Agnosticism vs. Atheism

Gods, I love your descriptions Dan.I have to agree with the original post, however.I think you can say, via definitions of knowledge, that you "know" THOSE baboons aren't there. But that's because the claim involves evidence which is not only absent, but there is some evidence against.If a person made a more ephemeral claim that there are such baboons somewhere, you wouldn't be able to say you know there are no such baboons anywhere.Thus when a person says God is X, and by necessity that X requires evidence which is in contradiction to actual evidence, one can say they know THAT GOD is not true... and remain an agnostic.But to say that one knows God does not exist, when there are no evidentiary requirements in conflict with the evidence at hand, is to make a statement of faith along the same lines as those who say they know he does exist despite the same lack of evidence.I think I'm very similar in temperament to you Dan, and I consider myself an agnostic that at this point has no reason to believe or even entertain hypotheses of Gods, and feel some certainty that no evidence will ever be presented.Thus while I believe there are no Gods, I don't know so.That is until something goes wrong and I know for damn sure some demon is haunting me!------------------
holmes

Well I think you are right that any rational being is agnostic on every topic, but there are states of belief about what can even be known.theist: Evidence can be had for God and there is evidence for God (even if that evidence is wholly subjective "feelings"), therefore God exists.atheist: While evidence can be had for a God--- if one existed--- there is no evidence for one which means there is none... default that there isn't until evidence comes in.agnostic: Evidence can be had for a God, but the lack of current evidence means I do not know if there is a God or not. Default is I do not know, even if I have some pretty heavy doubt (or lack of faith) regarding God, because it is very possible that a God (given the nature of what they are) may not readily show evidence we can recognize.I really think there is a difference between the last two positions. Maybe it is degree of commitment to scepticism and hardline attitude on what separates belief from knowledge... or being overly diplomatic and accepting of theist fairy-tales due to a personal weakness for scifi-fantasy as a kid (or later).Then again, maybe Dan is right and it's all semantics.------------------
holmes

These are all very nice arguments from everyone, but at the end of it all I believe mark's definitions (which in my own poor way tried to define in a similar way) are the most coherent.I am going to pick on crashfrog for the singular reason that he makes such a convincing argument. Except he seems to be missing the strength of assertion he is making toward there being no god, and the way in which agnostics actually dismiss the claims of both sides.To start with Crash is correct that any rational being will be agnostic with regards to all possible entities. The belief in any particular entity rising with proper evidence to the level of knowledge.Further, Crash is very right in making this statement... But it is an equivocation of sorts, to expand this very specific statement to be the same as someone saying "there are no Gods." The above statement seems to be something both an agnostic and an atheist would agree on.Only the agnostic differs from the athiest in acknowledging that there are plenty of entities that fall outside the limits of our knowledge, and may always fall outside these limits, and yet be true. Thus saying "I know" cannot be said about entities falling firmly outside that limit.As mark indicates, until there is evidence for the existence of any entity there is no need to discuss it at all. A statement of belief with no argument or evidence is a non-sequitor.One does not need to disbelieve in the entity they are talking about (when no evidence is given). It is simple enough to say there is nothing too discuss. It is unknowable.As those who believe in certain entities offer evidence towards, and reasons to consider them within the realm of knowledge, the agnostic may then pass judgement as to their existence or not.For example when a person says there is a God that created all life and then made a huge flood, the agnostic may then say there is not only no evidence for THAT God, there is credible evidence against it and the statement above comes into play. A particular concept of God has entered the limits of our knowledge and we can say we know that God does not exist.The same goes for those cinammon baboons. Just by making them corporeal entities we have physical experiences of, there emerges not simply a lack of evidence but some body of evidence against their existence.The vague question of "do Gods or a God exist?" is separate and different from the two concrete questions above. The agnostic--- as outlined above--- simply says such entities, until evidence is offered to bring them into the limits of our knowledge, remain by logic unknowable. The agnostic may BELIEVE there are none, but understands it is not knowledge or not something that can even be "knowable."The athiest, unfortunately, uses crash's statement in a much stronger way than the agnostic. When one says "there is no God" and it is not directed at any specific entity, then that is a statement beyond the limits of our knowledge.Now it may be argued that most atheists are merely using a shorthand and really mean the larger statement of "within limits", when they say "there is no God". But then I think it would be more reasonable to say many who view themselves as athiests are really agnostic, than eliminating the term agnostic and saying you get to choose between atheist and a theist.In fact, it think it is overly generous to say there are no such things as people who believe as irrationally in no Gods, as there are those irrationally believing in a God.I have known people, and argued at length with them about whether "no evidence for" counts as "evidence against" all currently unknown entities. They really are out there.I suppose if everyone agrees to scrap the definitions mark uses and go with the ones crash uses, I can accept the fact that I am defined as an atheist. I mean why should I care about what term is used.It just seems that crash's definitions do not cover the true range of belief, and so are limited in their usefulness.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-21-2003]

Argh, I fear I still have not made myself clear enough.For subjects within our limits of knowledge (ie have specific evidential requirements) it would be redundant to keep saying "within limits" and I wouldn't expect anyone to have to (I won't).For subjects that have no clear definitions or evidential requirements, an agnostic would simply say "I don't know because it is unknowable." Or even more simply "that is unknowable." Really? I don't think so at all. It is a yes, no, or depends question. If someone asked me I would say that depends. The Xtian god? Nope. Hindu Gods? nope. A god or gods that created the universe and manipulate it using the laws of nature? Maybe. It is unknowable. And that's what makes me an agnostic.I mean that question isn't even yes or no to theists. Do you believe in God? The answer yes, coming from a jew, may not be acceptable to a fundamentalist Xtian. And what is a polytheist supposed to make of that question, especially ones that have no specific Creator or "father" gods in their pantheon?I don't think anyone has to un-ask a question. But if they ask it I'll ask them what they mean, and then probably say (once they water down their requirements) "no one can know that."A positive statement that "no one can know", is in my opinion not only qualitatively different than a simple "no" in that situation, but qualitatively superior.Obviously if I know they mean the Xtian god in specific, I'll say "no."Being agnostic doesn't mean having to be impractical.Now let me ask you this... when you say no, don't they invariably ask "why not?" and don't you end up having to explain anyway? And if your explanation is going to be real won't it end up being about the limits of knowledge? If they are smart they'll figure out that the best you can say is "I don't know" and then try to make you look silly for saying no in the first place. Actually I'm not afraid or embarassed to be called anything. The only problem is I used to call myself atheist and in debates with other atheists was told I was actually an agnostic. That is because I really meant "no one can know" until a positive definition and evidence had been put forward. And they told me quite clearly that to them an atheist meant you knew God did not exist (it was a positive statement of non-existence) until proven otherwise.At that point I was happy enough to accept their label, and look at theism and atheism as two extremes of agnosticism. Each makes a positive claim where none should be made (or in the case of most theists, where evidence totally stands against them). But for practical reasons couldn't we simply have categorical names for each extreme (of unreasonable people)? One theism, the other atheism. And all reasonable people being agnostics?At this point I think I will bow out. You and mark are better at making your points than I am on this. Or maybe dan was the best. Tomagnostic and Tomatheist.Why don't we just set some new definitions that run the gamut of belief (even for the unreasonable people so we can say what they are) and I'll agree to whatever.------------------
holmes

Arrrrrggggghhh! But my position is not tentative at all! It is quite definite and conclusive!To the amorphous question "is there a God?", agnostics (according to my definition) say without any disclaimers "I do not know (and neither does anyone else), because that entity cannot be known."Atheists will say there is no God, based on the fallacy you went on to outline.Absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence... UNLESS you are dealing with an entity with characteristics that fall within our realm of knowledge and testability.To the degree the asker of the "God question" endows their creator with characteristics that fall within the limits of our knowledge and testability, one can make statements of knowledge based on the absence of evidence regarding those characteristics.But if we simply take absence of evidence as evidence of absence for any and all situations then a whole lot of things start dropping out... including tenets of evolutionary theory and probably the entirety of the abiogenesis hypothesis.In fact this is the exact argument ID theorists like Behe, Wells, and dembski have glommed on to.Maybe you can look at the question of God, or any other entity wholly without characteristics we can measure, the same way as location or speed for electrons. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states one or the other may be known, but not both. That does not mean one or the other does not exist. This is similar to the approach of the agnostic, a firm recognition of what cannot be known based on the limits of human knowledge.It almost feels like "atheists" have an issue that if they say it is unknowable, it is tantamount to saying it very well might exist. As if the existence of God has been lent some credibility. But that is not true at all. It is saying whether a God does exist or not it is unknowable (without further definition) and so moot. That means it is worthless.And just as worthless is a statement that there are NO Gods. It is the same nonsequitor, backed up by the same argument from ignorance.If it makes you feel any better, an agnostic can certainly say "no God that I have ever heard people describe exists", or even "I do not BELIEVE that any Gods exist."But until a "something" is given parameters within the limits of our knowledge, and an ability for us to test those parameters, we cannot assume to "know" anything and shouldn't. Why is this better at all? Better for what? If it is unknowable it doesn't affect your life anyway and so you can go on about your business until someone starts coming up with a reason for you to care one way or the other.You don't have to assume anything about its actual existence, to simply not deal with it.In the end I feel it is better to make a positive statement that things which are unknowable are "unknowable" and so moot as a point of discussion, because at least that way I remain logically consistent.It certainly begins to draw people into making positive claims which can then be shot down, and entities whiped out.I do believe Gods are unlikely, the Xtian God of the literal Bible is certainly not real, but I am comfortable saying I'll never really know whether God, or Gods exist.------------------
holmes

Actually all you need to know--- to say whether something can be knowable at all--- is the limits of our knowledge, and what characteristics the entity is supposed to have.If I say, "Fnord exists" I would expect everyone to say what the hell is Fnord? If I do not give an answer that sets some sort of definition, then most people would just walk away because that entity is unknowable until I come up with something.For me to say, "well I've never seen this Fnord, therefore it must not exist" is just as meaningless.Why does this change if I use the word "God"? God is Fnord. Maybe the mistake being made is that everyone rushes to accept the many definitions already set out and shot down?God is not like elves and unicorns and purple baboons that smell delicious. The latter examples have some characteristics we can put our finger on. God has been defined in so many different ways by so many different people, it is in reality a filler word like fnord without explanation.There is a basic agreement that any God is a powerful supernatural entity. But what the hell is supernatural? The limits of our knowledge are the natural world. Therefore that statement just added another fnord to the mix... Fnord is a powerful fnordish entity.I can agree with the atheist that I don't need to calculate fnords into any theory I am developing, or change the way I live. But I don't see that as being the same thing as assuming it does not exist. It is certainly different that saying "I KNOW it does not exist." There has yet to be a definition given for me to know what is being discussed. Maybe once a working definition comes along I can start buying into it.And as long as definitions keep an entity clearly in the realm of the unknowable, then it remains unknown. Like stacking on more fnords, or characteristics one admits make it unknowable (such as "he manipulates matter using the laws of physics so it looks natural").That said... I would agree with this statement, although slightly longerwinded."I don't know and I don't think it is possible to know because other than god-concepts which were outright rejectable through evidence, all others have been ill-defined, or defined as "evidentially invisible" for the adhoc purpose of avoiding inspection. The former means they CANNOT be known, the latter leaves me with the impression if there are such things as Gods, they must not want to be known."------------------
holmes

If I just said "I do not know", then that is totally inconclusive. If I say "I do not know because I CAN NOT know, and neither can you", that is pretty definitive.That is why I brought up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is a pretty definite statement of not being able to know. If someone said "I do not know" because they were in a situation that this principle describes, they are not "sitting on a fence" or "being cowardly".I mean do you slap around some physicist and say, "come on, get some backbone and make up your mind"? Since I agree with you on this 100%, I think the problem lies in our definitions about BELIEF and KNOW.To me a BELIEF is an IDEA, hopefully with the backing of some evidence.KNOWLEDGE is a specific category of belief. It is a belief with enough evidence and logical reasoning to allow us to say we "know". While it does not require absolute knowledge (I am not a stickler for having to know that we know), it is much more rigorous than belief.That's why I said I think agnostics can say "I don't believe Gods exist." It is just the more positive claim "I know they don't exist", or forceful "Gods don't exist" that separate the atheist from the agnostic. An agnostic will not go that far. That is correct, but then you just defined your concept of God in a way that enters our limits of knowledge. What about a God that is non-interventionist, just a creator God that croaked or walked away once he saw the mess he made? That is simply not knowable. Neither may be the exact conditions and chemical components that formed the process of abiogenesis. In fact it is likely because of where it sits in time and space (just like the creator god).The only difference is that unlike Gods, we know what chemicals are. There has yet to be any sign of "supernatural" activity. So that makes God less likely to my mind. Much more fictional. But by its definition, I simply cannot know. Neither can those with faith or doubt. See I just don't get how sticking with strict logic is a copout. I am not saying theists are any more correct than any atheist... just to avoid a fight?If anything it seems to be a much greater fight to call yourself agnostic. Both sides mistakenly believe you are on a fence and need to come one way or the other, where both (as far as KNOWLEDGE goes) is impossible. How does anyone spend more time considering something "unknowable" rather than "known not to exist"? I never got this problem either.BUT LET ME SAY THIS... I'd rather switch than fight.The irony that it was atheists which pushed me into the agnostic box, and now are dragging me out is not lost on me. Maybe it's that atheists suddenly decided agnostics don't exist either?Since I seem to have almost the exact reasoning underlying my claim to know about Gods, and you claim to know what the correct definitions are, I will roll with it.I am an atheist, subset agnostic. And I will then continue to argue with atheists, subset gnostic, as to whether they really know God exists, rather than JUST ANY other atheist as to whether I exist.------------------
holmes

While you may be right that few athiests will say "I know Gods don't exist", there are some who do. I guess I had the unfortunate circumstance of going to a religious affiliated college which meant I was surrounded with the extremes of both sides.I was told I was an agnostic because of my wishywashiness claiming the hardnosed atheists didn't really "know." I accepted THEIR definition at the time and ran with it. After college I used to think most people were agnostics, with theists and atheists representing the extremist fringes.That doesn't make anyone really wrong, just semantically different: atheists are now trying to convince me that I am an atheist, and I am trying to convince them that they are agnostic. Who is really right? No one, just debating which set of definitions are most useful.I guess I'll go with the species, subspecies categorization, which seem based more on statements of belief than statements of knowledge. I can live with it.While I am responding to you, I want to mention something you had said earlier. You mentioned Pascal's wager as something used by agnostics but I didn't think that was correct. The true "fence-sitting" stereotype of the agnostic might use it, but to my mind (definition) they were just Xtian theists looking for something seemingly logical to use in the face of so much evidence against their God.As an agnostic when I first heard that wager, I recognized pretty easily how fallacious it was, and almost certain Pascal was in on the joke."Five to one says the church eats that garbage up without giving it a second thought."
---Pascal's other wager------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-22-2003]