Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

Contra,As someone who would class himself as an Agnostic, I'd like to say a few words.You may have seen me sum up my feelings elsewhere but in case you haven't, I'll sum them up here. I, like you, have come to the conclusion that: But also, like you, Part of the reason for me classifying myself as an agnostic is that I would like to openly admit this tentativeness.The other part of it is to admit that there is so much about the universe that we do not know. There may be UFOs, or Godlike entities somewhere in existance and my position accepts that, all the while announcing that I'm not going to base any actions on these unproven possibilities, and I would challenge others that do.So while you like to define agnosticism purely from this point of view: You could just as easily take the description from the man who (I believe) coined the term: Although not exactly the position I hold, I don't see how this is intellectually lazy, or ant type of fence sitting cowardice, and certainly it's not dogmatic. It is actually quite a strong position to argue with believers from, and emphasises the value of evidence just as much as (if not more than) declaring yourself to be an atheist. *Shamelessly nicked from here

That would be true if that where I was coming from. My position is: Not all propositions are equal. I try to clarify.Propositions like the existance of God (and the actions I take from them) are considered by looking at evidence first. If something has no evidence (like the possibility of some kind of God) I'm not going to act on it, but if it has no evidence contrary to it, I'm not going to dismiss it as a possibility.On the other hand there are many things connected with religious texts for example that we can test and falsify to a huge degree with evidence (the EvC debate is a great example of this), and I change my opinions appropriately.This is what I mean when I say that emphasis is placed on evidence, and why I think it is a strong position when people are justifying something based on faith- it challenges them to do the same.So don't confuse this position with a blind acceptance of any doctrine that people can throw at me, and don't think I am some kind of wishy washy fence-sitter, who will declare that we can't make a judgement on anything. I do accept that there is a possibility of some kind of God, but people better back it up with evidence.Hope that makes sense.

Hi Q,Thanks for the input. True, if you are going to act according to that claim then you are going to have to back it up with positive evidence. It's what makes agnosticism (at least my particular brand of it) more or less equivalent to atheism on a practical level. I'm as critical of things done in the name of an unproven God as the next faithless man. The difference between my position and an atheist's is (I suspect) that I would like to emphasise the quality of doubt.I have been wandering around declaring myself to be an agnostic for a while now, but a couple of years ago I read the transcripts from a series of lectures by Richard Feynman on "the impact of science on man's ideas in other fields" (In a book called the meaning of it all) and it seemed to crystalise my feelings on the subject. Here's a little bit that (I hope) sums up what I'm trying to say:

quote:

---

If we were not able to or did not desire to look in any new direction, if we did not have a doubt or recognise ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain.

---

Feynman then went on to explain how he thought this kind of approach can be useful in other aspects of life. While he classified himself as an atheist, I think that the best way to describe this approach is agnosticism.How sure that there is a God interferring in the lives of men?
Pretty darn sureHow sure am I that the bible isn't true?
I will take a lot of evidence to show me otherwiseCan I write off the possibility of some kind of God?
Don't know enough to call itSo I would argue that it is not tantamount to equivocation at all, merely an acknowledgment that everything has to stand up to the same scrutiny in relation to the evidence.Hope that hasn't confused the matter even more

Hello, Ah! Sorry - should have made that more obvious. I'm not exactly the most clear and concise at the best of times and at the momemt I've got a headful of cold - so bear with me.The reason I didn't completely agree with Huxley's description was that it seemed a bit too absolute in itself, bordering on solipsism, and that didn't leave much room for further investigation and discovery.I've tried to redefine my agnosticism in my reply Q, but I fear I might have muddied the waters even more - Ho hum.

I think the way I've described my position is what might be causing the confusion here. I've justified it both as a way of describing the process of analysing the world (tentativeness) and as a conclusion I have come to via that process. Clear as mud I'm sure Let me try again.Starting with the tentativeness thing:Scientific theories are all held tenatively, yes? From evolution to the theory of relativity, they all have the invisible disclaimer "unless new evidence says otherwise". They all have to take every explanation into account in relation to the evidence.After consideration not all proposals are said to be of equal merit, and some would require ridiculous amounts of evidence to seriously think about, but no possibility should ever be totally discarded. This is not posture, or reliance on hearsay, it's a logical way of looking at things and it is an effective safegurd against dogma.The other part of my definition is based on this method of analysis, and I think is probably the clearer idea of the two (even if many people disagree with it):I don't think I know enough to declare confidently that there is no God(s). However, as there is no evidence of one I'm going act on things I can observe.Is that better?

Hi Q,I’ve been meaning to reply for ages but stuff always conspired to get in my way. True. There does seem to be only a gnat’s whisker between my position and others who would describe themselves as atheists. This may be partially because I backed into the world of agnosticism from the atheist side of things. I would agree that the ‘there is always doubt’ part of my statements does amount to to *ahem* ‘metaphysical masturbation’ in this respect.The probability of a white bearded omnipotent being knocking on my door and explaining that it planted all of the fossils, rearranged the DNA and messed around with the laws of physics is so miniscule that it doesn’t really deserve thinking about. Emphasising that there is an element of doubt is still an important part of my
position though because it effectively says: I realise that this is indeed the attitude taken by many atheists so it probably comes down to which arbitary label people prefer. I think agnostic best sums up this point of view. I think this is probably where the difference is between us. It is important to be able to separate individual claims by religions and the idea of 'God'. It is true that God has been proffered as an explanation for loads of things in the past, and once it became possible to test these claims they have been discarded because of powerful counter-evidence. I don’t, however, think this history is enough to say that Is it God? is an invalid question.Specific claims have to be tested with specific evidence. I don’t see how evidence debunking a sun-chariot or a global flood can be used to disprove a claim that ‘God’ somehow is involved in the complicated running of the universe (extremely wishy-washy I know but run with it ). If we don’t have the information to test it then the only thing we can do is leave the possibility open and say I don’t know, let’s wait and see.Of course for ‘God’ to be tested in such a way, how he/she/it has an effect on the universe has to be defined properly (that’s another ugly can of worms to open), and the ‘waiting and seeing’ is not an excuse for ‘God-of-the-gaps’ type arguments either. If something cannot be tested (either because it’s too vague or because the data needed is not available) then no conclusions can be made either way, and no actions should be taken on it — it remains a quaint little idea to be filed in the part of my brain labelled That’s nicewhat’s for dinner?.Ooook!Agnosticism’s attack dog

I'm sorry but I have to ask you for the correct paperwork!Old Mrs Patterson from down the road had her telly nicked when she let in someone claiming to be Ganesh (I told her she should always check for false arms and trunks).Proof of omnipotency please!