What Type Of/Which Agnostic/Atheist Do You Dislike The Most.

nesf

Wicknight wrote: »

You are viewing science in an inaccurate fashion.

Science never offers a definite opinion either way on anything

I wasn't clear enough in my post, if they are observable effects that can be measured then science can definitely say that there is some inductive support for a theory/model/whatever or when such effects are predicted but not found science can offer some inductive support for the theory/model being wrong in some way. The problem with unobservable stuff (everything from God to string theory, the distinction between possibly observable with better technology and unobservable by its nature doesn't change the position science at this moment can take) is that neither are testable through the scientific method (I know, a highly loaded term) and strictly not science by some definitions.

It was the distinction between science being able to offer inductive support for or against something rather than the distinction between science confirming something as true or false, that I was trying to get at with the phrase "definite opinion". I was unclear in my original post however, so I appreciate it was likely to be misread.

nesf

Wicknight wrote: »

To say that one is an agnostic when it comes to the certainty of God is to simply state the obvious. Everyone should be an agnostic when it comes to everything. But then the meaning is some what lost.

The issue then becomes what do you judge likely or unlikely, how "certain" are you of something. That is where theism and atheism come in to play. I can say that I do not believe that God exists in the same way that I can say that I do not believe that gravity will reverse in 5 seconds.

That is a valid criticism of agnosticism as a position. I don't have the time to get into this in depth with you but I'd question whether the intial position of agnosticism necessitates the issue of judging to come up. Part of what distinguises an "agnostic" from an "atheist"/"theist" is that the latter feels the need to adopt a position with regard to the existence or non-existence of a deity versus the former's tendency to just ignore the question since they can never have an answer.*


*This is a horribly simplistic distinction to make, at best it's a very rough analogy but I think it gets across what I feel about the difference in the two positions. Essentially, I don't worry about the existence or non-existence of Russell's teapot because I can never have an answer either way.

iUseVi

nesf wrote: »

That is a valid criticism of agnosticism as a position. I don't have the time to get into this in depth with you but I'd question whether the intial position of agnosticism necessitates the issue of judging to come up. Part of what distinguises an "agnostic" from an "atheist"/"theist" is that the latter feels the need to adopt a position with regard to the existence or non-existence of a deity versus the former's tendency to just ignore the question since they can never have an answer.*


*This is a horribly simplistic distinction to make, at best it's a very rough analogy but I think it gets across what I feel about the difference in the two positions. Essentially, I don't worry about the existence or non-existence of Russell's teapot because I can never have an answer either way.

I would disagree on this point. The fact that you cannot have a 100% sure answer either way should not stop you from making a decision one way or the other. Obviously most people would say it it 99.99999% percent likely that there is no teapot. So because of the 0.00001% would you really hesitate to say "there is no teapot/god"? In a sense you cannot be 100% sure about anything, all you have is the best fitting theories of the time. Sure newtons equations are really accurate (> 99%), but when you get close to light speeds..... Whose to say there is not an improvement on Einsteins General theory of Relativity?

In other words, you only really have probabilities for everything you take as fact, albeit very good odds.

Zombrex

nesf wrote: »

That is a valid criticism of agnosticism as a position. I don't have the time to get into this in depth with you but I'd question whether the intial position of agnosticism necessitates the issue of judging to come up. Part of what distinguises an "agnostic" from an "atheist"/"theist" is that the latter feels the need to adopt a position with regard to the existence or non-existence of a deity versus the former's tendency to just ignore the question since they can never have an answer.*


*This is a horribly simplistic distinction to make, at best it's a very rough analogy but I think it gets across what I feel about the difference in the two positions. Essentially, I don't worry about the existence or non-existence of Russell's teapot because I can never have an answer either way.

Well it isn't necessarily that they feel the need to adopt a position, rather that they feel they have enough information to adopt a position.

I understand where you are coming from. An agnositic is a position similar to a position one takes when they do not have sufficent information to take a position either way.

For example if someone asked me "Is Paddy in the meeting today?" in work I would have to respond "I don't know". I don't know who Paddy is, though I assume he is someone who works in the building. I don't know what meeting the person is referring to, though I assume a meeting is taking place. I have no idea if Paddy is or is not in the meeting though. The only reasonable answer is that I have no idea. He could be, he could not be. I lack the information required to form a belief one way other another. I am, in a sense, agnostic to the response of the question being either "Yes" or "No"

On the other hand I feel I have sufficient information to form the believe that the existence of God is rather unlikely to the point where I can say he doesn't exist.

An agnostic with the context of the God question, may feel they are back at the "Is Paddy in the meeting?" stage, they may feel that they simply do not have enough information, or have not spend enough time, considering the question and as such do not hold a definite position either way.

nesf

iUseVi wrote: »

I would disagree on this point. The fact that you cannot have a 100% sure answer either way should not stop you from making a decision one way or the other. Obviously most people would say it it 99.99999% percent likely that there is no teapot. So because of the 0.00001% would you really hesitate to say "there is no teapot/god"? In a sense you cannot be 100% sure about anything, all you have is the best fitting theories of the time. Sure newtons equations are really accurate (> 99%), but when you get close to light speeds..... Whose to say there is not an improvement on Einsteins General theory of Relativity?

In other words, you only really have probabilities for everything you take as fact, albeit very good odds.

I was more getting at the idea agnostic chooses not to take a position because there's no evidence either way (or whatever) not that one shouldn't take the position. My debate with adamd164 for instance wasn't one where I was trying to convince him to be an agnostic, I was only trying to show him why one could follow a logical path to agnosticism. I don't in any way think I'm "right" in the sense that everyone else should agree with me, it's just after giving this a substantial amount of thought I've found myself not seeing why one would need to choose between theism and atheism. I can fully respect the opinions of those who do choose either option but I don't think one should feel compelled to pick one. For me there's a valid third option, that of agnosticism that is often overshadowed by its more vocal twin siblings.

Wicknight wrote: »

An agnostic with the context of the God question, may feel they are back at the "Is Paddy in the meeting?" stage, they may feel that they simply do not have enough information, or have not spend enough time, considering the question and as such do not hold a definite position either way.

I partially disagree with you here, though your analogy is a good one, agnosticism isn't a position that necessarily comes from ignorance of the debate between theism and atheism (though often this is the case), you can have quite a substantially developed position as an agnostic and choose specifically not to be an atheist or theist because you believe the question to be open by its very nature. The choice between atheism and theism for an agnostic can seem like a false dilemma.

iUseVi

nesf wrote:

I was more getting at the idea agnostic chooses not to take a position because there's no evidence either way (or whatever) not that one shouldn't take the position. My debate with adamd164 for instance wasn't one where I was trying to convince him to be an agnostic, I was only trying to show him why one could follow a logical path to agnosticism. I don't in any way think I'm "right" in the sense that everyone else should agree with me, it's just after giving this a substantial amount of thought I've found myself not seeing why one would need to choose between theism and atheism. I can fully respect the opinions of those who do choose either option but I don't think one should feel compelled to pick one. For me there's a valid third option, that of agnosticism that is often overshadowed by its more vocal twin siblings.

You clearly given your position a great deal of thought, and for what it is worth you have at least one internet stranger's respect for that.

I think an issue here worth considering is that of the lack of evidence. You said yourself that: 'there's no evidence either way (or whatever)' and that you think this requires you not to make a 'choice'.

I hate to bore with the same old arguments, but isn't that the whole point of the teapot analogy? The fact that you don't have evidence either way does not mean that something has 50/50 likelyhood and thus you should take a standpoint.
I'm not suggesting that you as a agnostic thinks the likelyhood of the existence of God is 50/50. Neither am I suggesting somobody should have a particular opinion or standpoint on every issue. I would consider myself agnostic on many subjects, for example the existence of ET life.
I suppose I don't think there is much in the difference between evidence for the existence of God and for the existence of ET life, but religion kind of effects the human race here and now. The decision that people make in regards to religion can shape the future of the world. Ok maybe I am being a touch over dramatic!:rolleyes:

I suppose I just consider agnosticism wishy-washy. But no insult intended, perhaps you can prove me wrong on this.

Besides, they are just words! Should there really have to be a word for us who call ourselves atheists?

nesf

iUseVi wrote: »

You clearly given your position a great deal of thought, and for what it is worth you have at least one internet stranger's respect for that.

I think an issue here worth considering is that of the lack of evidence. You said yourself that: 'there's no evidence either way (or whatever)' and that you think this requires you not to make a 'choice'.

I hate to bore with the same old arguments, but isn't that the whole point of the teapot analogy? The fact that you don't have evidence either way does not mean that something has 50/50 likelyhood and thus you should take a standpoint.
I'm not suggesting that you as a agnostic thinks the likelihood of the existence of God is 50/50. Neither am I suggesting somobody should have a particular opinion or standpoint on every issue. I would consider myself agnostic on many subjects, for example the existence of ET life.
I suppose I don't think there is much in the difference between evidence for the existence of God and for the existence of ET life, but religion kind of effects the human race here and now. The decision that people make in regards to religion can shape the future of the world. Ok maybe I am being a touch over dramatic!:rolleyes:

I suppose I just consider agnosticism wishy-washy. But no insult intended, perhaps you can prove me wrong on this.

Besides, they are just words! Should there really have to be a word for us who call ourselves atheists?

No, Russell's teapot analogy makes a hell of a lot more sense if you remember that he was agnostic (kinda)*.

Read this piece by him on the topic, he is far more eloquent than I am: http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm (not that I'm 100% in agreement with him or anything, I just think he puts the answers well and clearly)

The whole point of the teapot is that for an agnostic, you should suspend your judgement in the same manner as to its existence because it is impossible to know the truth of the matter. For an agnostic (in the sense that I am) it doesn't matter what immaterial thing you posit, be it a deity, celestial teapot or the flying spagetti monster, I'm agnostic as to whether they exist or not because I believe it incorrect to make a truth claim either way because the answer is unknowable, at least at the moment. It's not a religious issue but an epistemic one.

Agnostics, at least seriously minded ones who give it a lot of thought, tend to be the kind of people who take truth claims seriously and give serious consideration to what is and is not truth and in what manner is "scientific theory" related to truth. This is a horribly complicated question with a whole plethora of well developed camps and positions, if you think the atheism/agnosticism/theism thing is complicated read an introduction to epistemology.

The thing is, I don't think people should believe what I believe I just post on forums like this every now and then because I believe it's important every so often for committed atheists and theists who enjoy thinking about these things and engaging in debate (the stress is there because I've no right to lecture those who don't want to think about this stuff) that there are a lot of reasons to not take either decision and that the issue isn't as black and white as it can appear when you pick a side and "group think" starts to set in because you tend to only hear the opinions of those for or those against your position. That and I gain a better understanding of my position and it's faults and strengths from debating with people and I hope they get the same.



*Edit: Russell had trouble deciding whether or not he was an agnostic or an atheist. This quote sums it up:

Bertrand Russell wrote:

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Full Text: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm


When I talk about "agnostics" I'm really getting at what Russell is talking about here. To the ordinary man on the street, I'm effectively an atheist but when talking to someone familiar with philosophy in this area, I'm very much an agnostic. The thing is, on this forum I'm wearing my philosopher's hat generally, if you get what I mean and if I've the free time I enjoy debating the issue with people.


Edit2: The big problem with discussing this stuff is that taking the position of an agnostic makes a whole load of sense to people who are into philosophy because the appreciate the other implicit positions that are taken with such a position. The issue with the "man on the street" is that they view it as a question in isolation where to someone like me it's just a follow on question after you've given a lot of thought to epistemology and what this whole truth thing and science is about. The problem is that it's hard to talk about this stuff clearly without descending into a load of jargon which is unhelpful on a forum like this and I don't really have the time to put a lot of effort into my posts other than to throw together whatever comes into my head so I don't do a very good job at making clear the distinctions I'm trying to draw (ie I don't approach posts on here in the same manner as I'd approach a piece of academic work simply because that would mean days between responses and I've like a life and stuff ).

iUseVi

nesf wrote:

The thing is, I don't think people should believe what I believe I just post on forums like this every now and then because I believe it's important every so often for committed atheists and theists who enjoy thinking about these things and engaging in debate (the stress is there because I've no right to lecture those who don't want to think about this stuff) that there are a lot of reasons to not take either decision and that the issue isn't as black and white as it can appear when you pick a side and "group think" starts to set in because you tend to only hear the opinions of those for or those against your position. That and I gain a better understanding of my position and it's faults and strengths from debating with people and I hope they get the same.

I would agree!:D

nesf wrote:

Edit2: The big problem with discussing this stuff is that taking the position of an agnostic makes a whole load of sense to people who are into philosophy because the appreciate the other implicit positions that are taken with such a position. The issue with the "man on the street" is that they view it as a question in isolation where to someone like me it's just a follow on question after you've given a lot of thought to epistemology and what this whole truth thing and science is about. The problem is that it's hard to talk about this stuff clearly without descending into a load of jargon which is unhelpful on a forum like this and I don't really have the time to put a lot of effort into my posts other than to throw together whatever comes into my head so I don't do a very good job at making clear the distinctions I'm trying to draw (ie I don't approach posts on here in the same manner as I'd approach a piece of academic work simply because that would mean days between responses and I've like a life and stuff ).

I would agree on this also! (mostly) I have a slightly differing opinion, but then thats what opinions are for. I'm glad to see there really are other people out there in Ireland who have put a lot of thought into it and have come out with basically the same view.

Zombrex

nesf wrote: »

I partially disagree with you here, though your analogy is a good one, agnosticism isn't a position that necessarily comes from ignorance of the debate between theism and atheism (though often this is the case), you can have quite a substantially developed position as an agnostic and choose specifically not to be an atheist or theist because you believe the question to be open by its very nature. The choice between atheism and theism for an agnostic can seem like a false dilemma.

Well possibly, though I don't really follow how someone could seriously consider the issue properly and remain agnostic, but that is probably because I consider the evidence for the atheist position to be rather over whelming. I am after all an atheist

nesf

Wicknight wrote: »

Well possibly, though I don't really follow how someone could seriously consider the issue properly and remain agnostic, but that is probably because I consider the evidence for the atheist position to be rather over whelming. I am after all an atheist

Indeed.

But debating this would be no fun if it was a simple and straightforward question.