Agnosticism as the laziest of the three

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
81

Well for me agnosticm would be the ‘most’ logical option since as you say we cannot prove a negative. Deism would probably be not far behind because that perspective sees the possibility of a god but not a personal one. Theism sees a personal god yet how could we possibly ‘believe’ in one considering the way of the world.

That is not necessarily true. I may be wrong here but when we look at the universe, ponder the laws of physics, etcetera, doesn’t reason and critical thinking point to the possibility of a god? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. Since we cannot prove the negative, to say there is no god doesn’t seem reasonable to me. All we can say really is that we can never know.

So, on what do you base your theory of their being no god? How did the Big Bang occur? What I mean is - what came before it? Was there anything before? Perhaps part of the problem is the usage of the word God? Do you feel that there was/is some kind of self-aware, intelligent creative eternal energy - not a person. lol. If not, what brought it all about? See, we can’t answer that question really, that is the problem which i have with people saying there is no god.

Yes, I can certainly agree with you here but on the other side of that coin, a reasonable/logical person might also conclude that there is a god…if it was important enough to simply believe.

Well, you may have a point there but I truly believe that there are really no atheists - just people who for whatever reason will not/cannot see the possibility because something is getting in the way of that - call it fear, stubborness, a lack of clarity in not seeing a larger picture…

Well then, it would seem that they are closet agnostics, no? I could be wrong though.

Unless i am not understanding this words here, it would seem that he is saying that we ought not to say there is no god…

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

But that would still not make it truth…either way - that would just be based on pre-conditioned thinking and handed-down beliefs. As was said, there is/was no telescope strong enough to see it. So it’s based on belief - not on evidence.

lol. I am quite sure that they do not exist - I say show me the evidence first.

The evidence is before your eyes and through the telescope. It’s just not conclusive evidence. But it does speak more towards there being something! I mean, c’mon, any reasonable/logical person would have to conclude that there is the possibility of a god - how could he/she not? Am i missing something here?

Is ‘absolute’ certainy in science impossible? I’m just asking.

I would hazard a guess that there are some atheists - many - who are angry with god - and that that is the only basis for their ‘belief’ that there is no god. And that is usually because our idea of a god is probably so far off the mark. For many, not all, but many, god is a daddy in the sky, a crutch and when that crutch doesn’t work any more, it’s easier and less painful to deny the existence of one than to deny that we were wrong in our assumptions.

I agree with you here. This is another reason. But very often, a person’s religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of a god - more with the unreality of it. And if that is the case, why call one’s self an atheist - why not just speak the truth and say that we are oftentimes inhumane bastards - this has nothing to do with the reality of a god.

The problem isn’t with a god - the problem is with the individual and their irrational beliefs and how we choose to cowardly assert them. But I see what you mean. Perhaps someday we can do away with religion altogether and found some new kind of spirituality.

Isn’t that a contradictory statement? Did I miss something here?

For instance?

So, you think an agnostic thinks in terms of a 50/50 thing? For myself, I think the agnostic is more in flux than the others but I’ll have to give that some thought. But i find myself flowing backwards and forwards with the question of god -

lol. But isn’t this what a philosopher would do - entertain the idea indefinitely (though I’m no philosopher). And the evidence is all around me. Unless I am simply not thinking correctly.

But no it isn’t. What is irrational is the kind of beliefs we have in god. You can’t see the possibility of a creator god who thought/determined and designed this awesomely beautiful working universe and allowed the rest to flow as it will, more or less? Come to think of it, the atheist has it easy and is the lazy one, since he knows he can’t prove a negative so he can sit on his haunches. lol.

82

uhm, because we’re talking about God

not ad-hoc - the existence of god has never been successfully logically proven or disproven - yet you are trying to apply a controversial rule derived from formal human logic to statements concerning god existence - since when are things divine required to conform to human notions of what is logical?

that’s awfully anthropocentric

by the way - i’ve made my argument, and it stands - regardless of your personal assumptions about god (and yes, you are clearly making assumptions about the nature of god if you are trying to apply the excluded middle to a discussion of his/her existence)

83

just to be clear, my argument stands because even if the excluded middle DOES apply, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we can know whether or not god exists.

84

Your argument doesn’t stand because “we can’t know…but we can know” is actually contradictory.

85

You keep making the same mistake. Just because you can’t prove or disprove something doesn’t mean that the likelihood of it existing or not existing is the same. How many times do I have to mention Russel’s magical teapot? On top of that all atheists are agnostics in the sense that they know it’s not possible to prove a negative. But they also know that disbelief in god is the only logical conclusion after looking at the evidence.

Not at all …in fact to reach the conclusion that god exists you’d have to either ignore evidence, or say “I don’t understand this therefor god did” or think “we don’t know everything therefor god is a strong possibility” or any combination of the three. Now, these kinds of judgement would be in fact to let go of reason and above all to let go of critical thinking.

See my first point.

No evidence in favor of its existence.
A lot of evidence against its existence.
There are a few more reasons but those two things are certainly the most important factor.

I have no idea. And most scientists are not sure either. It’s ok to admit that we don’t know the answers. Honest inquiry is much better then to pretend to know things. There’s certainly a lot of theories you can read about if you’re interested. There’s also a lot of people actively working on figuring out the answers to that question. The worst thing you can do is presume god’s existence just because we don’t understand something. Just think of all the things we didn’t understand throughout history.

On a side note some people have suggested that asking what existed before is nonsensical since time may have come into being at the moment of the big bang.

When I say “god”, I mean the abrahamic god and allah. But no, I don’t think that there is some intelligent or self aware or creative something.

That is the million dollar question isn’t it? Actually I can think of a more interesting question but the point is we don’t know. But from not knowing to assuming the existence of a supernatural being goes a long way.

See Russel’s magical teapot.

A reasonable/logical person can reach that conclusion but the person didn’t use said faculties while thinking about that subject.
Or in other words, not everyone who believes in god is an idiot. But we are great at compartmentalizing. There’s people who are extremely rational and reasonable, who respect logic and evidence but immediately forget all that when the subject is god/religion. Case in point, Francis S. Collins.

That’s funny because I think there are really no theists, and I’ll leave you with a quote from Penn Jillette which I think speaks for itself:

if you have ever stopped at a red light, you are an atheist, because you’re not counting on god to not drive the fucking semi into the side of your fucking car. You are counting on common sense and logic. If you’ve ever taken a pill, if you’ve ever used science, if you’ve ever puttin’a splint on your arm instead of having god save you, you motherfucker, are an atheist.end of story

No , most people don’t notice this but agnosticism is incorporated in atheism by necessity.

Of course, you can doubt it. You should doubt it. And when in doubt what should we do? look at the evidence, think logically, think critically and so forth.

Oh really? Now that is extremely interesting. I was convinced you were going to give a different answer.
Well there you go, the reason why I’m sure god doesn’t exist is the same reason you are sure fairies don’t exist.
I’m assuming that the reason why you do not believe in fairies is because there’s not a shred of evidence.

There is not one shred of evidence. Not one. But I’ll give you a chance, it’s only fair. Name the evidence.

It is. It doesn’t detract us from be sure about things thought. And there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is the standard that some people require to believe/disbelieve in something.

Come on. You know better then that. At most they would be angry at people for having lied to them.
In my case religion angers me because of all the shit that it has done to society and mankind.

Even if that were the case who says your definition would be better? There’s as many gods as people have lived. Everyone that believes in such a thing has a slightly different prespective/take on it.

I’ll give you an example: because no sane person would ever cut the tip of a baby penis unless they thought there was a divine command behind it.
Religion/belief in god makes moral people do immoral things.

Actually the real problem is not god or religion, it’s faith. The belief in something without evidence.

86

Fuck russells magical teapot.
This stuff is tiresome, how do you compare God too a fucking teapot and try too use that as a reason to say God doesn’t exist?
Or Fairies or whatever else you decide to spit out too make the idea of God look ridiculous too people who don’t think the Idea of God is ridicoulous at all.

87

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
There’s a huge differance between believing in God and Believing that God is going to Keep you from dieing in any situation.

88

Yeah, lame.

89

only i’m not saying we can know. if i said that i misspoke and i apologize. we can know the tempurature at which water boils, but we cannot know if there is a god who created the universe. sure anything’s possible. one day there may be a resolution to the debate over whether or not god exists. but i’m willing to bet it never happens, just like i’m willing to bet that the Earth’s not flat.

90

so, after re-reading what i’ve said, this is the only thing that could reasonably be misconstrued as “we can know”

but that’s not what it says

it says we can imagine that god’s existence might be proven at some point in the future - at most, it is an acknowledgement that my position is not an eternal truth, but rather a belief (like all positions regarding the divine). i don’t know we can’t know, but that doesn’t mean we can

so stop building strawmen just for the sake of having something to contradict - among other things, it’s rude and unfair to the person you are conversing with

if i wanted to respond in kind i would accuse you of saying that the question of god’s existence is strictly a black and white one, the answer to which can be proven true or false using logic - but as much as what you say might border on such a silly assertion, it is not what you have said, so i will refrain.

91

that’s what “can” means – it mean it can be done at some point in the future. if i said “i can drink milk”, that’s a true statement, even if i can’t do it immediately. there’s no milk around me, so when i say i can do it, obviously i mean the future. this distinction you’ve made between “can” and “can – IN THE FUTURE!” is ad hoc.

and besides, why are you so sure that future is not now? maybe the person discovering definitive proof is doing so this very minute. how can you know that he’s not? why the future and not now? what makes the future so much more special than now, so much so that it CAN’T be happening now, but it can be happening in the future?

92

if it can happen in the future, it can happen now, and if it can happen now, then you’re incorrect to say we can’t know.

93

I consider what I’m doing to be applying the agnostic approach to the agnostic stance: you say you can’t know, i say that you can’t know that you can’t know. I’m more agnostic than you are.

94

not that it matters to me who’s the more agnostic, but if you think there is a definitive answer to question of whether or not god exists then you are not more agnostic than me.

and i’ve said that i can’t know that we can’t know, i can only believe.

i said we can imagine it happening in the future, and that was in response to your questioning me about whether or not there is anything that might convince me that god exists. that we can imagine it happening does not mean that it can. we can imagine that a lot of things might happen.

we can’t read other people’s minds - that’s a correct statement, right? even if i go on to say that someday in the future it is possible to imagine that we may have evolved to the point, or discovered some device, that enables us to to do so. there’s a difference between the two statements, and it is not ad hoc.

95

I guess i don’t really have any clue what you mean by “can” or “can’t” and I’m not quite sure you do, either.
could is a different conjugation of can, and so along those lines I give you a post that may help straighten some things out for you:
lesswrong.com/lw/rb/possibility_and_couldness/

96

you can’t figure out what it means to say “we can’t read other people’s minds”?

97

I don’t know what you mean when you say “we can’t know…but we can in the future maybe”
i don’t know what reading minds has to do with anything.

98

it’s the same use of the word “can’t”

we can’t read other people’s minds, but maybe someday we will be able to. not likely, but possible, insofar as anything’s possible.

99

so it’s possible in the future…so it’s possible now. i don’t understand why possibilities change so dramatically in the future.

it’s possible for someone to build a computer today, nobody denies that. surely it was possible for people to build computers all the time. it was always possible. it’s always been a feasibility. the universe has never not allowed for computers. the only reason they didn’t is because they didn’t know how. but that doesn’t mean people COULDN’T know how, it just means they DIDN’T know how. obviously people COULD know how, because now people DO know how. the universe didn’t fundamentally change from then to now, to where something that was impossible before suddenly came possible. computers were always possible, people just didn’t know how.

seems like this is a similar situation, but…you’re approaching it very weirdly. you’re saying maybe we can in the future, but we can’t now. why? i don’t get it. why not just leave it as the simple “we DON’T know”? hm?

100

God is an unfalsifiable concept, just like a magical teapot.
Or fairies. Or unicorns. Or magic.
The thought experiment of the magical teapot demonstrates that just because something is unfalsifiable , that does not mean that the likelihood of it existing and not existing is the same. It’s a pretty simple thing to understand really, but I guess it’s easier to say “fuck that” and avoid reality in order to keep your delusional beliefs.

And yes, the idea of god really is as ridiculous as the idea of fairies.
But go ahead and try to explain why one is more credible then the other.