What is the point of agnosticism?

[watsup]

This will take two or three posts to complete.

“Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But then he lived in a period of transition. Science, and in particular biology, appeared to undermine old certainties. On the one hand, churchmen were promoting the importance of unshakeable faith. On the other, there were philosophers advocating a materialist and anti-religious outlook. Huxley felt he couldn’t identify with either side. If the Gnostics were those who claimed to have access to a special route to religious knowledge, then Huxley would be an a-gnostic, one who does not profess to know. But perhaps agnosticism served only as a temporary stopping point en route to a more satisfactory position, a stepping stone from faith to atheism.
For Richard Dawkins, a scientist, writer and today’s perhaps most vocal atheist, we have already crossed that river. It was perhaps reasonable to be an agnostic in Huxley’s time, when it was not yet clear how science could answer some of the awkward questions posed by believers: How, if there is no divine designer, could intelligence have developed? What is the source of our moral conscience? Why was the universe so congenial to the emergence of life? Now we have some detailed answers, the idea of God is de trop. And so too is agnosticism, apparently.“

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

More to follow.

 

[watsup]

“What is Dawkins’ thinking here? First, the agnostic’s point that we can’t know whether or not God does not exist, is not a very interesting one. There are lots of things we don’t know for sure. We don’t know that Mars isn’t populated by fairies. Of course, we are not remotely inclined to believe that it is, but still we don’t have conclusive proof. Nevertheless, we don’t describe ourselves as agnostics about Martian fairies. Similarly, atheists can admit that they don’t have conclusive proof of God’s non-existence.

Second, not having conclusive proof does not make God’s existence just as probable as his non-existence. Moving from ‘not certain’ to ‘50/50 chance either way’ is what we might call the agnostic fallacy.

Third, a necessary feature of God makes his existence highly improbable, namely his complexity. Of course, the world itself is complex – unimaginably so – but then science has an explanation of this complexity in terms of a series of gradual evolutionary steps from simpler states. In contrast there is no evolutionary account of God’s complexity: his nature is supposed to be eternal. And that there should just exist such complexity, with no explanation, is highly improbable.”

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

All of this is true. Agnosticism tries to claim the “possibility” of a totally unlikely imaginary entity.

 

[watsup]

But then he pulls his punches.

“Perhaps God is like that: his understanding and capacities may be infinitely complex, but the underlying nature that gives rise to that complexity may be relatively simple. If so, then it isn’t a given that the probability of such a being is enormously improbable. And if God is not clearly improbable, then atheism is not the default position. Rather, agnosticism is. If, before we start to look at the evidence, the hypothesis that God exists is initially no less probable than the hypothesis that he doesn’t, that neither atheism nor theism has a head start, so speak, then we should keep an open mind, rather than be atheists until presented by overwhelming evidence for God.”

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

And all of a sudden he is a fence-sitter again by assigning traits to a “God” just like a believer does. He starts off with interesting thoughts in the previous two posts, and then he goes soft on logic in the third and becomes a supporter of a “possible” imaginary entity.

 

[Daisy]

 

[Mr Person]

It's simple, for some.

The idea of an all-all-all God involves a creature who exists at all points in spacetime but also encompasses spacetime and is greater than it. Such a God cannot logically be disproven or proven by any evidence that we might uncover because that evidence exists in spacetime, and we would need a vantage point outside of spacetime equal to or greater than that of the supposed God's to prove or disprove.

So it's.... I don't believe but who knows

What's wrong with uncertainty?



Lack of evidence of something is reason not to accept that something's existence. If the something is supposed to exist within spacetime, lack of evidence is a good reason to disbelieve. If the something is supposed to be greater than spacetime, lack of evidence is a good reason to not believe but not a good reason to assert the non-existence of the thing.

The two really aren't far off. It's just that you can't disprove an all-all-all God from within the reality it supposedly encompasses. But you're certainly on safe ground not believing in the thing for which there is no evidence.

 

[Anagram]

Second, not having conclusive proof does not make God’s existence just as probable as his non-existence. Moving from ‘not certain’ to ‘50/50 chance either way’ is what we might call the agnostic fallacy.

Agnosticism is not typically defined as believing that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence or anything close to that. Huxley defined it as a means of distinction between what is demonstrable and what is not. Under his definition of the term, every claim that is not demonstrable scientifically should fall under the agnostic umbrella, including the existence of God. That is very different than saying that the existence of God is equally likely as the non-existence.

 

[watsup]

Agnosticism is not typically defined as believing that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence or anything close to that. Huxley defined it as a means of distinction between what is demonstrable and what is not. Under his definition of the term, every claim that is not demonstrable scientifically should fall under the agnostic umbrella, including the existence of God. That is very different than saying that the existence of God is equally likely as the non-existence.

It might make sense if agnosticism is, in fact, on two different tracks as you say, one for the scientifically possible and the other that is not. The problem that we see too often is someone who claims to be an agnostic and yet tries to mix and match the two. In another thread, a chatter claims that “anything that is not proven to be impossible—is possible”, and then gives “real world” examples and then insists on carrying them over to the world of imaginary entities. And yes, they are imaginary entities until such time as some evidence is produced for them (God/gods, wood fairies, Yeti). If an agnostic wants to follow the two tracks that you have defined, that’s fine, but when they start trying to mix the two in some manner, it becomes basically nonsense in my opinion as an atheist. It appears that many agnostics have misunderstood Huxley’s original claim as explained by you.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

This will take two or three posts to complete.

“Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But then he lived in a period of transition. Science, and in particular biology, appeared to undermine old certainties. On the one hand, churchmen were promoting the importance of unshakeable faith. On the other, there were philosophers advocating a materialist and anti-religious outlook. Huxley felt he couldn’t identify with either side. If the Gnostics were those who claimed to have access to a special route to religious knowledge, then Huxley would be an a-gnostic, one who does not profess to know. But perhaps agnosticism served only as a temporary stopping point en route to a more satisfactory position, a stepping stone from faith to atheism.
For Richard Dawkins, a scientist, writer and today’s perhaps most vocal atheist, we have already crossed that river. It was perhaps reasonable to be an agnostic in Huxley’s time, when it was not yet clear how science could answer some of the awkward questions posed by believers: How, if there is no divine designer, could intelligence have developed? What is the source of our moral conscience? Why was the universe so congenial to the emergence of life? Now we have some detailed answers, the idea of God is de trop. And so too is agnosticism, apparently.“

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

More to follow.

If I say to a theologian " only a gullible buffoon could possibly believe in your God", that's not going to go over very well..... At all.
But, if instead i say " well, to be fair, I can't prove your God doesn't exist", when put that way, it allows the theologian space to breath.

Therefore, it's my belief that agnosticism is a compromise designed to appease the feelings of theologians.

 

[ataraxia]

I see it more like the hypothesis of parallel universes: an intriguing idea. But in the absence of any evidence, it’s not really a scientific idea. I just have to shrug at it.

 

[Ouroboros]

It might make sense if agnosticism is, in fact, on two different tracks as you say, one for the scientifically possible and the other that is not. The problem that we see too often is someone who claims to be an agnostic and yet tries to mix and match the two. In another thread, a chatter claims that “anything that is not proven to be impossible—is possible”, and then gives “real world” examples and then insists on carrying them over to the world of imaginary entities. And yes, they are imaginary entities until such time as some evidence is produced for them (God/gods, wood fairies, Yeti). If an agnostic wants to follow the two tracks that you have defined, that’s fine, but when they start trying to mix the two in some manner, it becomes basically nonsense in my opinion as an atheist. It appears that many agnostics have misunderstood Huxley’s original claim as explained by you.

But not as badly as you have misunderstood Huxley, since it has long been your atheistic contention that anything that does not have evidence to support its existence, such as God, is perforce non-existent. You don't want to accept Huxley's theory that some things may be beyond the pale of demonstration through evidence, and so your accusation of some unnamed persons as "mixing" the proven and what you call "the imaginary" is undermined by your poor comprehension of your own terms.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

But not as badly as you have misunderstood Huxley, since it has long been your atheistic contention that anything that does not have evidence to support its existence, such as God, is perforce non-existent. You don't want to accept Huxley's theory that some things may be beyond the pale of demonstration through evidence, and so your accusation of some unnamed persons as "mixing" the proven and what you call "the imaginary" is undermined by your poor comprehension of your own terms.

It's my contention that our Universe is contained in a speck on the eye of a giant.
My theory is no more "beyond the pale" than yours.

 

[watsup]

But not as badly as you have misunderstood Huxley, since it has long been your atheistic contention that anything that does not have evidence to support its existence, such as God, is perforce non-existent. You don't want to accept Huxley's theory that some things may be beyond the pale of demonstration through evidence, and so your accusation of some unnamed persons as "mixing" the proven and what you call "the imaginary" is undermined by your poor comprehension of your own terms.

Yeah, whatever. Do you have any evidence for a God/gods, wood fairies, or Yeti?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Agnosticism is whimpy, a cop out.

Agnostics hold no theistic beliefs, they are not theists, therefore they are A + Thiests, they just cant own it.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's my contention that our Universe is contained in a speck on the eye of a giant.
My theory is no more "beyond the pale" than yours.

"Beyond the pale" is my approximation of what Huxley said about the matter, but I will shortly cite his actual words, so you can judge for yourself.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, whatever. Do you have any evidence for a God/gods, wood fairies, or Yeti?

So here's how you misrepresented Huxley's position even after Anagram gave a good basic summation of that position. I find that the same position is represented in what Huxley wrote in the 1889 essay AGNOSTICISM.

So I declare, as plainly as I can, that I am unable to show cause why these transferable devils should not exist; nor can I deny that, not merely the whole Roman Church, but many Wiccan “infidels” of no mean repute, do honestly and firmly believe that the activity of such like demonic beings is in full swing in this year of grace 1889.

Nevertheless, as good Bishop Butler says, “probability is the guide of life;” and it seems to me that this is just one of the cases in which the canon of credibility and testimony, which I have ventured to lay down, has full force. So that, with the most entire respect for many (by no means for all) of our witnesses for the truth of demonology, ancient and modern, I conceive their evidence on this particular matter to be ridiculously insufficient to warrant their conclusion.

Note that Huxley does not claim, as you have, that absence of evidence proves the "imaginary" nature of the "transferable devils" from the New Testament story of the Gadarene swine. He merely states that he favors the view that it is less probable that such beings exist, going on the "evidence" (by which he means "testimony") presented by all those mentioned.

Now, he does not comment upon atheists alone, though he lumps them in with all those who believe they have a "gnosis" about the true nature of the universe, which he Huxley does not believe he has.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

Finally (because I would not dream of making you uncomfortable), he departs from atheist certitude by stating that they are dishonest when they violate the "negative" limits of the intellect.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, “Try all things, hold fast by that which is good”; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Is there supposed to be a point to it?

 

[Noodlegawd]

This will take two or three posts to complete.

“Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But then he lived in a period of transition. Science, and in particular biology, appeared to undermine old certainties. On the one hand, churchmen were promoting the importance of unshakeable faith. On the other, there were philosophers advocating a materialist and anti-religious outlook. Huxley felt he couldn’t identify with either side. If the Gnostics were those who claimed to have access to a special route to religious knowledge, then Huxley would be an a-gnostic, one who does not profess to know. But perhaps agnosticism served only as a temporary stopping point en route to a more satisfactory position, a stepping stone from faith to atheism.
For Richard Dawkins, a scientist, writer and today’s perhaps most vocal atheist, we have already crossed that river. It was perhaps reasonable to be an agnostic in Huxley’s time, when it was not yet clear how science could answer some of the awkward questions posed by believers: How, if there is no divine designer, could intelligence have developed? What is the source of our moral conscience? Why was the universe so congenial to the emergence of life? Now we have some detailed answers, the idea of God is de trop. And so too is agnosticism, apparently.“

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

More to follow.

"Agnostic" is just another word for "Atheist." So the answer is "there is n point."

 

[tosca1]

Agnosticism really is like a pebble in an atheist's shoes.

 

[samiam5211]

This will take two or three posts to complete.

“Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But then he lived in a period of transition. Science, and in particular biology, appeared to undermine old certainties. On the one hand, churchmen were promoting the importance of unshakeable faith. On the other, there were philosophers advocating a materialist and anti-religious outlook. Huxley felt he couldn’t identify with either side. If the Gnostics were those who claimed to have access to a special route to religious knowledge, then Huxley would be an a-gnostic, one who does not profess to know. But perhaps agnosticism served only as a temporary stopping point en route to a more satisfactory position, a stepping stone from faith to atheism.
For Richard Dawkins, a scientist, writer and today’s perhaps most vocal atheist, we have already crossed that river. It was perhaps reasonable to be an agnostic in Huxley’s time, when it was not yet clear how science could answer some of the awkward questions posed by believers: How, if there is no divine designer, could intelligence have developed? What is the source of our moral conscience? Why was the universe so congenial to the emergence of life? Now we have some detailed answers, the idea of God is de trop. And so too is agnosticism, apparently.“

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

More to follow.

Why should I have to decide whether I think god is real or not?

Why should I care if god is real?

Just because someone asks me a question, doesn't mean i have to give a yes or no answer, or even care what the answer is.

 

[tosca1]

@watsup


Agnosticism is a particular position of whether there is, or there is no God.
Because agnosticism does not make a conclusion without what the agnostic deems as evidence (for him), that only highlights the irrationality of being an atheist (who has made a conclusion without anything to support it).


Yes, of course..........................agnosticism holds a point.

It's actually atheism, that doesn't.........................................since atheists are always trying label themselves as somehow.............................. partly agnostics.

 

[samiam5211]

Agnosticism is a particular position of whether there is, or there is no God.
Because agnosticism does not make a conclusion without what the agnostic deems as evidence (for him), that only highlights the irrationality of being an atheist (who has made a conclusion without anything to support it).

Atheists and theists have the same amount of evidence to support their positions.

 

[tosca1]

Atheists and theists have the same amount of evidence to support their positions.

No.
Review the thread titles.

 

[samiam5211]

No.
Review the thread titles.

Faith isn't evidence.

 

[tosca1]

Faith isn't evidence.

I'm not going to get into that.
It'll be off-topic.

 

[tosca1]

“What is Dawkins’ thinking here? First, the agnostic’s point that we can’t know whether or not God does not exist, is not a very interesting one. There are lots of things we don’t know for sure. We don’t know that Mars isn’t populated by fairies. Of course, we are not remotely inclined to believe that it is, but still we don’t have conclusive proof. Nevertheless, we don’t describe ourselves as agnostics about Martian fairies. Similarly, atheists can admit that they don’t have conclusive proof of God’s non-existence.

Second, not having conclusive proof does not make God’s existence just as probable as his non-existence. Moving from ‘not certain’ to ‘50/50 chance either way’ is what we might call the agnostic fallacy.

Third, a necessary feature of God makes his existence highly improbable, namely his complexity. Of course, the world itself is complex – unimaginably so – but then science has an explanation of this complexity in terms of a series of gradual evolutionary steps from simpler states. In contrast there is no evolutionary account of God’s complexity: his nature is supposed to be eternal. And that there should just exist such complexity, with no explanation, is highly improbable.”

What is the point of agnosticism?

By Robin Le Poidevin Do we really need agnosticism nowadays? The inventor of the name ‘agnosticism’, the Victorian evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley, certainly found it useful to have a word describing his lack of certainty when he was surrounded by those who seemed to have no such doubt. But...

blog.oup.com

All of this is true. Agnosticism tries to claim the “possibility” of a totally unlikely imaginary entity.

And yet Richard Dawkins had admitted to be an agnostic.

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic​

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Somewhat. Doing a song-and-dance routine around it.


Therefore, if atheists are going to be saying this anyway - what's the point for atheism?
Why not just scrap atheism and say you're agnostic?


RIGHT?