We are all agnostic

[wollery]

Okay, it's unusual for me to start a thread.

It's also unusual for me to rant, but that's what I'm going to do.

First, some background - this is something that has grated with me for a long time, but I've never really addressed it. This post started to form in my head several weeks ago when a strong atheist (I can't remember who and it doesn't really matter) posted their opinion that agnostics are wimpy fence-sitters, really no better than apologists for the religious. That post annoyed me, but I didn't respond, largely because I was annoyed, and I've found, during my years on this forum, that posting when angry is a bad idea, and partly because I couldn't think of the right way to phrase my response. But it stayed with me, and for some reason I was thinking about it this morning on my way to work. So I decided to post this.

I'll admit that I'm a pretty mild mannered person, and fairly middle of the road in most respects. I don't really hold any extreme positions, and I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. I believe that's just good skepticism, and a reasonable, sensible approach to thinking about any subject.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is an oft cited fact that all humans are born atheist, but that isn't the whole fact. We are also born agnostic, in almost every respect. As babies we have no knowledge of anything, beyond our own immediate needs. I never grew out of either state as regards religion. I have never believed in any god, nor have I ever known whether or not there is a god. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. In the past I have described myself as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know and I don't care. The truth, however, is that I do care. I care when people accuse me, even indirectly, of being a fence-sitter. It is something that I have thought long and deeply about over many years, and my position is absolutely not fence-sitting. It is a simple statement of fact.

I don't know.

I don't, and I am pretty sure that it is not possible to know. There have been many threads on this board along the lines of "What would convince you that god exists?" The answer is almost always a pretty unanimous, "nothing". There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that anything offered as proof could be explained either as a natural phenomenon, or the workings of a highly technologically advanced alien civilization. If, for instance, the stars rearranged themselves to say, "I am the lord thy god" in Aramaic, it could be god, or it could be a joke on the human race made by aliens with the ability to move stars by manipulating gravitational fields.

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know.

As Dogdoctor used to say in his sig line, I have started to think of myself as a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either.

So, as I said before, Agnosticism is not a position of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting, it is a statement of fact.

Feel free to argue about it. Lambaste me all you like. The truth is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of god, so it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

 

[Cosmo]

The main problem I've found with agnosticism over the years is that, like so many other things, popular misconceptions about its definition have, for many, replaced its real definition. People seem to think that agnosticism is a sort of "third option" when presented with a choice between self-identifying as theist or atheist.

In truth, given these words as defined in the dictionary (theism: belief in one or more gods, atheism: not theism - lack belief in one or more gods), there is no logical middle ground. Everyone who has ever lived, including newborn babies, is either atheist or theist.

 

[Madalch]

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I don't know about that.

 

[Pardalis]

Of course, philosophically, anyone who is honest has to admit that our knowledge isn't complete, and will never be complete 100 %

But, realistically, if something isn't proven therefore it is assumed to be non-existing until proven otherwise. Therefore atheism is the correct position.

I used to call myself agnostic not too long ago, but I increasingly find it an unpleasant, wishy-washy and ultimately useless position.

 

[wollery]

Of course, philosophically, anyone who is honest has to admit that our knowledge isn't complete, and will never be complete 100 %

But, realistically, if something isn't proven therefore it is assumed to be non-existing until proven otherwise. Therefore atheism is the correct position.

As is agnosticism.

As I said, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I used to call myself agnostic not too long ago, but I increasingly find it an unpleasant, wishy-washy and ultimately useless position.

In what way is a simple statement of fact about your knowledge "an unpleasant, wishy-washy and ultimately useless position."?

 

[Wowbagger]

Sounds like you need this bumper sticker, I've seen around:

Militant Agnostic:
I Don't Know, and Neither Do You!


But, I do agree with you. (The "militant" part of that was only a joke.)

 

[Pardalis]

As is agnosticism.

I don't think so, IMHO. If something hasn't been proven to exist, it is useless to assume it does. It's a waste of time, basically.

(sorry I added stuff to my post after you posted your reply)

 

[wollery]

I don't think so, IMHO. If something hasn't been proven to exist, it is useless to assume it does. It's a waste of time, basically.

I agree, in that I also feel that believing in god is a pointless waste of time, but I disagree that admitting that you don't know is a waste of time. You don't know, so why not admit that? And why say that admitting that is wishy-washy? How can the simple truth ever be wishy-washy?

(sorry I added stuff to my post after you posted your reply)

No problem, I also edited.

 

[Pardalis]

I agree, in that I also feel that believing in god is a pointless waste of time, but I disagree that admitting that you don't know is a waste of time. You don't know, so why not admit that? And why say that admitting that is wishy-washy? How can the simple truth ever be wishy-washy?

I think there's a difference, atheism is more a practical position, as agnosticism is more philosophical, like a state of mind. Agnosticism is a non-position, so if you're asking for an opinion, as say for a debate, then one should take the atheism stance, while still retaining an agnostic philosophy, in case any evidence shows up (which won't happen).

 

[wollery]

I think there's a difference, atheism is more a practical position, as agnosticism is more philosophical, like a state of mind. Agnosticism is a non-position, so if you're asking for an opinion, as say for a debate, then one should take the atheism stance, while still retaining an agnostic philosophy, in case any evidence shows up (which won't happen).

All well and good, except that agnosticism isn't really a philosophical position, and does not leave the door open "in case any evidence shows up", for the simple reason that no evidence could show up which would prove the proposition either way.

At the risk of repeating myself, agnosticism is a simple statement of fact. I don't know. How is that in any way philosophical?

 

[Arthur Denton]

I'm agnostic.

It started with the understanding of the fact that that man in a nice robe preaching couldn't be always telling the truth. I was raised a catholic, in a really devout family, where every person I can recall goes to the church every month. That's the truth today. I'm the exception, you can say. To my amazement, to my fury, to my outrage, I'm often told to offer a prayer for this or for that, and that god is willing and looking out for me. I have an agreement with myself, for the greater good, not to enter in shock with my family over this matter. In fact I'm confronted almost every day with it, and that bothers me, but I'm over the fence (borrowing your words), in that matter, just because I'm trying not to make a big deal out of it. It's their choice, not mine, and I can pretend for a little bit more.

I'm not exactly a skeptic.

Skepticism for me is a whole new thing. Actually, I doubt things often, but that's not exactly being skeptic. I only realize that now, after joining the forums and checking out JREF seriously. That makes me, so far, over the fence as well, because I lack argument often, even though I'm lurking - and very happy - lurking. I'm not a lurker, though... So, I often poke people.

I'm sorta theist.

I think that eventually we will find beings that we won't be able to explain, and that won't care about us, nor nurture us, nor nothing, and we'll call them gods, and that's how they will want to be treated. Now, I also believe that there is a creator - which may not be alive, it may just be something. We can be a cosmic fart, for all that matters, but I think that we can call that "event" creator the boss, or god. Now, remember: god, not God. It's just an event, it created, never cared, or at least, amused himself with the universe, but left it. We're no more important than vermin and dust, we're just a byproduct of some huge thing. I'm not going to shove that over you though. Also, since I've changed of opinion often in the last few years about god (who knows me can tell you about that, I guess) makes me not the more reliable person to engage a god conversation. That's why I tell you I'm sorta theist.

I'm completely and strongly opposed to any god organization.

By that I mean that I dislike churches, truthers, bible followers, muslim mosques, in fact, pretty much every of those religious tradition organizations that attempt to put us under arrest with their self absorbed truths. When I feel, sometimes, a slight fear of doing this or that due to my christian background, I often get really pissed off when I realize I'm actually cautious about a subject because of religion. It was a long time ago, but it was during the formation of my capacity to argue that I was taught the absolute truths and the sin lists, which IMO are endless.

That said...

I honestly think that if you cross the street today, and talk to the christian that passes by your side, I mean actually, if you chat with him and you tell him, "man, we're all agnostic, actually" you will actually hurt him.

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Well, in their heads, they are actually in touch with god. The argument you use is actually really good. Nobody can prove god exist, one can only provide anecdotes on how god helped but never with actual evidence of the facts. The sheer list of miracles that the church digs when creating saints is supposed to be a list of facts that ascends someone nearer to the grasp of the gods but, in fact, proves how backwards we are in terms of medicine and how easily it is to accept that god did it because god is good, no questions asked. Send in the physicians you want. Just because something new or unusual happened, they'll promote someone to the state of saint. (on a pseudo chess notation - e-8(S)! i.e. pawn e-8, promoted to saint, check!)

To sum my statement in the last paragraph, just because the very foundations of their religion is blind faith, they'll be offended and deny the argument. They'll attempt ad ignoratium, i.e. you can't talk about it because you're ignorant about god, or maybe, inconsistency, using solely their faith as option, or even the classic argument from authority. They'll feel offended. Presto. And they may even point you something like this:

An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'.

I'm quite intrigued about this thread. Let's see what comes up next

 

[Cosmo]

The main problem I've found with agnosticism over the years is that, like so many other things, popular misconceptions about its definition have, for many, replaced its real definition.

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

 

[Pardalis]

At the risk of repeating myself, agnosticism is a simple statement of fact. I don't know. How is that in any way philosophical?

Yeah but one can only go so far with that, I think. "I don't know", as a position, is kind of a debate killer. You end up playing devil's advocate and both teams at the same time, whereas atheism demands evidence. At the end of the day one side has to be right, but to say at the end that we don't and we can't know, then you've spent your time debating for nothing.

 

[wollery]

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

Indeed, hence my statement, "We are all agnostic".

 

[Pardalis]

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

You've got a good point. Agnosticism is more "we can't know" than "we don't know". "We can't know" is much more frustrating.

 

[wollery]

Yeah but one can only go so far with that, I think. "I don't know", as a position, is kind of a debate killer. You end up playing devil's advocate and both teams at the same time, whereas atheism demands evidence. At the end of the day one side has to be right, but to say at the end that we don't and we can't know, then you've spent your time debating for nothing.

I don't believe there is a debate, since it all boils down to either side positing that they believe their side is right, when in fact neither side has any real evidence. That's just a pointless argument with no possible conclusion.

Saying "I don't know" isn't playing devil's advocate, it's admitting to the truth.

 

[Mobyseven]

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I agree with most of your OP. I have nothing wrong with your definitions or your position.

But I'm not so sure that we can simply assert that everyone is agnostic. Certainly, that everybody should be agnostic, but there are people out there who believe that they really do know one way or the other about things. Whether they do or not is immaterial - it is their belief regarding knowledge that defines them as gnostic or agnostic, and from that you can see that there are definitely gnostic theists (and indeed gnostic atheists) out there.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

I think it's a matter of definitions. The commonly accepted definition of Atheist is "someone who holds no beliefs in a god or gods". Looks like you are at least implying that Atheist is "someone who has proof that god doesn't exist". That's a wrong approach IMO, because if someone were to have proof of the non existence of god, then we all should be atheists. So in the end, Atheism, as well as Theism, is a matter of belief. What differentiate both beliefs is that one in evidence-supported (note I didn't say proof-supported), while the other is not.

On the other hand, if we define Agnostic as "someone who has no opinion either way because he/she doesn't know", then Atheism and Agnosticism can be considered not mutually exclusive positions, because one is a matter of belief and the other is a matter of opinion of something as a fact.

Good thread, BTW. It made me revise my ideas.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Okay, it's unusual for me to start a thread.

It's also unusual for me to rant, but that's what I'm going to do.

First, some background - this is something that has grated with me for a long time, but I've never really addressed it. This post started to form in my head several weeks ago when a strong atheist (I can't remember who and it doesn't really matter) posted their opinion that agnostics are wimpy fence-sitters, really no better than apologists for the religious. That post annoyed me, but I didn't respond, largely because I was annoyed, and I've found, during my years on this forum, that posting when angry is a bad idea, and partly because I couldn't think of the right way to phrase my response. But it stayed with me, and for some reason I was thinking about it this morning on my way to work. So I decided to post this.

I'll admit that I'm a pretty mild mannered person, and fairly middle of the road in most respects. I don't really hold any extreme positions, and I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. I believe that's just good skepticism, and a reasonable, sensible approach to thinking about any subject.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is an oft cited fact that all humans are born atheist, but that isn't the whole fact. We are also born agnostic, in almost every respect. As babies we have no knowledge of anything, beyond our own immediate needs. I never grew out of either state as regards religion. I have never believed in any god, nor have I ever known whether or not there is a god. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. In the past I have described myself as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know and I don't care. The truth, however, is that I do care. I care when people accuse me, even indirectly, of being a fence-sitter. It is something that I have thought long and deeply about over many years, and my position is absolutely not fence-sitting. It is a simple statement of fact.

I don't know.

I don't, and I am pretty sure that it is not possible to know. There have been many threads on this board along the lines of "What would convince you that god exists?" The answer is almost always a pretty unanimous, "nothing". There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that anything offered as proof could be explained either as a natural phenomenon, or the workings of a highly technologically advanced alien civilization. If, for instance, the stars rearranged themselves to say, "I am the lord thy god" in Aramaic, it could be god, or it could be a joke on the human race made by aliens with the ability to move stars by manipulating gravitational fields.

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know.

As Dogdoctor used to say in his sig line, I have started to think of myself as a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either.

So, as I said before, Agnosticism is not a position of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting, it is a statement of fact.

Feel free to argue about it. Lambaste me all you like. The truth is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of god, so it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

I have to say that I have been struggling with this debate myself. I have wanted to sound off on it at times, but there are many more knowledgeable posters here and I never felt that I could contribute anything worthwhile. But if you, who I respect, are willing to give it a go, so will I.

I always thought that you could never know, that you could never prove that there wasn't a god. Then I read Dawkin's God Delusion. And after that I thought that science could say something about the likelihood of a god.

Of course it depends on how you define "god". If I have this correct, the Deists believe god was around in the beginning, kicked things off, and then went out for a smoke and hasn't come back. Kind of a absentee father, if you will. I can't argue against that, but I could say the same thing about the tooth fairy and would be unable to refute it.

The Christians make a lot of claims for their god. Benevolent. Omniscient. Omnipotent. Created the universe and everything in it. Biblical flood. Communion wafer into flesh...etc. All kinds of things for which there is no evidence.

If we are talking about that kind of guy, a big bearded white-guy sitting on a cloud somewhere, then I think science can say something about it.

Like anything in science, we don't know it with 100% assurance, but there are some things that we can assign a probability that nearly approaches 100%. The Law of Gravity, Theory of Relativity...etc.

Dawkins described two different types of agnosticism; Temporary Agnosticism in Principle (TAP) and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP). He (and I) believe that the existence of god falls into TAP. Either god exists or he doesn't and eventually science is going to find the answer. While we may not know the answer now, we can assign it a probability based on evidence that we have on hand presently.

I always think of cold fusion as an example. Some scientists says that it exists while most do not. I believe that there are still scientists out there that continue to test the idea but, to date, without any solid evidence to support it. Now I could say that 2,000 years ago cold fusion was unquestioned reality and that everyone powered their homes with bath water, but there is no longer any evidence to support it other than this book that I found in a cave. Don't ask me to prove it because it only works if you pray really hard and are truly repentant.

I don't know, I might be all wrong, but I think that science can say something about an active, christian (Islamic, Hindi, Roman) god.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't believe there is a debate, since it all boils down to either side positing that they believe their side is right, when in fact neither side has any real evidence.

For the deist and atheist, "God exists" is a claim, a scientific claim, as Dawkins would put it, it's a statement of fact, therefore it can and should be debated. One side pretends it can be known, the other asks for the evidence. It the evidence presented fails, then we have to disregard it. Why should we assume it could still be true if the believers can't defend their claim?

For the agnostic, "God exists" is a theory, it's more :God could exist". But since the agnostic stance is "we can't know", then there is no use for a debate. The theory invalidates itself because it doesn't even have a leg to stand on. So if there's no debate, then there's no theory.