-08:002010-01-30T12:26:36.476-08:00Thanks anonymous. These objections aren't rea...Thanks anonymous. These objections aren't really explained so I don't understand them and can't say whether they are relevant to the argument or not. As for applying probability judgments, read up on Bayesian probability theory. We can and do attach a probability of truth to all sorts of claims including metaphysical and conceptual ones. But we can state the point just fine without any explicit mention of probabilities--given that every single magical, spiritual, supernatural, and religious being that has ever been proposed has turned out to have a better naturalistic explanation, what reasons do we have left to even be agnostic about God? <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60276287814137735262010-01-30T08:31:03.519-08:002010-01-30T08:31:03.519-08:00I'll copy and paste my response to this from a...I'll copy and paste my response to this from another message board:<br /><br />First, it assumes all agnostics are atheists (some are theists)<br /><br />Second it assumes all agnostics are weak atheists (some are strong atheists).<br /><br />Third, it uses an argument from probability fallaciously. Making no attempt to assign probabilistic values to things which have no empirical basis for such. IE "It is highly probable all that exists is the natural world because we have only found natural stuff".<br /><br />It makes the assumption that any statement made a posteriori or from experience, is made from scientifically verifiable experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31687238400889519342010-01-01T00:38:14.527-08:002010-01-01T00:38:14.527-08:00I just think that the whole issue and concern abou...I just think that the whole issue and concern about God existing or not is irrelevant---it's an anachromism.<br /> Make certain assumptions--like you do MM, for instance that you <br /> know what the probability is that God does or does not exist---and what that must bring you to conclude---and you can conclude as you are inclined.<br /> But wake up at least to your own assumptions---premises. <br /> Go ahead believe as you wish, no problem, but really, within the realm of the scientific viewpoint--and if you want to stay contemporary with modern thought--the God thing is a non-issue. Why not discuss how many angels on the head of a pin?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50273425248511357392010-01-01T00:23:10.199-08:002010-01-01T00:23:10.199-08:00Hi, Wilmot Sweeney here,
There may be other realm...Hi, Wilmot Sweeney here,<br /> There may be other realms I don't know about, creatures with power <br /> I can't fathom, an old man in the sky with power----but I've never seen such things nor am I concerned with them. I do however <br />see it as obvious that everything is----that existence is a basic <br /> concept, a basic fact. And also that the world comes into being and goes out, changes, moment to moment. And the fact that people die. Well, the mind goes and the<br /> body goes---and personal identity goes--just a temporary existence<br /> that winks out. But I don't see that the sense of a personal self<br /> cancels the fact that each of us is an integral part of what is--of<br /> the universe---and so our identities are ultimately not limited to a personal level--but <br /> we share being with all the rest of the forms of existence---and so are in some sense the whole thing. From a scientific point of view our substance is star dust----the basic building blocks of manifested existence. When it all ends, as science tells us it will,<br />due to entropy---still, existence will be--and so in some sense we all will be. Being never goes out of style. This just seems to me patently obvious.<br /> I am definitely not an atheist---<br /> nor an agnostic nor a theist---none of that matters to me, not an issue at all--unless anyone of those belief systems gains enough power to attempt imposing upon me its dogma, with penalties for refusal---then, I am prepared to say go to hell-- and to fight like hell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78450365642789353812009-12-30T14:20:29.273-08:002009-12-30T14:20:29.273-08:00The first premise in that designer argument is bog...The first premise in that designer argument is bogus, and you know it, Alex. The existence of a designer for the universe doesn't follow from the fact that things usually have a cause. Use your head, man. I taught you better than that. A fallacious argument with a false premise certainly doesn't give us enough evidence to elevate the base rate of the hypothesis into the suspension of judgment range. Geez. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26020215791915389002009-12-30T14:17:10.058-08:002009-12-30T14:17:10.058-08:00Thanks Alex. If it's a natural being, then it...Thanks Alex. If it's a natural being, then it doesn't earn the name of God. Gotta be bigger than physics to warrant the title, be worthy of worship, be able to do miracles, be omnipotent, etc. <br /><br />As for supernatural things: sure our eyes don't see those, but we've got lots of experience trying to determine the existence of those through reason, a priori proofs, as hypotheses to explain natural phenomena that remain unexplainable, and so on. And all of those efforts give us some substantial reasons to think that NO supernatural beings exist at all. Point to a single instance of an actual supernatural being that we think actually exists? We have enough evidence and failed attempts now to say that the very possibility of supernatural things is highly suspect. Even the so called agnostic has to find some grounds to move the hypothesis into suspension of judgment range, or else we have to treat it the same as all the ghosts, demons, gnomes, fairies, magic, and other bullshit that is on the trash heap of bad ideas. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88057085436959532722009-12-30T02:04:27.749-08:002009-12-30T02:04:27.749-08:00Second Approach:
If any kind of gods exist, then ...Second Approach:<br /><br />If any kind of gods exist, then they will be one of two things: A Supernatural being, or a natural being, something inside our universe, but with knowledge and power beyond our comprehension.<br /><br />Suppose a god is a supernatural being, how then do we confirm or deny it's existence? We have eyes, but our eyes see only natural things. Ears, but they hear only the natural. Brains, but they can only contemplate natural things. All the tools we have to confirm or deny assertions are natural, and thus limited to natural things. There's a bridging problem here: we have no means of verifying something that is ontologically distinct. Its a mind/body problem that's been around since Descartes and it's still a bit of a bitch. So are there any Supernatural beings out there? We have no way of knowing.<br /><br />Suppose a god is a natural being with powers beyond comprehension, and they supposedly are or have in the past influenced the world. We can look around and find no credible evidence of any meddling. However, we have already established that we wouldn't understand how they would have influenced the world in the first place. Our lack of credible evidence would be fully justified. So how then would we verify their presence? Again, we lack the means.<br /><br />Just a thought.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05779316189658955596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53032651031148253802009-12-30T02:03:54.319-08:002009-12-30T02:03:54.319-08:00There's been quite a bit of slapping around of...There's been quite a bit of slapping around of agnosticism here, so let me see if I can't motivate their position a little bit. I'll try and come at it from two different approaches, so bear with me.<br /><br />First approach: <br /><br />In general, there are three types of arguments for and against the existence of God: Inductive, Deductive, and Observational. I want to focus on Inductive arguments here, as they represent the lion's share of arguments for or against the existence of God, such as the Cosmological Arg, the Teleological Arg, the Problem of Evil etc. Now the heart of all inductive claims is probability. Based upon past experience, One can make an inference as to what will happen in the future. Touching a hot stove hurt before, so it'll probably hurt if I do it again. I've got a bacon sandwich, and bacon sandwiches have been delicious in the past, so this sandwich is probably delicious. So these famous arguments are broken down as follows (roughly):<br /><br />There is a Universe, and there's usually a reason for things existing, so there is probably a creator.<br /><br />The Universe seems to be designed, and designed things typically have a designer, so there is probably a designer.<br /><br />There is Evil in the World, and good things generally try to minimize evil, so there probably isn't a God.<br /><br />Now, consider this:<br /><br />Imagine you're a 10 year old girl. Its a warm August day and you really want a new doll. So you convince your parents to let you set up a lemonade stand in front of your house. You pick some lemons from the tree in your back yard and you and your mom squeeze them together and make a few pitchers of lemonade. Your dad sets up a card table in the front and you make a sign saying "Lemonade 25¢" As the day goes on, business if fairly brisk, and finally you have enough to buy your doll. Just as you're about to pack up, The President of the United States comes along and says to you, "Well missy you've done a terrific job of running this lemonade stand. In fact, you've done such a great job, that I have an offer to make. You see missy, the country is in a bit of a financial bind at the moment. There's a lot of concern on how the the economy has been doing as of late and we are in need of fresh leadership. So how would you like to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve? You've clearly mastered selling lemonade, so you must be categorically qualified to run the Fed. Really, running a Lemonade stand is just like running the Economy of America."<br /><br />There's a disconnect here. We've got stoves and sandwiches and the like down, and we've got a pretty good idea of how this particular instantiation of this particular Universe first started, but past that? There probably is or isn't a God? Based on what evidence? What sort of experience do you have that could possibly be even remotely analogous to not just the Big Bang, but whether or not something governed *That*? How many creations of universes have you seen recently? Because if you're anything like me, and given past evidence you probably are, no a hell of a lot.<br /><br />Pardon me, but where are your base-rates?Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05779316189658955596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2696319867248387142009-12-14T11:54:09.124-08:002009-12-14T11:54:09.124-08:00The existential remains existential. There is no e...The existential remains existential. There is no existence coming out of nonexistence, and existence cannot go into nonexistence. You can ask the physicists. They have not yet been able to destroy a single atom. You cannot destroy anything – and you cannot create anything either. You cannot destroy a grain of sand. Science has progressed so far, so much, but we are incapable of creating a single grain of sand or of destroying a single grain of sand. You can grind it, you can change the form, but it will remain in another form. Only the form changes; life goes on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45527444941442044872009-12-12T20:31:36.817-08:002009-12-12T20:31:36.817-08:00Hi Reginald. Good to hear from you.
Agnostics ...Hi Reginald. Good to hear from you. <br /><br />Agnostics covet the insight, that they think is profound and uniquely theirs, that there could be something out there that we don't know about or understand. Of course, that's a trivial and uninteresting notion. Of course there are things out there that we haven't thought of yet that we will discover. Does that justify agnosticism about the gods that human religions have been presenting to us for centuries? The one they claim to know so well? Of course not. We should think of it this way--if some powerful, knowing, and apparently good being showed up tomorrow, is there anything it could say, any excuse it could offer that would lead us to think that yes, there was an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good being that existed all along. He just kept us in the dark, refused to exercise those powers, and let countless instances of suffering that a good being would have prevented slide by. If there were a God, he would have been here all along. So whoever shows up tomorrow isn't God. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52134532288901033912009-12-12T12:32:55.359-08:002009-12-12T12:32:55.359-08:00I think that, after a recent discussion with an ag...<i>I think that, after a recent discussion with an agnostic, is that some of the people in the agnostic category never held religion in much regard, but through meditation or psychedelic drugs or "something" they feel like there's a force or something bigger than us.</i><br /><br />Sure, i could name four forces bigger than us. Gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force. It seems a serious mistake though to presume that a force would constitute a person with consciousness, with ideas about how you should live your life.<br /><br />I had dinner with an agnostic once. He stated that he didn't believe in any of the gods or religions currently on offer, but the Universe is a big place so he insisted on keeping his options open. He even refused to define what would qualify as a god. Since he refused to offer a definition of "godness," I attempted to flesh it out with concrete examples. "<i>How about this pepper shaker here on the table, could this qualify as 'god'?</i>" He said no. I pointed out that if he couldn't offer a definition of this property of 'godness', it was improper to state whether any person or object possessed it. That is not respectable rational discussion. I refer to this episode as "the terrible parable of the pepper shaker."Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12442861239425219672009-12-10T11:20:03.789-08:002009-12-10T11:20:03.789-08:00Well put, EA. There's an asymmetry in the (fa...Well put, EA. There's an asymmetry in the (faux) agnostic's invoking "we cannot know everything" to justify agnosticism about God when he or she would rarely if ever let that worry keep them from believing other things. It's trivial and uninteresting that we cannot know everything, but the agnostic/wannabe believer puts a disproportionate amount of weight on that concerning God and shies away from the obvious (atheism). But the same consideration doesn't lead them to refrain in other comparable cases. In a lot of cases, "We cannot know everything," and "We cannot have absolute certainty," are, I suspect flimsy, ad hoc rationalizations that conceal a longing to believe in God.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71882518552169855842009-12-10T11:07:23.701-08:002009-12-10T11:07:23.701-08:00There is an issue of how much weight to place on t...There is an issue of how much weight to place on the fact that we don't, and can't, know everything absolutely. For some agnostics this limitation carries a lot of weight. For me, it is an unrealistic and unbalanced insistence on perfectionism to demand that we can't justify our beliefs unless we are completely certain that the beliefs are completely factually correct. Of course, weight of the evidence provides no guarantee that we are absolutely, totally correct in some unmeasurable, and therefore impractical sense. But its foolish, in my mind, to take that all or nothing approach when there is lots of space in between those two extremes and as a practical matter, we necessarily live in that middle space. To me imperfection here is good enough, if only because imperfection is unavoidable, and I think agnostics are fooling themselves if they think are doing better by ignoring weight of the evidence simply on the grounds that it can't be a-priori guaranteed to achieve perfectly correct results.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31626140534350431712009-12-10T09:22:12.526-08:002009-12-10T09:22:12.526-08:00Hi folks. Thanks for the really interesting discu...Hi folks. Thanks for the really interesting discussion. A couple of ideas. We do have a formula and a way to do the math on this: Probability theory and Bayes theorem. In general, the probability that some claim is true can be assigned a value for an agent between 0 and 1 where 0 is certainly false and 1 is certainly true. .5 is the tipping point. I don't really favor ChrisAC's account of agnosticism. It's like Flew's negative atheism--anyone who lacks a belief in God is a negative atheist. That would include agnostics in the classical sense. A positive atheist, on Flew's account, is someone who has the belief that there is no God. I'm fine with calling those people who are not sure and who neither belief nor disbelieve that God exists agnostics. I am just challenging some of the grounds for adopting agnosticism that are typically presented. I think a lot of self-identified agnostics are actually God believer wannabes, or closet theists. But they will rarely admit that to me when I press. <br /><br />So we could say that people who carefully consider the available evidence and who judge that the probability that God is real falls, say, close to .5 are agnostics. As they see it, there's neither sufficient evidence to justify atheism nor theism. That might be just because the evidence isn't compelling, or it might be, they think, because such things "cannot be known in principle." I think this latter position is bullshit too, but I haven't really elaborated on why here yet. Thanks again. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30233927900754667982009-12-10T07:47:58.030-08:002009-12-10T07:47:58.030-08:00Correction: Agnosticism defined as "we have i...Correction: Agnosticism defined as "we have insufficient basis for favoring one over the other", regardless of the reason for reaching that conclusion, is the agnosticism that I am arguing does not qualify as atheism. I can agree with "don't believe in god" as qualifying as atheism provided we exclude the aforementioned agnosticism. However, I don't think there should be any objection or problem with the "belief that there is no god" definition. I think its unfortunate that some people object to that. The people who seem to object to "belief that there is no god" most strongly are "no beliefs" people who call themselves atheists and I consider "no beliefs" to be wrong, even silly.<br /><br />The proper remedy for addressing the "gradient problem" is to adopt clearer definitions, not more murky definitions. By adopting the latter approach you are importing that problem into the definition of atheism and I don't see how importing the problem into the definition of atheism remedies the murkiness problem. I much prefer remedying the problem by using a different word for people who prefer no belief: Nontheism.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-66213867663159665672009-12-10T07:40:42.762-08:002009-12-10T07:40:42.762-08:00Interesting viewpoints. We've all got our own ...Interesting viewpoints. We've all got our own version which is what I suspected.RAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75448472782672010572009-12-10T07:24:11.380-08:002009-12-10T07:24:11.380-08:00"[i]"Look, its simple. When the weight o..."[i]"Look, its simple. When the weight of the evidence favors one conclusion over another that is when you are no longer undecided or agnostic. We can't put numbers on a tipping point because there is no mathematical equation here."[/i]<br /><br />And I still don't see how you get an agnostic position then."<br /><br />I think we are arguing over different usages of the word agnosticism. Agnosticism as "we don't completely know and therefore we have insufficient basis for favoring one over the other" is the agnosticism that I am arguing does not qualify as atheism. Agnosticism as "we don't have complete knowledge" is not disputable, and its intrinsic to any "weight of the evidence" approach. In that sense, we should all be agnostics, even theists SHOULD be agnostics. For me, at the risk of nitpicking, someone who refuses to favor one view over the other on this question, for whatever reasons, is a "nontheist" while someone who favors no gods over any gods, for whatever reasons, is an atheist. I can certainly agree to other terminology like implicit versus explicit atheist, non-affirmative versus affirmative atheist, passive versus assertive atheist, and the like, but I think nontheist is actually more accurate for the former.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88229596775153784872009-12-10T02:57:40.342-08:002009-12-10T02:57:40.342-08:00I figure that if I'm sure enough not to adhere...I figure that if I'm sure enough not to adhere to any religion, to not worry about the dire threats supposedly issued by some purported god against doubters, I'm sure enough to call myself an atheist.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-66497067938684984232009-12-10T00:57:08.751-08:002009-12-10T00:57:08.751-08:00Explicit Atheist -- I'm not sure exactly how y...Explicit Atheist -- I'm not sure exactly how you construed my post. From a quick glance at your response you seem to somehow believe I'm attacking atheism, for some very odd reason.<br /><br />The whole point was that agnostics are atheists, because there isn't some percentage they can point to and say "See, I'm agnostic." That was the whole gradient-problem thing, you can't pick a property that all atheists have and all agnostics don't. Any agnostic which already lacks the belief in God, in a Christian filled society no less, already has a belief state against the existence of a God.<br /><br />[i]"Look, its simple. When the weight of the evidence favors one conclusion over another that is when you are no longer undecided or agnostic. We can't put numbers on a tipping point because there is no mathematical equation here."[/i]<br /><br />And I still don't see how you get an agnostic position then.<br /><br />The whole point is what determines when the evidence is acceptable? You have the same gradient problem. Because, at 49-51% split, the evidence obvious favors atheism. Unless you're claiming every agnostic has an absolutely perfect 50-50 belief state. If you say they don't, then if you believe mere 'evidence favoring' position, then all agnostics seem to be atheists (or theists with doubt, if the stick falls the other way -- I find very few self-proclaimed agnostics have that position)<br /><br />It seems fairly intuitive, to me, that if you lack the belief in a God existing, despite being surrounded by followers, any claim of 'unsure' seems absurd. Either you're going to be 'leaning' towards one side or the other, and it seems agnostics are going to have a greater weight towards atheism. The gradient problem shows that any distinction between the two becomes blurry.<br /><br />As such, the central question really should be "Do you have the belief that God exists?" If the answer is 'No' then that person is an 'atheist.' Because "possibly God exists" just doesn't work as an answer, because it applies to *every* rational non-believer, which again leaves us with no distinction. An agnostic seems to me, in seemingly all cases, to be an atheist who wishes to avoid the social stigma with being labeled an atheist -- or simply is ignorant of atheism due to social factors; still I don't believe that changes their ontological status to something other than 'atheist'<br /><br />Not that they don't have good reason to wish to avoid it, in America, unfortunately.ChrisACnoreply@blogger.com