Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?

Hi Wollysaurus, and welcome to the fray. If you mean is it more honest to say "we don't know" (when in fact we don't know), than it is to state say "I know" then the answer would be yes ... however the issue is a little more nuanced than that.First consider these (modeled after the Dawkins scale): The logically invalid positions require objective empirical evidence to substantiate them or they are "dishonest" in claiming something that is not supported by objective empirical evidence. The logically valid positions express uncertainty, and thus are "honest" -- note that this includes both weak atheists with weak theists as well as agnostics.Personally I prefer the term "open-minded skeptic" to "agnostic" as there are religious overtones to "agnostic" while "open-minded skeptic" can apply to non-religious areas as well.Without objective empirical evidence to support a position all we have to determine the "honesty" (validity) of an argument is a logical analysis. This is the analysis used for the above spectrum positions: The other issue here is whether or not one is espousing an opinion versus making a statement that they claim is true. If I say "I don't know, but my opinion is that god/s do not exist" then that is an honest statement (and fits the "5" category).I don't know, but my opinion is that god/s exist. (I'm a "3")Enjoy

Hi Dr Adequate Really? You might want to let Dawkins know.Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism

quote:

---

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

​

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called gnostic atheism because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

---

bold for emphasis -- that seems to me to match what I said. I presume you are talking about categories and the logic of the positions relative to evidence.Why wouldn't these categories and logic apply to every line of inquiry into our world\universe? You could make the scale more universal by saying: Where "believer" is used in the sense of someone with confidence in the truth of a concept
Believer Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

---

Or we could use "adherent" or "supporter" if "believer" has too much religious overtone.Thesaurus.com

quote:

---

acceptor, adherent, apostle, canonist, convert, devotee, disciple, doctrinaire, dogmatist, follower, freak, orthodox, prophet, proselyte, religionist, religious person, supporter, upholder, zealot

---

Or perhaps you could suggest a better term to use here.For instance we could say that "evolutionists" are strong adherents\supporters of the theory of evolution, and that science in general is absolute non-adherents\supporters of falsified theories.Where would you put werewolves on this concept scale? Or should we add a category, where there is evidence that falsifies or invalidates the concept?

"Negative Confidence Concepts"
1. Invalidating or falsifying objective evidence exists
2. Conclusions based on the concept regarding probable reality cannot be made.

Enjoy.

Hi again Dr. Adequate, First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of a lack of evidence.Second, consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in the rain, but without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening could strike his kite repeatedly, and yet he would not be able to record the presence (or absence) of electricity, instead he would have an absence of evidence (pro or con). It would be rather simplistic to conclude from such a test that electricity was not present in lightening.Enjoy.

Hi Dr Adequate You are welcome to your opinion, however just repeating 'no that's wrong' doesn't accomplish a thing. And?The question is whether your position is opinion or one based on evidence: if you don't have supporting evidence, then it is de facto opinion, and the logical position is 5. If you have supporting evidence then you can go to 6 or 7 (depending on the strength of the evidence).Is there supporting evidence that werewolves (and unicorns) do not exist? Is there is an absence of evidence that would be expected (predicted) if they existed? So how do I calculate these probabilities? Without knowing all the possibilities you can't calculate probabilities. Can you predict the probabilities for what a di in my hand will land on when I throw it when (a) you don't know how many sides it has and (b) you don't know how it is numbered?Enjoy.

Hi again Dr Adequate I repeat:

quote:

---

The question is whether your position is opinion or one based on evidence: if you don't have supporting evidence, then it is de facto opinion, and the logical position is 5. If you have supporting evidence then you can go to 6 or 7 (depending on the strength of the evidence).

---

Is there supporting evidence that werewolves (and unicorns) do not exist? Is there is an absence of evidence that would be expected (predicted) if they existed? Why wouldn't having a 5 position be enough to behave as if werewolves did not exist? People behave as if their opinions are valid all the time, whether those opinions are true or not. Is it? How would he know that if he had no way to detect electricity?Enjoy.

Hi again Dr Adequate, Which doesn't mean they don't exist, as you eloquently state: In which case why should anyone be concerned about their existence? Why would anyone need to carry silver for protection from such a non-threat?Until there is evidence that one needs protection, one can be agnostic about, and one can have an opinion that they exist or one can have an opinion that they don't exist.I don't normally feel I need to protect myself from mass murderers or terrorist types, even though there is evidence that these types of people do exist: my opinion is that I will not be harmed by them. And again, how do you calculate that probability in any way for it to make sense: if it is just your gut feeling about the relative likelihood, then it is just your opinion (in which case you are really a 5 not a 6 on this issue and are telling yourself falsehoods about what you know or don't know).And again, people act based on their opinions all the time: opinion is sufficient to affect behavior. The point being that the absence of evidence would be due to the absence of a means to detect electricity, not to the absence of electricity.If you don't have a means to detect presence then you cannot test for when it is absent.Do you have a means to test for the presence of lycanthropy in in your scenario of careful people "who can turn into a wolf"? Nor does it make your leg supernatural. A point that the Straggles and bluegenes seem to miss consistently when they make up caricatures of supernatural beings and claim that they should be considered to be supernatural.You would need to show that there is some supernatural essence involved before one could say something is supernatural.Do you have a means to test for the presence of supernatural essences?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty