Why agnosticism?

[SFB]

I could be wrong about this but it is possible to know that something is unknowable. Take Hiesenberg's uncertianty principal. We can not know both the the velocity and position of a particle or system with any arbitraty degree of precision. Therefore we know that this is unknowable.

Also, a black hole, we will never know for sure what goes on in the singularity because no information can ever get out. Again
we know this info is unknowable.

Since all we ever will know exists in this universe, we can never know what exists (if anything) outside this universe, or before, or after. So I would suppose that agnostics believe that God exists outside this universe, so therefore unknowable.

You can know something about something that is unknowable because you can know what it is not. We can know that it is not knowable. So there

Philosophy Aside, again, there is no evidence for god, yet plenty we don't know about science. Why bank on the side of no evidence??????

I'll tell ya why: social pressure, family pressure, history, society, tradition, folklore, human nature........................................

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Paul,

Uruk brings up an interesting point. Why does statement 1 imply statement 2?

Perhaps I should have provided the logic connecting step 1 to step 2. I can see now that it is not quite as obvious as I thought it was.

If the existence of God is truly unknowable, then this implies that one of two possibilities is true:

1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.

So which of the above is the agnostic claiming?

If he is claiming the first, then he is claiming to know that God does not exist. That is a contradiction, since he also claims this is unknowable.

If he is claiming the second, then he is claiming to know that God does exist, which is also a contradiction, for the same reason.

If he is claiming that one or the other of those two is true, but that he does not know which, then he is claiming that if god exists, then he doesn't interact with the universe. But this, too, is unknowable, for exactly the same reason that it is impossible to know that god does not exist. It is always possible that God does interact with the universe, and that you have just not seen or recognized the effects.

So no matter which way you slice it, the agnostic must be claiming to know something which, if it were true, would be unknowable.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Renfield]

Titus said:


1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

~~ Paul

I'm with Paul. I don't see how the second statement follows from the first. Why can't you know whether something is unknowable? You say this is so, but what is your reasoning?

 

[Renfield]

Paul,




1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.

.


Dr. Stupid

These are not the only two possibilities. Actually, neither of them is a possibility, since an agnostic claims no knowledge either way. Agnostics simply think that - based on the current evidence - we cannot say with any certainty whether or not God exists. I don't see anything contradictery in this kind of statement at all.

And I still don't see how this justifies your previous statements about knowing whether something is unknowable, etc etc.

 

[hammegk]

Slightly revising Franco's earlier comments:

Agnosticism = there is not enough information to make a definite conclusion regarding the existence of “God”.

Some definitions of god fare better than others, imo. That is, for a given "god" I may hold the "99.999% certain does not exist" position, but remain agnostic.

I also would say that Agnosticism is a logically consistent, realistic, and skeptical position to hold. Of course, idealists & dualists have less problems here than materialists (or whatever they now call themselves -- naturalists, maybe?).


Er, my agnosticism also extends to the question of "knowability".

 

[MoeFaux]

I think it's a cop-out. Just make up your mind.

I like the new term, "Bright", but I won't refer to myself as such around people I don't know, because it's just too wishy-washy; it includes everything.

I am an atheist. It's not a matter of beleif, it's a matter of fact. There is no god.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Renfield,

I'm with Paul. I don't see how the second statement follows from the first. Why can't you know whether something is unknowable? You say this is so, but what is your reasoning?

On the contrary. I would not claim that it is true in general that it is impossible to know whether some fact is unknowable. I have explained why I think it is clearly true in this specific case.

1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are not the only two possibilities. Actually, neither of them is a possibility, since an agnostic claims no knowledge either way. Agnostics simply think that - based on the current evidence - we cannot say with any certainty whether or not God exists. I don't see anything contradictery in this kind of statement at all.

I am afraid you misunderstood my argument. I am quite aware that most agnostics mean by the term only that they lack knowledge of the existence of God. I myself consider myself an agnostic, and that is exactly what I mean by the term when I say that I am one.

My entire point was that if you define agnosticism to be not just lack of knowledge of the existence of God, but also the position that the existence of God is, in principle, unknowable, then there is a problem.

I don't define it that way. Apparently neither do you. Good for us.


Dr. Stupid

 

[slimshady2357]

It's not a matter of beleif, it's a matter of fact. There is no god.

That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show there is no god. Please present them.

It is a matter of belief, if you're rational about it.

Adam

 

[MoeFaux]

That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show there is no god. Please present them.

It is a matter of belief, if you're rational about it.

Adam

It's my opinion that it's a fact. So, we can file it under "Opinion", but, to me it's a fact.
I can't think of any evidence to back up a god, but I can think of plenty of evidence to back up evolution, i.e. Darwin's finches, all kinds of archeological discoveries of pre-human skulls, etc.

You are right, though, it is my opinion. That evidence could be taken any way. Even the pope has said that evolution could be the way the world was created, and there's plenty of Believers who say evolution is correct.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

MoeFaux,

It's my opinion that it's a fact. So, we can file it under "Opinion", but, to me it's a fact.

Since when are facts a matter of opinion?

Dr. Stupid

 

[MoeFaux]

MoeFaux,



Since when are facts a matter of opinion?

Dr. Stupid

When it's mine.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stimpy, isn't there a third option, in addition to:

1) God does not exist. If this is the case, then his existence is unknowable, because you can never prove that he does not exist.

2) God does exist, but does not interact with the Universe in any way. As Uruk put it, he exists outside the universe.

3) God does exist, but he interacts with the Universe through a magical means that will always appear to be entirely natural.

Oh wait, never mind.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Logic question

Stimpy, why does this original formulation appear to be paradoxical? Is my brain malfunctioning?

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.

~~ Paul

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Agnosticism as an incoherent position

The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world", for the structure of manifest reality. ... A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.

I suggest that there is zero reason/evidence for such a claim. Certainly none has been offered.

There is, in my opinion, a difference between what is knowable and what warrants belief. Agnosticism speaks to the former; atheism to the latter. Huxley's agnosticism was cleanly defined by Huxley himself: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. This impresses me as little more than an early expression of methodological naturalism. For example:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important vriterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

• You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

I suggest that many if not most atheists are agnonostics. As for "A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.", perhaps the best response is " do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

 

[Titus Rivas]

Agnosticism about supernatural beings and creator

Hi Reasonable Doubt,

You're probably right that not all real supernatural beings would have to be knowable for us humans. You might compare this to say hypothetical parallel universes of a kind that would never interact with ours.

However, agnosticism is not simply talking about the knowability of the existence of ANY supernatural being, but specifically of the existence of the supposed creator of this world we inhabit. My point is that such a creator is not the kind of being whose existence would be in principle unknowable.

So I claim that a priori unknowability is at odds with the definition of a creator, and that therefore the theory of non-trivial agnosticism is incoherent.

Please note that I'm not talking about what I see as trivial agnosticism which may have such meanings as "I actually don't know whether there is a God", "so far there haven't been any conclusive arguments for or against the existence of a god", etc.

A non-trivial agnostic is someone with an interesting, but incoherent view.

A trivial agnostic is simply someone who has reasons to believe it is as yet impossible to decide if theism (or deism) or atheism is right.

I'm talking about the implicit claim that the existence of a creator would make no difference for reality, i.e. that reality would be completely identical if it is created or if it is not created. This is does not at all imply that I would claim we already know whether atheism or theism is right, but simply that agnosticism is wrong, as it is incoherent that the existence or non-existence of a creator would in principle be indeterminable from arguments founded on reality. So my rejection of non-trivial agnosticism is in principle reconcilible with a trivial agnostic stand on this issue .

Titus

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Paul,

Stimpy, why does this original formulation appear to be paradoxical? Is my brain malfunctioning?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. It doesn't seem paradoxical to me. Could the problem be that (3) seems somewhat counterintuitive? We would not normally think that claiming that something is unknowable is a claim of knowledge. But in this case, that is exactly what it is.

Here is another way to think about it. Let's define God1 to mean any conception of God. Let's define God2 to mean only those conceptions of God in which God interacts with the world in some potentially observable way.

Now, to claim to know that the existence of a God1 is unknowable, is to claim know that no sort of God2 exists.

But if this is true, if no sort of God2 does exist, then it is impossible to know this, because it is impossible to prove that such a God does not exist. It is always possible that such a God does exist, and that we simply have not identified any of his interactions yet.

Therefore the claimant must claim to know something which, if he is right, is unknowable.

In other words, nobody can claim to know that an interacting Deity does not exist, but that is exactly what you must do, in order to claim that the existence of any sort of Deity is unknowable.


Dr. Stupid

 

[evildave]

Why agnosticism?

"I don't know, and I don't care."

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Agnosticism about supernatural beings and creator

My point is that such a creator is not the kind of being whose existence would be in principle unknowable.

Nor is it the "kind of being whose existence would be in principle knowable". Unless you can demonstrate a methodology (protocol) capable of providing verifiable information about the supernatural, you've managed to say essentially nothing.

 

[triadboy]

As to the moronic Gods of the OT and NT - I am atheistic. That much I'm sure of.

Was there a creative force that motivated existence?

I can conclude there being one and I can conclude there not being one. On this and this alone - I'm agnostic.

 

[Yahweh]

That's quite a claim, can you back that up with evidence. I mean, you're certainly making a positive claim here, a claim to have facts that show there is no god. Please present them.

There are lots and lots of different kinds of science, they all work soundly with one another. With them, you can easily see how the world could have come the way it has without any aid from God.

Also, usually the best way to prove somethings nonexistence is to prove that it cannot logically exist. There are other ways to go about this, but just for the purposes of time, I'll use the famous Arguement from Evil (copied and pasted from the internet, it can be found pretty much all over the place):
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Premise 5 is what makes the contradiction. Premises 1 through 6 do logically (and validly) imply Conclusion 7.

Of course, the usual way people try to go about "refuting" the Arguement from Evil is by claiming that Evil doesnt exist objectively... no ◊◊◊◊, but evil exists when someone's actions conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ (refusing to turn the other cheek by hauling off and coldcocking someone would be evil). Another way is to suggest that "evil is relative to the observer, what is evil to me might not be evil to you", of course use the same Teaching's of Jesus counter and the Evil is Relative remark becomes irrelevant.

As brought up in another thread, if we "started from scratch" and began science all over again, we would have the the same science as we did before, now try that with religion.

There you go, the world of science sees no need for god, God cannot logically exist using the Arguement from Evil, and the nature of Christianity is as best on shaky grounds. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I know God does not exist".