Agnosticism vs. Atheism

That was rather the point.Mark

I think we are, and this is really the crux of my argument - if it turns out atheism and agnosticism believe the same thing, then what's the difference?At this point, it really looks like agnostics aren't sticklers for accuracy - they look like people who have bought the theist myth that "atheism takes as much faith as believing in god."Again, what would you think about somebody who was a Democrat in every way but name? In particular, what would you think he thought about Democrats? And as a Democrat yourself (hypothetically) what would you think about what he thought about Democrats?Maybe now you can see why I take a slightly dim view of agnostics who turn out to believe exactly the same thing I do.

I put definitions of God into two categories: Those definitions that are at least possible, which are uniformly a kind of god that never intervenes in human existence in any measurable way; and those kinds of god that are worth believing in - that is to say, take an interest and intervene in human affairs for the good of all.The first kind of god doesn't matter. I agree that I can't know if that god exists or not, but it doesn't matter either way, because the outcome is the same.The second kind of god is simple to disprove, as there's no reason to believe that god intervenes in human affairs.Ergo, atheism. I disbelieve in all gods worth believing in. And the rest aren't worth believing in.

Since, in casual speech, we do that all the time - imply absolute certainty when what we mean is maximum certainty allowable by fundamental limitations on what can be known, as in when we say "the sun will rise tomorrow" - I don't see that it's an inappropriate or misleading turn of phrase. You may disagree, but then I'd insist that you add "within the limits of what we can know" any time you talk about things that you know, from now on. And I'll be checking! Not so. The atheist recognizes that this is true of all human knowledge. S/he just doesn't find it remarkable enough to mention in specific regards to god.All knowledge is assumed to be agnostic in nature. So what's so special about knowledge of god? If everybody's agnostic (whether they know it or not), then saying you're "agnostic" is redundant. A noble view, but ultimately unworkable. Plenty of people believe in god, and expect you to, too. If they ask you "does god exist or not?" there's no way to un-ask the question. It's a yes or no question. When people ask me if I think a certain thing exists or not, guess what? I don't sit them down and explain to them the fundamental error in their question, because that would take too long. I just say "yes" or "no."If there were in English, a way to un-ask questions, or a third alternative to yes or no that meant "your question is based on incorrect assumptions", then I could answer more accurately. But until then, atheism and theism are best defined by their answer to the question "do you think god exists or not?" Agnosticism is just fence-sitting in regards to that question. Again, my point exactly. There's no difference between people who - within the limits of what can be known - are atheists and are agnostics. So what is it about identifying as atheists that agnostics fear or are embarassed by? Well, yes. In fact I would have to say that all people that believe in God do so irrationally, because they either believe in a god that isn't consistent with the evidence, or else they believe in a god that isn't worth believing in. But then, that's why I'm an atheist. Because when you tell people that you're an agnostic, they're going to think "oh, then he kind of believes in God." If that's not accurate, why not choose a more accurate term to represent yourself? I disagree. My definitions cover those positions as they are held by those who hold those positions, who are presumably the authority. In that sense - referring to the people who would pay attention to logical arguments anyway - my definitions are more useful than Mark's, who are held only by those who are unreasonable. Who cares about the unreasonable people?In practice, there's no difference between atheism and agnosticism as practiced by reasonable people.

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

It's that last bit - "until proven otherwise" - that makes their position as tentative as yours.I have a serious question, though. If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, what is? If something didn't exist, wouldn't we expect an absence of evidence for its existence? And therefore isn't an absence of evidence actually confirmation of our hypothesis, that X doesn't exist?How would you prove something exists? Better to just assume the non-existence of those things for which there is no evidence of existence. It's an assumption, to be sure - but one that all reasonable people make, in my opinion.

and I agree with you Crash. It is that simple.

Seriously, folks - is there any time in science that absence of evidence isn't taken as evidence of absence? I'm becoming convinced that whoever came up with that phrase was trying to justify an irrational belief in god.

There are "colors" of postiveness and negativeness that often go undetected due to our good ability to determine black and white. Try to read Derrida on Marxian "spectral" coloUrs in terms of biophilosophy of "emergence" and one can see with out argreeing to disagree the diversity of such POSTIVENESS can miss the difference but whay did I know? I thought it funny that it appears to "invert" the agnoticism or athetism of my Grandfather or Grandmother. I know it is only about adapatation (to Culture) not in form-making in the case I understand well and CAN speak about the non-creationsist stuff/things as well as spring peeper sounds not like an American TOAD. Zimmer didnt know what was MORSE TOAD in the book without a namBEst BRade

quote:

---

If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, what is?

---

What is evidence of absence? There isn't any.

quote:

---

If something didn't exist, wouldn't we expect an absence of evidence for its existence?

---

Yes, but it doesn't mean that you can infer the thing's non-existence. Consider:1) If ~(exist) then ~(evidence)
2) ~(evidence)This is your argument, yes?There is no way to logically get to ~(exist).Didn't we go through this with Rrhain, during which discussion you took the side I take now?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Seriously, folks - is there any time in science that absence of evidence isn't taken as evidence of absence?

---

I'm not going to deny that the rule could be used to excuse belief in imaginary cohorts, but none other than our beloved Nobel-lareate-to-be Michael Behe is living/breathing/equivocating proof of the reality of absent evidence. Prior to his triumph over anything resembling common sense with Darwin's Black Box, he mocked scientific speculation concerning cetacean evolution. This was mere months before Thewissen y compaa started digging up fossils aplenty for the transitional species 'twixt land mammals and their aquatic counterparts.{edited to add quote}
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-21-2003]

Then we're just supposed to assume that everything exists? Isn't there anything that we know doesn't exist? No offense, and pardon my ignorance (which I'm honestly trying not to argue from ), but aren't you trying to deduce non-existence from a lack of evidence, not infer from it?Wouldn't an inference look more like this:1) Things that don't exist leave no evidence of existing.
2) There's no evidence that X exists.
3) Therefore X is like those things that don't exist; i.e. it probably doesn't exist.I mean, I could be wrong. I realize that you can't deduce non-existence from a lack of evidence - because you don't deduce from evidence. You infer from it. And I think that you can safely infer non-existence from a lack of evidence for existence and be accurate enough for it to be valid. Yeah, I took the position I'm taking now - that you can't have evidence of non-existence. I don't recall ever taking the position that you can't be sure - within blah blah blah - that something probably doesn't exist.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-21-2003]

One can not "abduct" non-existence. The philosophy of of induction well...that concludes my broadFEDEXcast day.

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

So was it absolutely clear in your first post to this thread - which wold be post 19 ?No it was not. There was no suggestion that you were using a private definition, nothing to say that there were people who quite reasonably consider themselves atheists who your assertions did not apply to.So there you have an example of the problem in action. And you could quite easily avoid the problem by using a more mainstream definition.