Just How atheist are you?

Post Reply New Topic

Welcome!

I'm agnostic: because I think that it is impossible to prove if there is or there is no God. But I think, that evolution exists (and humans are primates) and there was the Big Bang.

Taking this in conjunction with z0rp's octopus comment, I think it comes down to whether or not someone is being honest with the themselves about the situation. No one can present contrary evidence to something that doesn't exist. How do you disprove that octopus, for example? Or an invisible dragon that someone makes up on the spot? How does one disprove god(s)? But those proposing the idea need to demonstrate positive, affirming evidence that weighs heavily in favor of their claim. And that is simply lacking. There are billions of people on this planet who believe in some supernatural being. All of them are rather motivated, I'd think, to provide affirming, relatively objective evidence to support their beliefs, too. And for all the centuries of time, for all the motivations of many, many people, the political and military and other values that might be gained from making such affirming demonstrations, there is nothing. At all. Just their belief is all that exists. If one is being honest about the weight of evidence -- a complete lack of positive, affirming evidence and a reliance upon our ignorance to make a case, rather than knowledge -- the conclusions are rather obvious. Of course, one might argue that it is too soon to conclude. Yeah, right. Like, let's see. The idea of Christianity, for example, has seen civilizations come and go, the entire advent of the development of modern science and all of its advances over the last roughly 400 years including everything from quantum mechanics, to evolution and the discovery of DNA, to rockets into space, etc... And not a hint of one piece of affirming evidence is to be found after so much depth and breadth has been gained? When would be enough time to conclude? Another millennia? Two?

Being honest with one's self about the weight of the state of affairs demands a conclusion, I think. It's not a scientific conclusion because, quite simply, there is no sufficient definition by those who believe in their superstitions about what exactly they _do_ think that can be examined by science. One's belief in their superstition can ever recede and scurry to some unknown reach of science, so there is no possibility of laying the idea to rest as a matter of science. And ultimately, no matter how much we do learn, there will always be so much more we don't know where this idea can go hide.

But our continual state of ignorance doesn't make such a belief true.

This is just about very human desires. Not reality. If you are truly being honest with yourself, and I'm not saying that it is easy to do for everyone, the fact of the situation isn't a big step to take. A remote mathematical possibility does not accumulate into a real probability. Taking the obvious conclusion isn't a sign of bravery. It's just being honest with one's self. Agnostics, I think, are either avoiding debate of any kind by refusing to take a position or else not being honest with themselves. Either way, a bit cowardly so.

Jon

Right. Just as the theists know for a fact that there is a god.



I'm quite familiar with this argument (though I believe Skeptic magazine referred to a floating teapot instead of an octopus). I've considered this stance, and I admit my rebuttal is best said by Carl Sagan.

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

In other words, I am an atheist in regards to a traditional god, as a superman who sits in the sky and watches over us, but I am agnostic in regards to a more pantheistic entity.

jonk: Your epistemological standards aren't necessarily "right". Militant agnostics can be just as aggressive as strong atheists; we are not weak.

Seconded.

Why should I be forced to make a decision if I do not recognize adequate evidence for either side? To be honest, the blatant admittance of ignorance in a debate rife with unbacked-yet-definitive claims of "knowledge" seems to be the opposite of cowardly. I'm not going to take a position simply for the sake of taking a side. That's just silly.

Not really, I could argue that being very sure that God doesn't exist could sound like arrogance. I prefer to not make any conclusion because we don't have a solid evidence for disproving it. Having said that, my view on this is, God may or may not exist, my answer is: "I don't know, maybe". I think I may fall into "empirical agnosticism".

Well to me, there is no sense in searching for evidence of the nonexistence of something. What do you want me to do? Comb the very edges of the universe in order to ensure that the said something really doesn't exist? That's foolish. Burden of proof lies on the positive claim. I do however believe that the explanations put forth by science are backed up by much more than "adequate" evidence. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence, waterfalls of it. The explanations put forth by religion, however, are either disproved or else not even applicable to science, making them nothing more than superstition. Clinging to shreds of mere mathematical possibility --not even tantalizing hints of true scientific evidence-- does not constitute a reasonable amount of evidence to justify remaining on the fence. In short: there is a difference between being agnostic in the technical sense (i.e., due to inductive reasoning, we don't "know" everything) and being agnostic in the sense that there truly is reasonable room for doubt. To me, it is abundantly clear that there is no room for doubt. God does not exist. Any metaphysical forces do not exist.

However, the debate over whether or not there is a PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED for the irrational belief in a god or other metaphysical force is a COMPLETELY different story . An idea can be irrational but still necessary or even beneficial to existence, in my opinion. You just can't run around saying that it is "correct." It is, given all evidence, "wrong." It is not and never will be scientifically "true." But it can be psychologically/socially necessary, nonetheless.

Burden of proof is a dialectical convenience, not a logical reality.

The desire for a clear-cut dichotomous stance on every proposition is silly and lazy to me. If you don't know something, don't pretend like you do. You can't assign probabilities to a transcendent entity: it is not supposed to act within our universe. Doing so is absolute nonsense. Likewise, belief=>proof is a non-evidence based epistemological axiom, and as a consequence is not something which you can argue. I don't have to believe it, and as long as I don't start doing something stupid, the universe isn't going to kick me in the butt, so telling me I have to believe it is just as much a priori whimsy. You believe because you want to believe it, not because it has any relevance to the universe of our senses.



7. Whereof man cannot speak, thereof he must remain silent.
Maybe big W didn't have this in mind, but I like it.

PS: Welcome to WP. I can come off as very combative on the PPR forum. Try not to let it get to you

I hadn't turned on my rigorous philosopher hat for my discussion and I'm just not wanting to engage at that level, right now. My intent in writing that sentence, really, was a cheap, low-cost way to get others to provide some counter-evidence about it. I didn't have the time or energy to sit there and try and come up with a comprehensive statement, but figured I'd get some comments pretty quick to help fill it out.

In any case, I agree that there are aggressive agnostics. I just have a pretty good feel for science (I work in some close aspect of the field every day) and pretty much understand what "no affirming evidence" tends to mean, as a practical matter. And if agnostics aren't willing to state the obvious about it, I'm willing to step in.

Jon

Burden of proof shifts over time with the accumulation of evidence and knowledge. (I don't like the inclusion of the word 'proof' in the phrase, but I'll discuss that in a second.)

If I say it rained yesterday here in northern Oregon, for example, it's quite a reasonable statement to make at this time of year and this area. One would need very little by way of "burden of proof" to tentatively accept it -- even my say-so might be enough for most folks to go with it. Certainly, a news clipping stating it would be enough. Then the burden would shift to someone who disagreed, since I'd made a reasonable case about a reasonable and normal claim. Of course, different venues might make a difference. If I were making this statement in a court of law and if the facts of the matter affected materially the case itself, the parties might ask for more than one news clipping or my say-so.

When someone is making supernatural claims, though, that proceed beyond normal, everyday experiences we all share often, the burden is rationally placed first upon the claimant -- not first upon those choosing to remain unconvinced.

It's a very practical, rational stand to take. Nothing magical. Before I can be bothered to waste _my_ scarce and valuable time trying to find out if that invisible dragon you claim exists in your shed, you first need to make a good case -- a weighty case -- that in fact this unusual circumstance is worthy of it. Hence, the very reasonable requirement for the burden of proof (I prefer to say that this is really the "initial burden of evidence and reasoning") lays upon the claimant in such cases. Not because there is some provable sequence of logic and close axioms by which we can demonstrate that such burden exists there, but quite simply because... why in the heck should anyone bother to care in a case like this if the claimant themselves cannot be bothered to make a good case in the first place?

Just a practical reality, actually. And reasonable and rational. I don't like the term to include "proof" because that isn't what really is sought. It's really more a matter of satisfying a very reasonable burden of evidence to make a case before others start spending their own valuable and scarce time on it. Depending on the type, scope, and nature of the claim, the amount of that evidence varies. When it is sufficiently met, then part of the burden may shift to those who disagree. For example, the weight of evidence in support of the general theory of gravitation is now so overwhelmingly provided over the years that those who disagree with that claim have the burden, today. Most of it, anyway. Of course, that doesn't stop proponents from continuing to imagine new ways to test the idea and from doing some additional work that will either contribute even more making those opposing it having just that much more to overcome or else perhaps adding a caveat or two to the idea.

Agreed, I think. Anyway, that's a good note to leave on.

Jon

Last edited by jonk on 31 Jan 2008, 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

What evidence would you consider adequate, oh Phagocyte, for those disagreeing with my claim of an invisible dragon here in my house?

I mean, let's grant that I don't have any evidence at all in support of my claim but simply make the claim. But certainly, no else has any evidence to dispel my claim, either! So tell me, sir. May I take it that you'd be agnostic because, to paraphrase your words, "neither side has adequate evidence?"

How silly of you.

Jon

I'm agnostic-atheist. I don't believe in the Christian God. I don't believe there's a personal God.

How was the universe created? Was the universe even created? If there was a beginning, who or what started it? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe the universe has always been and it is cyclic(Big Bang), or maybe scientists are wrong about the universe expanding, maybe it's just mini cycles or something. Maybe there was a creator god or gods, maybe they had a beginning and an end or maybe they exist outside our universe and have always existed. I don't know, I'm not interested enough to make such answers a life endeavor.

What I decided long ago, and still find true enough as it goes, is that a great many very smart people have tried to examine questions like these with very little real effect in terms of improving our knowledge on the subject and that I have very little chance of doing any better than they. The questions themselves are likely flawed, though.

By the way, as I'm only starting down the path of learning the math regarding m-theory, one interesting thought has arisen from the study so far. It's almost as though some of the extra dimensions act as error-correction dimensions -- they seem to relate in that way and may "repair" momentary flaws due to fluctuations. I can get into a little more detail, but I'll hold off unless there is interest in the details. It just struck me as an odd thought while reading some material a year ago, which is why I mention it at all.

Also, some may wish to look at proposals on "closed timelike curves." These have been used to propose an alternate way around a singular big bang event while still having things look very much like one. I haven't spent much time studying the rest of the math, but the introduction in one paper I looked at started out with the very familiar Minkowski space, so it was easy reading long enough to get the general idea. Of course, I haven't thought deeply about any of this.

Jon

I am an atheist. But I do not like the title.

It is a handy title for the fact that I do not subscribe to the belief in the supernatural. For not only do I not believe in a god, I don't believe in any supernatural elements. I don't believe in things like "lucky socks," or blowing on dice will make them come up sevens, or if someone is born in a certain month it will decide their personality or daily incidents, or if I wish really really hard I might just make an outcome turn out in my favour... or any other kooky claims without evidence.

Because "god" is on the same order. I believe in existence. And the important distinction between atheists and agnostics is not "emphasis" as has been mentioned earlier. Agnostics claim to have not made up their minds because god is unknowable. Atheists claim that god does not exist because there has been NO evidence to support the proposition.

Atheists have made a decision based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. Agnostics refrain from decision and are giving god the benefit of the doubt. No matter what they may say about the matter in discourse, the fundamental difference is that willingness to make a decision.

Me? I despise agnostics as sniveling fence sitters who are unwilling to look at reality and declare one way or the other. Because for all their polemics there is no justification for the assertion that there isn't enough evidence.

As for atheists... our ally is reality, and a powerful ally it is!

Strong agnostic. I don't know, and you don't either.