An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

The question is: what is so wrong with the agnostic position?

Looking at the basic decision making process we see:

                 question                                                        
                    |                                                            
        is there sufficient valid                                                
     information available to decide                                             
       |                        |                                                
      yes                       no                                               
       |                        |                                                
   decide based               is a                                               
   on empirical             decision                                             
  objective valid            necessary?                                          
     evidence               /         \                                          
      (A)                yes          no ... but ...                             
                         /            |            |                             
                      decide         why         make a                          
                     based on       decide      decision                         
                    inadequate      at this      anyway ... while ... claiming   
                     evidence        time?      based on              to have    
                      =guess         =wait       opinion              evidence   
                        (B)           (C)          (D)                   (E)     

When we have sufficient objective empirical evidence on a question to make an informed conclusion based on logic, we can end up at (A).

When we do not have sufficient objective empirical evidence on a question, the logical position is (C) - we don't know, and we'll need to wait for new information or investigate to see if we can determine new information.

If one is forced to make a decision on inadequate information, (B), then all they have to rely on is the information that is available, their worldview, life experiences and biases. It is a personal subjective "best guess" based on available information and opinion.

Next, if one is not forced to make a decision, but makes one anyway, in spite of the evidence being insufficient, then the decision is neither logical nor evidence based, it is not rational.

Finally, if one claims to have evidence, but cannot demonstrate the evidence necessary to end up and (A), then they are making an irrational claim, because it is neither logical nor properly informed by objective empirical evidence.

rational -adj

1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem
2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable
Collins English Dictionary - 10th Edition ©2009

To focus the discussion further we can use these broad descriptions of possible positions in the spectrum of beliefs:

Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position) Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position) Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position) Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position) Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position) Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position) Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)

Where the validity of the logic on it's own (with no supporting evidence) was tested as follows:

Compare: • any X with no contradictory evidence is possibly true • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) can be true to: • any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) is absolutely true OR: • any X with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) is more likely true than false If the logical form is true for any X then it is true for Y, now let Y = notX: • any Y with no contradictory evidence is possibly true • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) can be true == notX(a) can be true ... ... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached. (3), (4) and (5) fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence. versus: • any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) is absolutely true == notX(a) is absolutely true ... ... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void. As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. (1) and (7) fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments. OR: • any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false == notX(a) is more likely true than false ... ... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void. As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. (2) and (6) fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.

Thus holding (1), (2), (6) or (7) positions without having sufficient evidence to reach an informed (A) conclusion is irrational, if not delusional (especially in the case of (1) or (7), claiming absolute knowledge). It is assuming something is true where that is not known, or it is pretending to know something is true where that is not known.

For the sake of completeness, when we talk about evidence we need to distinguish evidence that is suggestive from evidence that is compelling. Evidence that is suggestive (a subjective position) can lead to level II concepts, while evidence that is compelling is required to reach level III concepts.

RAZD's Concept Scale Zero to Low Confidence Concepts No evidence, subjective or objective, No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible Hypothetical discussion possible Low to Medium Confidence Concepts Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence (with opinion and personal biases also involved), No known contradictory evidence, Nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence, Medium to High Confidence Concepts Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and No known contradictory evidence Nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

I've expanded this part a bit from before, adding in onfre's hypothetical concept discussion where I think it fits, and making it more of a spectrum than hard and fast categories.

The concept of gravitons would fit in level II, in my opinion, while the existence of gravity is in level III.

That should about cover it.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spacing, colors

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added notice at end

Edited by RAZD, : fixed scale format

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.

It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".

If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

I'll regard attempts at dismissing the theory without accepting the debate proposition as empty rhetoric and cowardice.

You seem to be conflating wholly subjective conclusions with empirically evidenced possibilities.

No, it is an amusing assertion of your belief, based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and several logical fallacies.

Nor, interestingly, is it in any way validated by the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence is only evidence of an absence of evidence that is perceived as such. There could be evidence right in front of you, but because you do not perceive it as evidence you do not see it.

Nor, curiously, is it in any way validated by unsupported claims such as "no supernatural beings can exist" ... it can only be validated by comprehensive objective empirical valid evidence that demonstrates once and for all that no god/s can exist.

Calling it a "strong theory" doesn't make it so. What you have is wishful thinking and confirmation bias coupled to the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

You get your wish.

Which you certainly need to do, having just just made a positive (and rather extraordinary) claim that absolutely no god/s can exist.

Of course my participation will only involve showing the errors and poor logic in your argument/s, and I bear absolutely no burden to substantiate my personal position/s in this proposed debate: the sole focus would be on your attempt/s to show objective empirical evidence that shows - once and for all - that no god/s can possibly exist, because

... ie, that there are absolutely no actual supernatural beings, because all the concepts are made up, imaginary fictions.

Interestingly, it now appears that you have given up on equivocating on being an "category (6) atheist that is really an agnostic" (which was a contradiction in terms demonstrated previously), and moved on to being a (7):

Categories of Belief

1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)

Moving from irrational, in my humble opinion, to delusional ... unless you can show objective empirical evidence that shows that no god/s can possibly exist.

This is what you have claimed:

... ie, that there are absolutely no actual supernatural beings, because all the concepts are made up, imaginary fictions.

As I would regard your absolute failure to address the (on topic) issue of why agnosticism is not the most logically consistent position, as is amply demonstrated in Indeed, Why Not Agnostic? (Message 166), if I were inclined to employ the logical fallacy of implied consequences.

Enjoy.

Note that bluegenes was off-topic and this reply is off-topic, so no further replies should be made here.

Edited by RAZD, : off topic

If I were desperate to be noticed, I'd probably be posting lots of very long posts full of unsupported assertions and containing bright coloured boxes with tables and lists, plus segments of text in multi-coloured writing.

Wrong, as usual, and an attempt at evasion that moderators might note. The theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination is very relevant to a discussion on agnosticism, and particularly to degrees of agnosticism in relation to gods and other supernatural beings.

More waffle. Exactly how we see creationists attempt to deal with strong theories. "You're biased. It's your world view". That's a pathetic way of ignoring the evidence.

It's a strong theory, and explains, amongst many other things, why you can never present a scrap of positive evidence for your deity. Direct question time.

Do you agree that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings? Yes or No?

You really don't understand scientific theories and positive evidence. It is validated by the evidence of the chronic tendency of human beings to make up supernatural beings. I can present this evidence.

Wrong. Try to learn the difference between scientific theories and logical proofs of the kind that only apply internally in systems of formal logic and maths. Evolutionary theory does not conclusively"prove" that all species come into existence via its mechanisms. That's impossible. It offers the best explanation of the data, and demonstrates that it's very unlikely that the species we observe came into existence by non-evolutionary means.

My theory is an explanatory theory of supernatural beings or supernatural beings concepts, and points out their only known origin. It cannot conclusively disprove your unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that a real one can exist, just as evolutionary theory cannot conclusively disprove the unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that one or more species might have come into existence by magic.

You supernaturalists should present positive evidence for such assertions in order for them to be considered anything other than very improbable.

Why do you need to make things up? People can read what I said in the post above. I will demonstrate that your belief in gods is just as unlikely as a belief that there are baby rabbits that aren't born from adult rabbits. Neither claim is falsifiable.

My claim is that it is very unlikely that gods exist. As explained, scientific theories and laws aren't logical proofs.

I'll illustrate to you where you go wrong in attempting to take unfalsifiable propositions about the real world into the area of formal logic in a vacuum of evidence.

Take the proposition "some theists can know if god exists". This relates to position (1) on your scale, and it cannot be proved or disproved. So, in your way of thinking, you can fit it in as "X" in your little "logic" exercise. Try it, and you come up with the conclusion that it is possible, from which you then have to decide that being an uncommitted agnostic "4" on the proposition is the most "logical" position by your method.

Then take the proposition that "there is an old sage somewhere in the world who knows the secrets of the universe, and knows that there are no gods." Again, it cannot be proven or disproven, so put it in your exercise as "X", and the same applies, so you end up as an uncommitted agnostic on whether or not someone can know that there are no gods.

You will get different conclusions from different unfalsifiable statements, and end up an uncommitted agnostic on all of them.

Try it with "Satan is manipulating RAZD's mind". See what I mean. Now you're uncommitted on everything, except uncommitted agnosticism.

This might help you understand why it is science that is used to sort out reality, and why logic and maths are tools of science, but do not sort out questions about the real world on their own.

Of course you will avoid presenting positive evidence for your position, because you can't.

And of course you will try to pretend that the burden of proof is on me to falsify your unsupported assertion that gods can exist. The point about "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is that it's phrased so that it's falsifiable, and therefore cannot be a "proof", but is support of my position that:

"I cannot know whether there are gods or not, but I think it's very unlikely."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Enjoy the attention.

Until you learn the difference between the two, and why it is that evidenced based conclusions are necessarily and inherently uncertain to some extent, you are doomed to forever misrepresent and misunderstand.

Betrand Russel writes:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

Proposed New Topics
 Great Debate  the bluegenes Challenge

It is time for you to defend your theory, and any attempt by you to turn the table is just you dodging and equivocating on your position.

Enjoy.

Sorry. Insisting that everybody but you has to do the legwork, while all you have to do is imagine, isn't compelling or convincing.

But how do you know that?
Satan could be manipulating your mind to force you to think this. By the definitions and terms of your own argument you cannot dismiss this unfalsified possibility. You cannot even consider it improbable. By the terms of your own argument you must remain absolutely agnostic towards the possibility that any conviction you have in the validity of your own argument is the result of Satan's influence on your mind. Thus, by the terms and definitions of your own argument, you cannot even have any confidence in the validity of your own argument.

Satan's ongoing influence will of course preclude you from accepting this rather damning and self defeating fact.

I look forward to your Great Debate with Bluegenes. It should be fun.

1) People have a right to assign labels to themselves rather than have labels assigned to them, yet are asked to explain and defend their arguments in forums such as this one.

2) As a self professed believer, I have chosen the label because I feel that belief is a healthy part of holistic health. I cannot know that God exists, and I choose not to claim enough evidence that He does not, based on my world view.

3) Strong atheists, such as Straggler and/or Crashfrog seem to force people to accept the logic of atheism as a sane choice.

Comments?

But what do you think the evidence says about the actual existence of gods as compared to the concept of god(s) as a product of the human mind?

In the case of gods which are "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s" Message 225 how is it even possible that such a concept can have originated as a result of anything but the internal workings of the human mind?

Is it in any way possible?

Edited by Phat, : added point

I'm not sure why you replied to that particular post of mine, Phat, as it was about defining agnosticism. However, I'll leave it to the two members you mentioned to reply directly to your points, if you don't mind.

I will comment that you seem to be one of EvC's nicest members, so whatever it is you believe doesn't seem to be doing a great deal of harm!

Then I really don't think you and I have much to debate.

Indeed. And the sort of reasons you mention are the sort of very human reasons for belief which I bring up with those who insist:

A) That their gods are evidenced by virtue of subjective experiences of some sort.

OR

B) That there is not, and can never be, any relevant evidence because gods are unknowable.

It is these people I end up fundamentally disagreeing with.

Of course it is possible. It is possible that those who have religious experiences have some sort of non-empirical god detecting 6th sense that is itself wholly unknowable. It is even possible that by some miracle of co-incidence the specific imperceptible object of someones imagination could actually exist.

But if we start talking about what is possible......... Well do you understand why the discussion inevitably turns to Unicorns, Fairies, dragons, Santa etc. etc. etc? Why it is that the possibility of religious experiences being caused by magic moonbeams is just as valid as the possibility that they are caused by gods? And ultimately why it is that we need to differentiate between that which is philosophically possible and that which is evidentially supported.