That Old Chestnut
Date: April 26, 2008 | Author: Mike LacelleCategory: Religion/Faith, Skepticism | Comments: 49 » | Tags: agnosticism, atheism, theism
SGU listener Dave wrote:
A lot of scientists claim to be atheists but is it possible for scientists ever to be atheist? It can’t be proved that God doesn’t exit and therefore logic would suggest that scientists must be agnostic. Of course it could be argued that elements described in religous texts are unpoven or unlikely – but that’s not the same thing. So then, if the non-existence of God can’t be proven, then Atheism is a faith. Or, perhaps, atheists are claiming omniescence ?
I like listening to Richard Dawkins’ interviews – he is a very clever man and very genuine. But he can get very impassioned when arguing for this atheistic point of view, which seems to verge on the “Faith” that he finds so distasteful.
So (logically speaking) should atheist scientists reclassify themselves as agnostic?
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer to this question. But I’ll give my opinion because I know you’re all just dying to know.
First of all, I think this question has been the catalyst of WAY too much wasted time on debates over semantics. Just to be clear, I’m not looking to debate anyone here. I’m just giving my opinion. Debate amongst yourselves if you want.
Now let me define atheism and agnosticism. What are they? Well, basically, they’re labels. Words people use to define themselves. They have specific meanings, atheism is the opposite of theism, it is accepting that there are no gods, or higher powers. Agnosticism is accepting that we can never prove either atheism or theism.
Let’s take a couple of Dave’s points.
1. Is it possible for scientists to be atheists?
Sure, it’s also possible for scientists to be theists. Theism makes supernatural claims, claims that science can’t tackle because they are beyond the scope of science. As long as the scientist’s belief does not
make claims on the natural world, science and theism can work hand in hand. Same goes for science and atheism.
2. If the non-existence of God can’t be proven, then Atheism is a faith.
I see people make this claim all the time. The way I see it, atheism is, by definition, not a faith. It is the absence or opposite of faith. So no, atheism is not a faith. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a reasonable
atheist say that they KNOW there are no gods. Yes, there are those who do, the atheist fundies or extremists. But I think most atheists do not claim that they KNOW there are no gods. Simply, lack a belief in gods and therefore deny their existence.
Personally, I label myself an agnostic. I think we will never be able to prove the existence or non-existence of gods simply because the question isn’t one that science can answer.
I live my life as though there are no gods, and one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone tells me that I should be calling myself an atheist, or a weak atheist. I don’t disbelieve in gods, I just don’t think we’ll ever find out one way or the other.
I’ll finish this off by quoting a great man and hero of mine:
“I think to be intellectually honest one has to, in my opinion, has to say they’re an agnostic.” – Perry DeAngelis
Amen, brother.
49 Responses to “That Old Chestnut”
By Patrick Pricken on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I disagree. While it may be so that you cannot 100% disprove the existence of any kind of god, you can say it is very unlikely. Very, very, very unlikely. As in: there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of a god.
There is a point where I’m not agnostic about whether my friend has an invisible unicorn in his garage, whether there’s a teapot in a solar orbit, or whether there’s a god. And from that point onward, calling oneself agnostic is a mere technicality that to me seems like a last shred of political correctness designed not to offend.
Agnostic = does not know. This implies unvertainty. Do you in any way incorporate your uncertainty into your behavior? Do you mutter a quick prayer once a month just in case? Do you hold out your hopes for a divine explanation of a scientific question just in case? Anything? Or do you live and act as if there was no god because in truth, that’s what you think?
The only thing your distinction does is coloring atheism as a belief that is not open to counter-evidence – because that would be agnostic, then, wouldn’t it? It’s the dogmatic atheism of ID proponents and other religious arguments, albeit in a softer package. It’s not intellectually honest at all.
By Patrick Pricken on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
Oh, and to add: Obviously, you’re free to call yourself anything. It’s just a label, anyway.
By kel on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I think I like Penn Jillette’s way of viewing the distinction (if I remember it correctly) – that the two terms are actually answers to two different questions. Atheism refers to the way you live your life – living day to day as if there is no personal god influencing your decisions; agnosticism refers to the belief of any honest skeptic – that the existence a god is highly unlikely but cannot be disproven.
Or something along those lines anyway; as Penn says – ‘I could be wrong’.
By Jon Blumenfeld on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I like this post very much, Mike – it’s always interesting to see an individual’s viewpoint on this topic, and it seems there’s very wide number of ways to look at it.
The thing I don’t like about ‘agnostic’ is that it often gets twisted into a 50/50 might be / might not be, when that’s not it at all.
I kind of like the idea that atheism is a philosophy while agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. That way, you can be both atheistic and agnostic at the same time. The more labels the better, I guess.
Personally, I think of myself as a non-theist, because in addition to having no positive evidence of the existence of god or gods, I’m not sure what I would do if I HAD evidence. Would I worship? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t WORSHIP a superpowered space alien, so God would have to amount to much more than that.
By Veon on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
As an atheist, I see this definitional problem come up again and again. For me the important issue is between the concepts of knowledge and belief. Atheism (and theism) are about belief, whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. Whether or not you believe in a god is different than claiming that you know something about a god.
Think about it this way. If I ask someone if they believe in a god and they answer by saying they are an agnostic, they haven’t answered my question. I didn’t ask if they know a god exists, I asked if they believe a god exists.
Atheism at its most basic is just disbelief in god(s). One term for this is default atheism. We’re not claiming knowledge about a god, just belief. We don’t see any evidence for a god, and we don’t hear any reasonable arguments for a god, so we withhold belief in a god until those two things come along.
There are also strong atheists who go a bit further and say they believe that god does not exist. This position is a bit more tenuous, but most strong atheists will admit this. They are also able to back up their position through reasoned arguments, such as inconsistencies in the concept of a god and the way reality works. For the record I am a strong atheist. Default atheists may disagree with me, but we both can agree on default atheism. Notice that throughout, I never said I (or any other strong atheist) knows that god doesn’t exists, we just believe he doesn’t.
A good resource for more information on atheism versus agnosticism would be the Atheist Experience Public Access TV show and the Non-Prophets internet podcast. Both shows are sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. You can also check out the wiki they run called Iron Chariots which is a counter-apologetics database.
By Stormo on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I don’t get why people are so against the label atheist. A non-theist is an A-theist. There is no need to draw a distinction between the two.
Atheism has been given an undeserving bad wrap and people are perpetuating that bad wrap by just classifying themselves as other things (agnostic, non-theist) instead of merely stating what they actually believe.
“I do not believe god exists” is an atheistic statement.
“It is impossible to ever know whether god exists or not therefore I refuse to take a stance on it one way or the other” is an agnostic statement.
Agnosticism, in my opinion, is a ludicrous stance to take because taking such a stance puts you in a position where you can no longer take a stance on anything that is inherently unknowable.
If you are agnostic about god, you MUST be agnostic about any of the following or you are lying to yourself
-Celestial Teapot
-Invisible pink unicorn
-Saturn has a leprechaun in the middle of it
-Zeus
All are inherently unknowable, yet agnostics make ‘unknowable’ statements about them all the time.
Agnosticism is a cop out to avoid confrontation.
By Stormo on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
PS I know rap has no w, I don’t know why I added it.
By Fiziker on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
Supernatural claims lead to claims about our Universe–claims that science can test. As such it is possible for science to disprove gods just like it can disprove fairies. This is not like a mathematical proof; it is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just like every other proof in science.
Science has definitely disproved the gods that most people believe in beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not rely on faith. Theism cannot be held by a scientist while they are acting as a scientist–they take off their lab coats on Sundays.
By bigjohn756 on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
AFAIC, Patrick nailed it. When pressed to label myself I reply ‘agnostic atheist’.
By ShaneB on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I consider myself a strong atheist because I’ve yet to see a reason why I should even consider a god to be an answer to anything. The question shouldn’t be is there a god or not. It should be, why are we asking the question to begin with.
By Blaise on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Fiziker that “Supernatural claims lead to claims about our Universe-claims that science can test” However, I would say that science has definitely proved that there is a creator of life. “This is not a mathematical proof; it is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just like every other proof in science.” The scientific evidence on the complexity of the simplist forms of life and the incredible amount of information found in the genetic code, beyond a doubt, point to an author of life. The only force that has been observed that can produce complex machines, arrange matter into forms that produce language and instructions is human intelligence. It is logical to then conclude that there was something intelligent that created the first life.
My opinion is that all reasonable scientists should at least be Deists.
By godkillzyou on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I feel that, going just on the childish nature of the god described in the Bible – his jealous nature, the wrath that he displays for the simplest of offenses, if this god were real, he would most definitely make himself known. And I don’t mean that his existence would somehow be implied in the design of things. I mean, he would rumble the earth with his whining and nagging because someone combed their hair in such a way that would not give praise to him. He would then proceed to destroy all of mankind due to one man’s bad haircut.
Anyway, I’m an atheist because if there were a god, it would be obvious. If you were supposed to worship him, he’d make it obvious. Again, not “implied in the design.” He would be visible to the naked eye, for one thing. It just doesn’t make sense that a god would allow confusion as to whether or not he exists. Unless she/he is an idiot? Maybe there is an idiot god out there… maybe god has down syndrome or is mildly retarded?
By slausvonhagen on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I think the problem with a lot of this is your definition of god. Is there some all-pervading force throughout the universe (and beyond?) with some guiding, unifying control over development? Who knows? Agnosticism.
Is there some supernatural entity outside of everything that created all the complexity and beauty of the universe that has nothing better to do than sit around watching us and getting pissed off if you have sex with the wrong person or drink alcohol on sunday? No, that’s stupid. Atheism.
I think you can believe in a god, or something (once again it’s a matter of semantics) as in example one, and not believe that it has some control over your daily activities. What does that make you? An Athetheist? Oh no, more labels.
By Adam L on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
@Blaise
Paley’s watchmaker argument was pretty much put to rest with the discovery of Natural Selection.
By Blaise on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
@Adam L
The problem with your point is the Natural Selection/Mutation paradigm does not come into the picture until there is a self-replicating organism (life). I was talking about the appearance of the very first life. The scientific research shows that even the most basic life is very complicated and it is unreasonable to believe that it just spontaneously appeared. It would be similiar to believing the first computer and it’s operating system just spontaneously appeared.
By mmortal03 on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply
I always point people to the following wikipedia page, because the colloquial understanding of the terms is always throwing them off from what the words really mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
By Fiziker on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Blaise, please have a look at natural selection.
By Adam L on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
@Blaise
Nonetheless, the Argument from Design is fundamentally flawed.
The unstated major premise of the watchmaker argument is that a designer is the only explanation for a complex organism. This leads to an infinite regression, because any creator would themselves by definition be more complex than their creation, and according to your argument must therefore have been created. And that creator must have had a creator, ad infinitum. You’re simply pushing the ‘miracle’ of complexity one step away, but never far enough.
Your implication that scientists believe complex organisms sprang into existence by pure chance is a strawman. Living organisms are very complex now, but that is no reason to believe they were always so. Simple self-replicating molecules could conceivably have come into existence in the conditions of primitive Earth, and served as a launching point for more complex forms of reproduction.
Abiogenesis is poorly understood, but that does not make the argument from design any more logical.
Also, you should look into the distinction Richard Dawkins made between ‘designed’ and ‘designoid’ entities in his book ‘Climbing Mount Improbable.’
By VicGombos on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Most scientists inevitably become atheists simply because science does a better job of explaining and predicting the universe than religion. Believers think we are just as “religious” as any other, it’s just science that we worship. Scientists don’t have blind faith–we have trust in the methods and concepts that have been studied and consistently demonstrate themselves to us. That’s a far cry from religious faith.
By default, science has an “agnostic” motivation–that is, we are always searching for more truth and can never (practically) know 100% of everything. There is always potential for error in measurement and observation. But you can get to a point whereby evidence continually, reliably, inexorably points in a different direction. For example, I just *have* to believe that gravity exists–the evidence is palpable and unrelenting, every day and moment of my existence it is there. This has not been the case for a “God”. Any scientist who uses the standard hypothesis testing model of inquiry would agree that: The null hypothesis (signal or effect not present) is that there is no God; the alternative hypothesis (signal/effect present) is that a God exists. Even if such an hypothesis were testable (and we probably could imagine some fanciful experiment to test this, maybe with intercessory prayer or something like that), we just can never seem to “get the goods”, that is sufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis; everytime p > .05 (and then some!). I guess every good scientist would become a believer if sufficient evidence were provided…but, better to move on to real and worthy hypotheses now–the God hypothesis continues to fail. Practically, how can you not, then, be atheist? [Much props to Victor Stenger's book on this--he presents this argument bulletproof in God: The Failed Hypothesis--no unintentional or intentional plagiarism intended on my part]
Blaise: Occam’s Razor would suggest that all scientists should at least be atheist, not Deist…it takes a little more to convince us that there’s an extra, superfluous cog in the machine that chooses to be invisible to scientific measurement for eons. So far, and likely for as long as you can imagine, the null hypothesis fails to be rejected. No effect. No God.
By godkillzyou on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
@ Adam L & Blaise
In Cosmos, Sagan talked about the Stanley Miller experiments. They proved that you can get the building blocks of life from non-living compounds… the types of things present on Earth in its youth.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/BF/bf02/awramik/bf02a2.php
By Steve Page on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Just for the record, for the sake of accuracy, Richard Dawkins has stated that he is an agnostic; therefore, if evidence came to light that there were supernatural forces at work in our world/universe, he’d review his position. However, he qualified that by saying that on a 1-7 scale (with 1 being “Theist” and 7 being “Atheist”), he’s about a 6.8, due to the lack of evidence for supernatural forces, and as such, he lives his life on the basis that there is no god until such a day comes that he has to change his position.
As has been stated already in this thread, stating that one is an Agnostic is something that is easily misrepresented; most Xians that I’ve spoken to consider an Agnostic to be around 4 on the 1-7 scale, and miss the point that it’s anywhere between 1.0000000001 and 6.99999999999. Agnosticism may be the more accurate term, but it also smacks of appeasement to me, of sitting on the fence at a time when religiosity is doing great damage to the scientific literacy of both children and adults throughout the world.
By Norbert Pozar on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
@Blaise: We don’t have any record of how the life appeared on Earth and therefore there cannot be any conclusive proof. The arguments used in the argument from design are mostly arguments from ignorance. And the theory of evolution gives an answer to the problem of complexity and design in nature.
As you have noted, one needs some kind of replicators for evolution to occur. However, your assertion that replicators need to be complex is not valid. There are known fairly simple replicators (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis). For the discussion of plausible hypotheses on the origin of life via abiogenesis, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html.
By Darkwinter on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
I’ve discussed the problem of agnosticism on my own blog, and it’s something I feel quite strongly about, taking it to be as the quote from Perry expresses so well. I also find nothing wrong with defining myself as both agnostic and atheist – agnostic because I see it as the only honest sceptical position, and atheist because I see the idea of a supreme being as an unnecessary construct.
Thanks for a really great post, Mike, I very much enjoyed reading it.
By Blaise on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
@Adam L
Thank you for your response. I agree with you that the design argument has the “infinite regression” problem, but so does the “Big Bang” and other “natural law” theories. So in these types of discussion I just accept that one starts out with nothing and the other starts with an infinite will. In my opinion both equally impossible, but one being true.
@Norbet Pozar
Thank you for your links. I have read abiogenesis hypothesis before, but a quick scan looks like these sites some it up very well. Unfortunately, I don’t find any of the hypothesis even remotely convincing. The specific research is good and increases our knowledge of the cell but the conclusion stories always sound like fairy tales to me. The research I have read just confirms the impossible of spontaneous life.
Well, thank you all for your time, and the kind and genuine responses.
By Blaise on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t help one more comment:
I believe one of the reasons I find the design argument so compelling is that I am a Computer Engineer, and it is very hard for me to get pass what I see as the many similarities between a cell and a computer. I know the effort it takes me to come up with a new design or program, and I am skeptical of the power of natural selection to create anything truly new. It is a great control and adaption mechanism-within a certain range of variability, but doesn’t seem to have any true creative power. That is what I have concluded after doing a few small computer simulations of natural selection in college and after reading a lot of research papers.
By Jon Blumenfeld on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Blaise,
you can be skeptical of the power of natural selection to produce anything new, but of course it is not natural selection alone that creates anything. Natural selection arbitrates between variations – and those variations are created by random mutations.
I have to say that you are using the argument from personal incredulity here – it seems so unlikely to you, that you believe it cannot be true.
I don’t see the infinite regression in the big bang, by the way. There are plenty of theories of an uncaused big bang, though we may never know the actual truth. As to abiogenesis, again, there is a lot that’s not known, but that doesn’t mean we should just throw up our hands and invoke a designer. That’s too much of a ‘god of the gaps’ argument for me. I’d prefer to keep looking.
And remember – it doesn’t have to be life that springs fully formed from abiogenesis. All we need is some kind of replicator that can make copies of itself. Crystals do it (though the Cairns-Smith model of crystal scaffolding has been pretty much rejected).
By Toby Beau on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
“So then, if the non-existence of God can’t be proven, then Atheism is a faith.”
This is so silly that I can’t believe skeptics are still claiming it! Guess what? You can’t really PROVE anything! Even that homeopathy is false. There’s always some tiny, shred of a possibility that it somehow has eluded proof to skeptics but is still somehow true. It’s logically possible. But you don’t hear any skeptics being “agnostic” about homeopathy.
The very idea of a theistic god is absolutely ludicrous and silly. It’s a made up character, we know it is. We can document the way it’s passed through human literature. To say, “Well, you know we can’t disPROVE god so we have to be agnostic.” is…well, dumb. Try saying that same sentence and replace “god” with “spaghetti monster”, “Jabba the Hut”, or “superman” and see how scientific you sound. I think you can be perfectly reasonable and say that the supernatural characters in an ancient desert holy book DON’T EXIST.
Sorry to all the skeptics who say “I can’t say there’s no god, because I would have to claim absolute knowledge!” Grow a pair.
By Toby Beau on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
By the way, I mean absolutely no disrespect to Perry. But he’s wrong about this one. He was rarely wrong, but he is about this. I think.
By kelsey on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, I think Perry was kinda wrong. Ask The Atheist has a great article (http://www.asktheatheist.com/question/atheists_agnostic_weak_gnostic_strong_not_so_sure“> a great article) adressing the line between agnosticism and atheism.
For the link deprived, (a)gnosticism describes whether or not you think the existence of god is knowable. You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. I think most people that say they are agnostic by this definition would be agnostic atheists – i.e., it’s not knowable, therefore I do not see a reason to believe, therefore I live my life as if he doesn’t exist.
The stronger position is gnostic atheism – i.e, existence of God is knowable, and we know he doesn’t exist.
By kelsey on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
Aww crap. Try this:
http://www.asktheatheist.com/question/atheists_agnostic_weak_gnostic_strong_not_so_sure
By Adam L on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
@kelsey:
Still too simplistic, I’m afraid. I self-identify as an atheist and not agnostic because I believe the existence of God is in fact knowable, whether or not we actually attain such knowledge. In other words, if God did in fact exist I believe it would be possible for Him to prove His existence to us. My favorite hypothetical example of this is the end of Contact when Ellie discovers a hidden message encoded mathematically in Pi.
So, I’m not agnostic because I believe the existence of God is knowable. I do not, however, make any positive claim regarding God’s nonexistence — my atheism is really just a default to the null hypothesis of non-belief pending further evidence.
Perhaps we can all agree that there are many shades of grey in the larger community of nontheists, and any lines we draw are going to be arbitrary, and leave some people out.
By silo on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
The problem with the whole atheist or agnostic thing as I see it is that nobody is talking about the same thing. If you are talking about some kind of deist driving force thing then okay I’m agnostic. I see not reason to believe in this but that’s about all I can say about it. But, in the case of just about any other God that people propose claims are made about the world that are consistantly shown to hold no weight. I’m not agnostic about Yahweh or Zeus. They aren’t real!
By Howdy on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
Hi guys. I’m new to the site and asked the original question, so thanks for the responses. I suppose it comes down to definitions at the end of the day. I think some misunderstanding arises because while many people’s scientific education stretches years or decades, their religous education stopped in childhood. Texts written millenia ago were written for the minds of people millenia ago. Core values remain.
A belief in a deity is usually a belief in the supernatural as the deity is usually not part of his creation, but this is not always the case. So it depends on your concept of God.
If the concept of God hasn’t been well defined then it’s really hard to choose between agnostic and atheist.
So I’d agree with Silo’s reply: It is possible to an atheist in the context of certain concepts/descriptions/definitions of God, but an agnostic in general.
By kelsey on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
@Adam L
Yeah, I do agree a lot of it is Semantics – what does it really matter anyway.
I think though you might classify by that description I linked to as a gnostic atheist – i.e, you think it is knowable, and the answer is no.
No set of labels will ever be adequate of course so to a certain extent we just gravitate to the label we feel most comfortable with, without changing belief.
By Aragon on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
You write:
“I disagree. While it may be so that you cannot 100% disprove the existence of any kind of god, you can say it is very unlikely. Very, very, very unlikely.”
You could not be more wrong!
My problem with most atheists is their arrogance when it comes to matters of theism. They insist on proof of the existence of something else. And all the while they don’t insist on that same proof when it comes to their own objective reality.
Your post assumes an objective reality. Yet for all you know you could be a brain in a vat out in the vaccum of space. Or you could be a similation. Or you could be a lesser aspect of a greater conscious entity. And when you refer to probabilities associated with experimental or observable scientific evidence you completely miss the boat. If the scientific observations themselves are not verifiable as being true measures of objective reality then any reliance upon them to assess the probability associated with any particular objective reality is per se erroneous. Allow for an example.
Assume you and what you observe are no more than simulations run on some vast informational processing system. Now, when you run an experiment, for instance, dropping an apple to test gravity you are running no more than an executable program. You then state that the apple fell and that gravity caused it do so so. In fact no apple ever fell as there is neither an apple, an earth, nor gravity but rather pixels and algorithyms. As a simulated being you are asked about the probability that you are a simulation. You say I see no evidence of that therefore the probability of this is very very low. And here we see the falacy of assigning probabilities to the existence of any particular type of objective reality. It may be that the objective reality has no gravity or earth but rather is some weird universe operating according to laws you can never ascertain because you have no means to gather data upon same. This, probability falacy, if you will, is similarly associated with your assigning any probability to any scenario which may account for our universe including a universe governed by a god.
A true skeptic questions the very existence of what most consider to be objective reality. If you don’t and instead just assume that what you see is actually what is really there then you engage in that damnable “leap of faith” so many professed atheists detest.
It is axiomatic to say that as a logical proposition and a statistical truism that the probability associated with the existence of any objective reality cannot be established. By way of references: Copenhagen, Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, John von Neumann.
By Jared Cerbin on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
I label myself an atheist, even though I know there is no proof either way. Considering what I think of as a god — an omnipotent creator of all — and considering what I know of reality, I just cannot see any kind of god existing, therefore, when asked, I say, “I deny the existence of a god.” This phrase is, to me, more atheistic than agnostic.
By Cthulhu on May 1, 2008 | Reply
I really like Michael Shermer’s definition for himself and have adopted it for my own – agnostic non-theist. A Statement of knowledge and belief.
By Aragon on May 1, 2008 | Reply
“considering what I know of reality”
What do you really know about reality? See the post above yours.
By VicGombos on May 1, 2008 | Reply
Aragon: was it the red or blue pill you ingested?
By silo on May 2, 2008 | Reply
@Aragon
I don’t think any of us are claiming to know the true nature of “objective reality”. We are just trying to figure it out the best we can with the tools we have. So, when people try to reach beyond that and claim to have insight into the nature of the universe with no evidence then I have a little trouble believing them.
I also don’t think dismissing us with a comparison to classical skeptics is fair. I don’t think most of us even consider ourselves classical skeptics. It’s two kinds of fruit and classical skeptics are oranges and we’re apples and you’re telling us we aren’t orange enough to be fruit.
Now I’m hungry. Who wants apples?
By silo on May 2, 2008 | Reply
Woops, did I say classical? I meant philosophical.
By Aragon on May 5, 2008 | Reply
Silo & VicGombos;
I took neither the blue nor the red pill as neither exists
.
Most of the peeps posting are assuming an objective reality. The following statement made by the first poster is but one example:
“I disagree. While it may be so that you cannot 100% disprove the existence of any kind of god, you can say it is very unlikely. Very, very, very unlikely. As in: there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of a god.”
The ability to assign probabilities presupposes an objective reality upon which to base those assignments. Probabilities are calculated by examining “empirical data” and then number crunching.
You are correct there are many shades of skeptics so a broad brush is too blunt an instrument.
By dbradhud on May 5, 2008 | Reply
Aragon,
I’m a little confused, as your examples all assume an objective reality. If you posit that I am a brain in a vat or a simulation, then you are positing an objective reality. Whether or how I can ascertain the nature of that reality is a different issue.
Your point seems to be that I cannot distinguish between gravity and a perfect simulation of gravity. Why should that matter to me? I drop a rock, it falls, it lands on my foot, it hurts, I yell. I do the same thing, same result. Again — same result. For me, there is no meaningful distinction between actually having a swollen and bruised foot and having a perfect simulation of a swollen and bruised foot. The universe I live in appears to behave exactly as if it follows discoverable and predictable rules, and so I behave as if it does. And it seems entirely reasonable to me to try and figure out what those rules are.
If you want to argue that objective reality doesn’t exist, then you are down the postmodernist rabbit hole and can make up whatever you want to believe in. Just don’t turn around and use that argument to try and argue that some type of supernatural being “really” exists.
And stay away from rocks.
By Aragon on May 6, 2008 | Reply
dbradhud
Indeed, my examples assume an objective reality exists. But they are mere examples and are meant to be such.
The importance of the question, “what is reality?”, however, is pertinent. If you purport to know it then you engage in the leap of faith coined by, I think, Keirkegard(sp). As probabilities go you are no more likely to be the product of darwinian evolution than you are to be the product of an uber being or informational processing unit.
But, like you, I conduct my life as if my observations are real as it matters not if they accurately portray reality. However, if I am inquiring into ultimate issues of reality, science, God, then it necessitates an analysis of the very fabric of same. Such analysis necessarily leads to an admission that we just don’t know because all of our observations are mediated, presumably, by physiological senses or some other mediating interface.
You write, “If you want to argue that objective reality doesn’t exist, then you are down the postmodernist rabbit hole and can make up whatever you want to believe in. Just don’t turn around and use that argument to try and argue that some type of supernatural being “really” exists.”
I am not arguing that objective reality does or does not exist. Rather I argue that we have not the ability to discern the true nature of reality. The inferential corollary being that if we cannot discern the true nature of something then that something can take any form, God form included, as any one of an infinite number of possibilities.
Rocks hurt! However, many a skeptic say they beleive in gravity. Of course they’ve never seen it nor can they explain it. The same skeptics say if they can’t see how the mechanism works or don’t see the scientific explanation for same then they do not beleive in it. To them I say, “walk off the nearest cliff”. But, you say, empirically peeps learn gravity exists and therefore there beleif is not irrational. Do you say this?
“Down the Rabbit Hole” I haven’t seen it yet. Was the movie your intended reference?
By dbradhud on May 7, 2008 | Reply
“Down the rabbit hole” was a reference to Alice in Wonderland, although Through the Looking Glass would probably have been more appropriate. Humpty Dumpty says that when he uses a word, it can have any meaning he chooses to give it. That’s the way the postmodern take on reality seems to me.
I guess I don’t distinguish between “reality” and “ultimate issues of reality.” To me, asking “if I drop the rock, will it fall and hit my foot” is the same as asking “Does the Christian God exist” — both are attempts to try and discern the nature of the objective reality that you and I agree exists.
If the question is, “can we know with absolute certainty the nature of reality,” then I think the answer is clear, but trivial. If that were the sole question, then we all have license to believe in whatever we choose, with no ability to distinguish among beliefs.
I think the less trivial question is “can we rationally draw conclusions about the nature of reality based on evidence and experience?” From my example of the rock, I’m sure you can guess my answer. That type knowledge is not absolute, but can differ in strength depending on the evidence.
I also don’t think that all “leaps” are equivalent. The leap required to get to “If I drop the rock, my foot gets hurt” seems to me quite a bit smaller than the leap to “there is a god.”
All that being said, I would not purport to place a percentage chance on the existence of an omnipotent god. Predictions based on experience are meaningless when dealing with a being that can do anything.
By Aragon on May 8, 2008 | Reply
I am sure to be continued under other postings.
I look forward to it.
Thanks for the dialogue
By dbradhud on May 8, 2008 | Reply
LIkewise.
By fishshtick on May 9, 2008 | Reply
Penn, Shermer and others pretty much got it right in my mind with the belief versus knowledge dichotomoy. However, I think they could have stated this view in a more formal fashion (i.e., metaphysical atheistic philosophy versus methodological agnostic practice). Still, the point remains the same.
As much as Popper would have discourage it, if someone wishes to test hypotheses about the supernatural in a scientific framework then they must maintain some methodological agnosticism. The reason for this is simple, to formulate a formal hypothesis test you must allow for both null (there is no supernatural effect) and alternative (there is a supernatural effect) hypotheses. Certainly, it is possible to formulate alternative hypothesis that are not supernatural (that is standard scientific practice as advocated by Popper), but you have to include the supernatural within the full set of hypothetical outcomes or you would not strictly be performing a hypothetico-deductive test of the supernatural. I am not trying to argue for any necessary presence of the supernatural, I am quite staunchly an atheist from a metaphysical standpoint. Rather, I am just pointing out that if someone defines the role of a skeptic as a person who brings science to bear to test and refute supernatural claims, then methodologically, such a person has to approach this problem with some degree of agnosticism.
By Aragon on May 13, 2008 | Reply
Fishshtick:
Lol, I just got done posting to you and referencing the null hypothesis in a different thread and here I find you referencing it.
If I may attempt to sum up what you are saying here. The ultimate skeptic is necessarily agnostic.
BTW do you consider some of the stranger experimental results arising out quantum mechanics to be possible invalidators of naturalistic materialism? May one intuit that there is more to the universe than what we see?
“http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/RealityFrame1.html”.