Pseudoskepticism and logic

Most atheists are agnostics, RAZD, and there is certainly no burden of proof on us. Atheists who claim to know that there are no gods are rare birds. Two of the people quoted in your O.P. on the subject of "pseudo-skeptics" are anti-religious atheists, and one of them would probably regard you as suffering from a meme, and the other might well see you as a true pseudo-skeptic; a critic of genuine skeptics.So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, your O.P. suggests, and the burden of proof in relation to supernatural beings of any kind lies with those who believe in them.If you choose to describe yourself as an agnostic/deist, fine, but you must remember that any mention of belief in "subjective evidence" or any kind of personal experience in relation to gods would automatically remove your agnostic qualifications by definition. Agnostic theists exist as a definition, but can only believe via Faith alone, and presumably cannot know what they're believing in, which I find hilarious.Agnostic atheists require no Faith, for the same reason that it requires no faith not to believe in fairies, banshees or Djinns. Evidence-wise, gods share the same status as those three. Agnostics should agree on this.

You seem to think that when an evidence-less proposition which cannot be disproved is suggested that it should be treated as a 50/50 proposition. You do realise that omphalism fits that description, don't you? The only "personal beliefs about reality" required not to believe in fairies is that I know of no evidence that would lead me to do so. So, I'm agnostic about them because I cannot know their existential state, and I'm an "a-fairiest" because there's no reason to believe in them unless positive evidence crops up. Same with gods. Same with omphalism. Look at my personal beliefs (that there's currently no evidence for fairies and gods) and think of your own. The equal and opposite equivalent would be that you do believe there's evidence for gods. What is it?Remember that they do not reasonably become 50/50 propositions without it unless fairies and omphalism do.That last is a problem for you when you argue against creationists.

Again, your problem here is your own bias in favour of evidence-less propositions. Where are you on the one to seven scale on the proposal of omphalism?As for your "objective measure", it confirms the point I made; that most atheists are agnostics, because categories 2 to 6 are agnostic by definition (they recognise that they do not or cannot know). Wishful thinking. Of course I don't agree.Agnosticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable. It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.

---

"6" specifically includes the agnostic statement "I cannot know for certain". It couldn't be clearer.So, you made the O.P.Which categories on the 1 to 7 scale are pseudo-skeptics? Have the "sevens" refused and/or failed to investigate the god in the question? Or have they investigated an evidence-less proposition just as thoroughly as anyone can? Is it any more likely that they have approached the question with preconceptions than those in the 1 to 3 categories, who seem willing to selectively believe in one proposition without evidence when they wouldn't believe in most others?Edited by bluegenes, : typos

For the same reason that you find your negative position on omphalism reasonable.Where are you on a 1 to 7 scale of belief in omphalism, RAZD? I'm a six. By your reasoning, that makes me a pseudo-skeptic.My reasoning is that there's no evidence for the proposition, and overwhelming evidence of the human tendency to invent such things. The same goes for gods.Of all the human supernatural beliefs, not one single one has ever been confirmed, making any individual supernatural proposition extremely unlikely. With gods, we know that so many mutually exclusive gods have been and are believed in, so that we can say with surety that any random god proposal coming from any human being is much more likely to be false than true. This is obvious.So, I repeat, where are you on a scale of 1 to 7 on omphalism?The other point very important to the topic that needs to be made is that you don't seem to want to understand what agnosticism is. Whether applied to gods or more broadly, it's the recognition that you cannot know something for sure. It is not a measure of likelihood, so that someone who is a 6 out of 7 on the question of the existence of 7 inch high piebald gnomes who shit gold is agnostic and isn't a "pseudo-skeptic".

Hi RAZD I'm complimenting you in suggesting it's a six. It isn't necessary to defend a negative position when there's no evidence for the positive, as my omphalism example should illustrate. There's no ad hominem in my post (do quote). Pointing out your contradictions in relation to this topic isn't ad hom. Ironically, your last sentence actually is an ad hominem of sorts, and one of the most common and funniest that occurs on internet discussion boards. Figure it out. Empirical evidence for the invention of things like omphalism, you mean? Sure. Last Thursdayism and YEC omphalism are mutually exclusive, so one or both must be invented.Or gods, did you mean? Sure. A "one true god" who gave his final word to Mohammed, and a "one true god" who did not give his final word to Mohammed are mutually exclusive, so one or both must be invented.Within one religion, people believe in many different mutually exclusive gods. For example, the one true Christian god who condemns homosexuals to hell is a different god from the one true Christian who loves homosexuals and welcomes them to his church. One or both must be human inventions.But let's get on to another way of illustrating to you that your claims about what is and isn't pseudo skepticism have obvious problems. Here are some god proposals which we cannot know to be true or false (meaning you think that they start at around the "4" position on the Dawkins scale).1) The universe was created by one god.
2) The universe was created by two gods.
3) The universe was created by three gods.and so on until:1001) The universe was created by 1001 gods.I'm a 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale for all of these, because I cannot know that any of them is false. I'm an agnostic atheist on all of them.Try and apply your view of agnosticism, and you'll find that you can only be 50/50 on two of the propositions before you start using 7 for the rest. You should be able to see that you have to use a 6 for nearly all of the propositions.So, you explain to me why someone should have to justify a "6" position, a "negative", on the proposition that the universe was created by 743 gods, 19 gods, or one god. How my point about people making up evidence-less things like omphalism and gods equates to "everything is just made up in our minds" in your mind I don't know, RAZD. I'm not questioning the squirrels that I can see in my garden, I'm pointing out how reasonable it is to be a 6 on the Dawkins scale about garden fairies. Amusingly (and obviously) I didn't need to state that what I was saying was obvious, did I? Technically wrong. See your own definitions below. 2 to 6 on the Dawkins scale fit both definitions. You certainly can make conclusions pro or con, but you cannot know for sure.An example is: "I cannot be sure that Bigfoot does not exist, but I think it extremely unlikely because we should have conclusive evidence for such a large extant mammal by now." Please look at the dictionary definitions you've provided, and make an attempt to understand them. Read this again, as well.Agnosticism - Wikipedia For the same reason that I'm a 6 on the omphalist god, the proposition that 7 godesses created the universe, and the proposition that 743 gods created the universe. RAZD, when you get into the realm of evidenceless supernatural propositions, there are so many mutually exclusive possibilities that they all work out to sixes. Privilege one of them with a 5 (47 gods for example) and you need evidence to support it.Six is the reasonable default for all evidence-less supernatural propositions.I'm a "6" for Santa Claus. How about you? 50/50?

Hi RAZD. Yes, we certainly have a comprehension problem. Obviously I need to explain further about mutually exclusive propositions. Thanks for committing yourself on omphalism. That's what I wanted.Here's the 1 to 7 on the Dawkins.org survey that you posted earlier.

quote:

---

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

​

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

​

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

​

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

​

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

​

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

​

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

---

We've now established that you are "higher than 50% but not very high" for the general proposition of a god. You are also "exactly 50%" for omphalism. The 50% for omphalism means that you've only 50"% points left for all other propositions relating to the origin of the universe.The general monotheistic proposition and omhalism aren't mutually exclusive, so, currently we've got you at ~50% for omphalism, ~10% for other monotheistic possibilities, and ~40% for "all non-monotheistic possibilities." Fascinating.Now, perhaps you understand my suggestion of a "6" for omphalism. A six means, to paraphrase: 'I cannot know for certain but I think omphalism is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it didn't happen.'Now, let's talk about agnosticism. It's about things we cannot know. We cannot know the ultimate origins of the universe (at least, at present) and what it really is. That's a strong agnostic statement, and it has nothing to do with the probabilities of any particular proposition like: the universe was created by hoards of elves in the ninth dimension.Because we cannot know, it is always reasonable to reply to any proposition on ultimate origins with the "6" answer; to paraphrase: 'I cannot know for certain but I think ninth dimensional elves are very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that they are not there.' I claim that they are mutually exclusive. Make 1001 mutually exclusive god propositions, and at least 99.9% must be false. Is there something about "mutually exclusive" that you don't understand? Biblical omphalism and last Thursdayism are mutually exclusive.If you're 50/50 on both of them, you've left room for nothing else. Many different mutually exclusive "One true gods" in human cultures demonstrates our tendency to make them up, and most (or all) must be false. Believing in false gods is, therefore, a statistically provable human norm.The "six" position is "very improbable", not "not true". This is always easy to support. As I've explained above, the statistical probability of any specific proposition about the ultimate origins of the universe is always very low from our perspective because, as true agnostics, we admit that we have no knowledge in the area.You cannot, RAZD, be 50/50 on more than two mutually exclusive propositions, and if you're 50/50 on two origins propositions, you're a 7 on all the rest.This, according to your arguments on this thread, makes you highly prone to pseudo-skepticism.

Which you've thrown out because you've finally realised that you cannot be "4" (50/50) for more than two mutually exclusive god propositions. Well done!But instead of saying: "Thankyou, bluegenes, for pointing out my obvious irrationality", it is, of course, the fault of bluegenes and others who "can't get past the probability numbers that are NOT part of my argument OR part of the OP."The probabilities have been an essential part of your argument. Your misunderstanding of the term agnostic means that you've been insisting that people must be 3s 4s or 5s on the Dawkins scale on the question "does god exist" in order to be agnostic.And I see, from further down this post, that we're getting a new (and false) definition of agnostic which is built round the verb "to care" rather than the verb "to know".Agnosticism is about things being unknown. As in: "I cannot know if 500 metre long sea snakes exist, but I think it very unlikely", or " I cannot know whether there are still undiscovered mammals, but I think it very likely."Neither of those statements have anything to do with "pseudo-skepticism".Here are examples of what could be described as pseudo-skepticism:If someone brought up in a culture that believes in reincarnation expresses skepticism of the criticisms of the idea, this would fit pseudo-skepticism when the views are not really skeptical, but due to cultural bias.If someone from a traditionally monotheistic culture gives much higher credence to the possibility of the existence of a god than the evidence would warrant, and is skeptical about atheism, this would fit pseudo-skepticism, again due to cultural bias. Ah! You've decided to be a lumper rather than a splitter. I wonder why. In the complete absence of evidence for this thing called "god", 5 through 1 would require degrees of faith. No. Being agnostic about omphalism is merely saying that you cannot conclusively know it to be true or false. It has nothing to do with whether you care or not. It was you who opted for a 50/50 position on omphalism, when I had suggested a reasonable atheist/agnostic 6. Being agnostic, as I've pointed out, has nothing to do with what you care about, but with what you can and cannot know.You do know that biblical omphalism and last thursdayism are mutually exclusive (by definition), and you do know that the proposition that the universe was created by 5 gods is incompatible with the proposition of a universe created by one god, by definition. Evidence? Of something that is true by definition? Is anyone else laughing? I did.Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

Hi Linda Always? Perhaps you should have read RAZD's O.P. carefully. It quotes from this:Internet Bunk - Skeptical Investigations of Rupert Sheldrake - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"Pseudo-skeptic" just seems to have become a mudslinging term for the two sides involved in "paranormal" investigations to sling at each other. Just a way of saying: "you're biased and I'm objective".For example, you say: "But I think its application to those who dismiss the possible existence of a god is also sound, as you've shown".You could have equally applied it to all people who believe in a god, and think they're investigating theism/atheism seriously (I expect you agree with that).What do you think of the point that people from traditionally theistic cultures will frequently have a cultural bias in favour of theism in a theist/atheist debate/investigation? Doesn't it make sense? Considering that no actual evidence for gods is ever presented, why do so many consider a god so much more likely than centaurs or leprechauns?Wouldn't the true skeptic regard all zero evidence propositions as equally unlikely?

Hi RAZD.Theism is negative, as it is an attempt to replace the obvious default (natural explanations for natural phenomena) with evidenceless supernatural propositions. You can't be negative about a nothing.What about real atheists?atheist - the implicit state of all humans as babies. Has no need for a negative hypothesis unless someone else makes a positive god hypothesis, defines "god", and presents real evidence for that god.Implicit atheists can only become explicit atheists in relation to described gods. Explicit atheists usually claim the existence of any particular god, once described, as being very (or extremely) unlikely. Such a position is easily statistically justifiable considering the enormous number of evidenceless "true" gods that are believed in, and the fact that most of these "true gods" are mutually exclusive.Also, any theistic claim specifying the number of gods believed in can be dismissed easily as "extremely unlikely" unless positive evidence is presented to support that specific number over all others. Thus, all monotheism is automatically unlikely. Indeed. The existence of supernatural beings of all classes cannot be disproved. The true skeptic would regard all evidenceless supernatural propositions as equally unlikely (gods would be no more likely than fairies or Santa's elves). Anyone who broke that rule and claimed skepticism could be described as a pseudo-skeptic.Zero evidence is zero evidence, and personal desire and/or cultural background shouldn't come into it. Either way on which goddesses? That person does not believe in any. That's also a description of an implicit atheist, which is why agnostics and atheists are often described together in a non-theist category. But the phrase "more evidence" doesn't belong here (more? in addition to what?). That person requires first a description of the proposed god in order to become an explicit atheist in relation to it, then real evidence for that god's existence in order to become a rational theist (the first one ever ).So, why am I claiming that the theistic positions are negative.Around us every day, we observe natural processes, not supernatural. For the existence of nature, we have overwhelming evidence. For the existence of supernatural beings, we have zero evidence.So, observation and experience tells as that natural explanations for any phenomena (including our universe) should be the default.Theism is a negative attack on that, and ultimately, the apparent product of the old "god of the gaps" mentality. Those who regard atheism as requiring supporting evidence are invariably from cultures heavily infected with theism, and show their cultural subjectivity with a weird bias for evidenceless propositions, apparently imaginary beings that they call deities. You are now in an ideal position to assess that. I'm sure you've been asked to present evidence for your god before, while considering it as a positive proposition.Now you can enjoy presenting evidence for any negative disagreement you have with the default proposition that "nature did it all".

Carefull, Linda. Are you 50/50 on biblical omphalism? Are you 50/50 on last Thursdayism? Are you 50/50 on Deism? And 50/50 on Allah?How many 50%s are there? Being agnostic on the ultimate origins of the universe is fine, because agnosticism just means the recognition that we do not know. But don't mistake this for being 50/50 on any specific proposition, because many, many, many more than two "50/50" mutually exclusive propositions that cannot be disproved can be made.RAZD has learned this important point during his participation in this thread, I hope, although it's not sure yet.

Hi, LindaBiblical omphalism, Last Thursdayism, Islam and Deism are mutually exclusive propositions, which is all we need to know for our purposes here. Impossible. If you're 50/50 on any two of them, there's no room left for anything else.Now, have you figured it out? Agnostic means you cannot know for sure, but it does not mean 50/50 on any specific proposition.The rational agnostic stance on all of the above is:"I cannot know for certain, but I think "x" is very unlikely".The reason that they're all unlikely is that there's no positive evidence to support any of them, and they're several of an infinite field of mutually exclusive evidenceless possibilities that all have to be regarded as equally unlikely.If you decide that one god creating the universe is more likely than ten goddesses or fifty elves doing so, you will have no evidence to support your view, and that would make you a pseudo-skeptic (the equivalent of deciding that a reported "ghost" phenomenon is an optical illusion or a real ghost prior to investigation, when there are a large number of other possible explanations), which is what the sociologist guy in the O.P. is on about.When atheists describe a specific god proposition as extremely unlikely, they can do so confidently, because of the infinite range of competing equally evidenceless alternatives!

Hi Linda That last point about picking one over the other not being scientific is correct. So, what's the argument against last Thursdayism? It's what I say here: And you reply: No problem. Remember, all the propositions have equal evidential support (zero evidence) and there are more than a trillion that we could make. So, don't you agree that unlikely sounds better, although the meaning's the same with all three words.Then: No. I thought you were getting there, and you're near. It's the opposite. There is no evidence, so, the proposition that the universe was created by one billion gods and the proposition that it was created by one god are equally likely/unlikely, and it's less than a 1 in a billion chance for each.If you brought in subjective cultural factors, you might come out with one god being more likely than any other number as you're from a monotheistic culture, but there's certainly no reason to do so, so you'd be practicing culturally induced pseudo-skepticism!Now, I'll try to explain why you're wrong when you see people moving from 4 up to 6 on the Dawkins scale as being less agnostic in their attitude. If you're a "4" for "god" singular, and a "4" for the proposition of 2 creator gods, you have to be "7" for all propositions of three gods and above and for all other origins propositions. Definitely pseudo-skeptical.So, think about it, and the true agnostic is an atheist/agnostic at 6 when it comes to all specific propositions on ultimate origins. You can't prioritize any of the evidenceless propositions over others. So, it's always "I cannot know, but it's extremely unlikely", whether for seven goddesses creating the universe, or teams of elves, or whatever.You can dismiss things like non-omphalistic young earth creationism on the evidence, obviously. But I'm talking about all propositions that would fit the universe as science perceives it.

Right. You've got the gist. We don't know the origins of the universe and exactly what it is, so that's all there is to believe in that area at this point in time. So it would appear, but that might be a false dichotomy, because we know that nature can produce "conscious powers" like ourselves, so it could be a bizzare mixture of the two (our particular universe was created by beings in white coats in another universe, who evolved naturally). You're fond of the singular "God", which, as I pointed out in the last post, is as remote a possibility as a billion gods working together. In the last post, all the possibilities I mentioned were teleological (gods, goddesses, elves, fairies etc). However, such things bear the character of human invention, so "natural" is always the observation based default, but doesn't exclude "natural teleology".Every time we find out how something came into being, like our solar system, for example, it turns out to happen without teleology. There's no reason to believe that this will change as we discover more about the universe. So far, we have no evidence for "extra-universal intelligence", but as an atheist/agnostic, of course I believe it's possible (outside the universe, pretty much everything we could think of might be possible, but also pretty much everything we could think of is probably improbable, because it's probably as weird as the sub-atomic world outside space-time, if there is such an area).Here's a good new religion to bring both sides together on this thread. What about a multi-verse created by a pantheon of gods and goddesses who, like some particles, can be said to both exist and not to exist at the same time, therefore offending no-one? What's wrong with this thread is that it's an effort to claim that one has to present evidence in order not to believe in an evidenceless proposition, like wood-elves, or ogres with green hair, when actually it's the norm not to believe in things until there's positive evidence for them. Remember my calculations. "Purely agnostic" actually means 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale for any specific god propositions made. RAZD hates the six position, which is why he tries to lump it in with the 7, an irrational thing to do. Sixes do not claim to know that any gods do not exist, but have worked out that all individual god propositions will be highly unlikely.So long as everyone who is inclined to believe in these things called gods agrees that my pantheon of existent/non-existent gods described above is just as likely as any other god suggestion, I'm happy.

Indeed. Most certainly. Not proof, which is why I am 6 on the Dawkins scale for all the (effectively infinite) mutually exclusive god propositions, and you're 6 for all except one of them. You cannot, logically, avoid being so. Yes. Wrong. That phrase would have been correct without the words "or con". "Con" isn't "false", as you put it above, or impossible, but "unlikely". You conclude "con" all the time, and it is only principle that keeps you at "6" on the Dawkins scale, not "7", on many things. You're forcing me to tell you what you do, and it's something we all do except for a handful of pour souls who have lost the ability to make likelihood assessments, and started to spend too much time looking for gremlins when their cars broke down, and leaving their yards to become completely overgrown because the fairies might like it.Such people can be frequently found in hospitals, but you are not like this, RAZD, you just seem to think so.Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that there might be a dragon in the room next to you, but of course, you didn't check.A dragon, the only one in captivity, would be invaluable, and its ownwer a multi-millionaire. So, even if you estimated the probability of the dragon being there as low as 1 in 100,000, it would have been worth checking.But you didn't, because the absence of evidence for dragons in general and dragons appearing suddenly in people's houses in particular is overwhelming, and you would automatically be a six on the proposition. You would have made a "con" decision while retaining your agnostic purety, and we all do this frequently.You were not being "pseudo-skeptical" in not investigating the dragon. Consistent absence of evidence for existence is evidence of absence for existence in most cases, and all of us are forced to act on that assumption.Don't forget to put the milk out for your local leprechauns tonight, or they might get mischevious. I always do. It beats discussing magic floods (a 6 proposition with omphalism, 7 without) with hillbillies. Edited by bluegenes, : typo

Then why do you constantly make decisions based on it? Why bother working when you could go dragon hunting? One dragon corpse would probably be worth more than you'll earn in a lifetime. So, what are you basing your decision not to go dragon hunting on, if not absence of evidence for their existence? Which is why "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a completely different statement from "absence of evidence is proof of absence". Thinking, as I do, that the existence of dragons, Zeus, Apollo and Jehovah are all very unlikely is not the same as claiming proof that they don't exist. You can't prove the non-existence of fairies, whether they exist or not. And that's how he ended up giving omphalism a 50/50 chance. I think you're talking about the difference between agnosticism and strong atheism.Hyro, an agnostic is not merely a doubting theist. Agnosticism is the position that you cannot know whether there are gods or not. Most agnostics, having reached that conclusion, then realise that it's impossible to rationally believe in anything if you cannot know anything about it, including its existential state, so they become weak atheists, and that's the largest category of atheist. Because they are not mutually exclusive does not mean that they are the same thing at all. An atheist, in the broadest sense, is someone who lacks belief in gods. For agnostic, see above.Let's try it with dragons. I'm agnostic on them, because there's no way one can conclusively know whether or not they exist, and I'm a-dragonist, because I don't have any reason to believe in them, and I think that, like all evidenceless supernatural propositions, they're very unlikely.What about you? Do you pretty much agree with me on dragons?And if so, why not on gods?