I have permission...agnostic? atheist?

[Why Syzygy]

I have permission to use this quote. One of my friends at facebook wrote it. I won't put his full name here, due to the lurker contingent. If anyone wanted to reach him, I can provide contact info privately.

What say DU's atheists to this line of reasoning?

I'm simply agnostic, not agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. The existence or non-existence of a deity is metaphysical issue, and thus cannot be tested scientifically. As such, there can be no positive knowledge about the question. It does not belong under the purview of science.

Science and metaphysics were rightly demarcated by Karl Popper in 1959 (The Logic of Scientific Discovery). As Popper pointed out (and regardless of what you think about his politics, rightly), the statement "God exists" is a perfect example of a metaphysical statement that cannot be tested. Likewise, any answer to the question -- positive or negative -- puts one squarely within the realm of metaphysics, even if one merely claims to be "agnostic" and "atheist." That is, any answer to the question involves metaphysical speculation. Thus, complete agnosticism and not atheistic-agnosticism is the only scientific position.

As long as atheists recognize that they are speculating on a metaphysical statement/hypothesis, and thus, have left the realm of science, I have no problem with their speculation. But as soon as they imagine that they are being scientific when they are making such speculations, I beg to differ. That is, when/if they represent their speculation as knowledge, I disagree.

To do other than acknowledge the metaphysical character of such claims is to mistake an ontological for an epistemological problem or claim. That is, the inability to derive knowledge of a deity does not equal the non-existence of said deity.

That said, I am not suggesting that atheists become agnostics--merely that they acknowledge that they engage in metaphysical speculation akin to theism, when they do.

[upaloopa]

1. How do humans go about knowing there is a god? Not by self I think but

by someone who believes in god. Left alone I think a person could think that there was a power greater than him/herself but would have to make up just what this power is. Then they pass on this thought to others. To me that is what religion is.

I see atheists as persons who don't go through this process.

I don't understand why there has to be any antagonism between the two types of persons.

[enki23]

2. I engage in metaphysical speculation every time I think some other person is real

This is a stupid game whose only purpose is to allow the most pious of "agnostics" to engage in special pleading on behalf of gods. I suppose I should be grateful that they don't do this on behalf of AIDS or empty beer bottles.

[patrice]

3. Strongly agree. nt

[humblebum]

4. Spot on. nt

[Moonwalk]

5. This person can beg to differ all he likes, but he's flat out wrong--and cheating...

Here's the statement that sets up the cheat (and is also flat out wrong): "As long as atheists recognize that they are speculating on a metaphysical statement/hypothesis, and thus, have left the realm of science, I have no problem with their speculation. But as soon as they imagine that they are being scientific when they are making such speculations, I beg to differ."

Ever heard of a logical fallacy called: "defining yourself to victory?" That is what he's doing--so long as the argument is kept metaphysical, nothing needs to be proven, so atheists have to agree with the agnostics that there might be a god. This, by the way, is also a questionable premise. We'll get back to that. Notice, by the way, that your agnostic demands that atheists know they're discussing metaphysics (by the way, how do we differentiate metaphysics from myth or superstition?), but doesn't demand the same of the religious.

While a discussion with an agnostic might be a discussion of a metaphysical hypothesis, meaning speculation without any attempt to prove it true or not true, discussion with the religious is a discussion about something most such consider to be fact. god isn't a mental exercise to them. God is real to them, no if's, and's or but's. So WHY should the atheist ONLY and ALWAYS remember that this is metaphysical when those he or she may be discussing the topic with do not hold it as such? Or are atheists only supposed to discuss god's existence with agnostics who apparently will only discuss it as long as the atheist agrees with their definitions?

And here's the final nail in the coffin. Science creates hypothesizes just like metaphysics does (metaphysics WAS science before there was science as we know it). The only difference is that science never deems anything as fact until it's been proven by way of scientific method. But hypothesizes still exist and are still batted around. Why should god be exempt from this? This is the questionable premise part--your agnostic says god is a metaphysical argument, but that's questionable. There's no reason why we should accept that premise. Why can't god be a discussion of science (science is everything that does exist or might exist, isn't it?) or myth. The agnostic is giving god an escape hatch that nothing else gets--god is "metaphysical" which means "doesn't have to be proven." Thus, the agnostic not only escapes the argument but wins it.

[mr blur]

7. ^^This^^

[JNelson6563]

21. You nailed it.

Intellectual dishonesty is a major pet peeve of mine and there's more of it in this group than anywhere else.

Thanks for the well written post, you have spoken for many of us.

Julie

[intaglio]

6. I recognise your friends position

It was my position for many years - but

Agnosis means without knowledge (or revelation).

Knowledge - Does your friend know or have evidence for a deity? This they deny because, as said "As such, there can be no positive knowledge about the question. It does not belong under the purview of science."

Revelation - Has the existence of a deity been revealed to your friend despite the lack of recorded evidence? Has there been a "Pauline" light shone upon them? It may be that they have had such a moment and deny its significance, but such a denial merely makes them deniers not agnostic.

Now comes the difficult bit. Where does this leave the term "agnostic"? People of faith suggest that there is a third way of knowing and that is having faith, just blind faith based upon emotional conviction. However your friend claims agnosticism and as such can have no such unguided faith. Your friend does not have evidence for, or belief in, any deity; so why can they not describe themselves as atheist but in a special subclass that is awaiting, or even expecting, evidence or revelation, if there is a deity, and will not speculate further. Looked at in this way agnosticism is a subset of atheism, but a subset that will not explore the rationality or otherwise of its position.

All rational atheists will admit the faint possibility they might be wrong; Dawkins has stated as much in a recent interview as well as admitting it in "The Blind Watchmaker". Such doubts are normal but having such doubts does not invalidate the claim to atheism, it just underlines the rational basis of the position. A parallel is with 19th century physicists who believed in classical Newtonian mechanics but acknowledged that there could be other systems that emulated the Newtonian system on observable scales. The allowance that there might be other such systems made the acceptance of Einsteinian and quantum mechanics possible and having such doubts did not render the claim to being a physicist invalid. Equally, having doubts about the absolute non-existence of a deity does not render you any less atheist.

Now Popper. Karl was a nice guy trying to bring together 2 competing world views and ignoring the problem that "metaphysics" - if it has no actual effect upon a real world - might as well not exist. It is Aristotelean in its modern incarnations and is the formal reasoning behind such nonsenses as the Transubstantiation of the host during mass and the idea that there is a "red hat" has a real existence outside the the physical substance of cloth and dyestuffs. Accepting this contention is not in any way scientific and in my view is just wishful thinking. In the same way denying that you are an atheist because you might at some future time have an enlightenment is wishful thinking of another sort.

In this light all believers are atheist and agnostic - about deities other than their particular one. There are apologists who declare (upon no foundation whatsoever) that all deities are just different aspects or variant perceptions and ignore the vast contradictions between the faiths that they try to connect. This is a paradox and as much a paradox as your friend denying his/her lack of belief in a deity is atheism and wishing to place themselves in a privileged class they call "agnostic".

[skepticscott]

8. Hogwash

The "gods" of the vast majority of religious believers in the world are claimed to influence, and be influenced by, events in the physical world. Those "gods" are absolutely amenable to scientific, rational inquiry. If a god is claimed to answer prayers and heal sick people, that claim (and by extension, the likelihood of the existence of such a god) is empirically testable. If a god is claimed to have created the whole world and everything in it 10,000 years ago and to to cover the world with a flood, that's testable too.

If a "god" exists only in the minds and imaginations of his/her/its believers, and if a religion made NO truth claims about the physical world, then this person's arguments might have some merit, but that case is pretty much where atheists are right now. We lack belief in real, physical existence of gods, not in their imaginary existence (which they clearly do have).

This is nothing but tortured special pleading by someone who doesn't believe in any gods, but is afraid of the label "atheist", and who relishes the intellectual pomposity of "agnosticism" as a remnant of their days in college philosophy classes.

[edhopper]

9. If one is an atheist

and a materialist, then the argument for a "metaphysical realm" does not hold sway, and one is not obligated to concede anything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. One correction to what your friend wrote

They start out talking about the existence/non-existence of 'a deity', which is OK - 'a deity' covers all kinds of concepts - not only all those used in all the religions there have been, but the deist version (a god that created the universe and then has had nothing to do with it subsequently), or anything anyone else can imagine. However, that then changes into

the statement "God exists" is a perfect example of a metaphysical statement that cannot be tested

and, without an indefinite article, and with the capital G, that is suddenly talking about one specific concept of a deity - and I'd say the use of that in English implies an idea of a single god more powerful than everything else, and which has a personality (because it's been capitalised, as we capitalise personal names). It is also frequently used to imply an active god, such as the Christian or Islamic one. And those are testable with science. They should stick with 'the statement "a deity exists"' or '"a god exists"'.

[cbayer]

11. I think it's awesome and give him a big thumbsup

Those that think you have to be either a theist or an atheist tend to be the same ones who see this as a war that must be won by their team.

Screw that and good for your friend.

[skepticscott]

13. Screw that?

Yes, I can understand that you would say "Screw that" to discussing things with an aim of getting closer to the truth. I can understand your trying to (for the umpteenth time) dishonestly paint this as people wanting their "team" to win, rather than the truth.

Do you have any real, substantive comment or analysis of this post and people's responses to it, or are you just going to bestow your usual Great Post (r) award, as if that meant ANYTHING?

You agenda is transparent, and it has NO grounding in facts, logic or reasonable arguments. It certainly has no interest in what's true and what's real, or in useful, meaningful, productive discussion. You just want your way. As long as you keep trying to peddle that here, you will get the same unwelcoming response.

[2ndAmForComputers]

14. Run this procedure:

10 READ post 5 in this thread
20 IF NOT got it THEN GOTO 10

[cbayer]

15. Read 'em. Care to put that in your own words?

[2ndAmForComputers]

16. I don't have to. Moonwalk wrote it better than I could.

This is not school, you're not my teacher, and I don't have to write an original essay.

It seems the IF in line 20 is still yielding False.

[cbayer]

17. You are right. This is not school and I don't have to look at posts you instruct me to.

Do you believe that there is intelligent life in this universe somewhere other than earth?

Are you an intelligentlifeist or an aintelligentlifeist?

[skepticscott]

18. Why is everything a matter of "belief" with you?

Does "believing" make you feel warm and fuzzy, or empowered? Is "believing" like a wide-eyed 4 year old with Santa Claus the ultimate virtue in your book?

I need to be convinced that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and so far, I have not been. Of course that would take critical thinking. It would also take thinking.

I am open to the possibility that evidence for this may some day come to light. But until it does, I will withhold acceptance of the claim, as any intelligent and sensible person would do.

[JNelson6563]

20. Really? Wow.

[cbayer]

22. Really.

[JNelson6563]

29. I marvel at the lightweight stuff you applaud.

The sort of authors some people think sound smart. I think debate and reasoning should be mandatory in school. It's sad to see people lap that nonsense up.

Julie

[cbayer]

30. Feeling is mutual.

See you around the campfire.

[trotsky]

24. She needs to have her "team" win. n/t

[edhopper]

12. I am not persuaded by the

"You can't know this" argument.
Often espoused by those who absolutely "know" God exists without a shred of evidence.
Scientific knowledge advances because though there are many things unknown, there is nothing that ultimately can't be known.

If one wishes to believe in a deity that does not and has never had any impact on the physical Universe, go ahead.
The arguments for invisible purple unicorns or the FSM seem just as convincing.

[rexcat]

19. I don't believe in god...

or gods but don't call me an atheist. Since I am not an atheist but don't believe in gods I can define myself as I wish and no one can argue against me. I am using the logic or illogic of some in this forum and your friend.

[dmallind]

23. You may have noticed one clear thing already

Believers, who are neither of the labels mentioned, strongly support this (mis)definition.

Atheists, who are certainly one and most likely both when correctly defined, oppose it.

Simple reasons:

1) It (wrongly) reduces atheism to a poisition based on faith and hence makes it a claim that must be defended without testable evidence, just like theism. This, again wrongly, "shares" the burden of proof between believer and non-believer. You can easily see why believers are fans

2) It reinforces, with screaming irony once you understand the terms correctly, the idea that there is a perfectly valid "other way of knowing", in this case labeled metaphysics, which allows believers a place to feel secure in lacking testable evidence. I refer you to my statement above.

The whole idea is wrong because of the usual neologistic vernacular bastardization of terms.

Theism is belief in personal god(s)

Atheism (just like any other word with analogous etymology like aseptic or asymmetrical) simply means the lack of that belief. Not the belief in the opposite; just an "I don't believe you".

Agnosticism is the lack of gnosis (same etymology see). Gnosis is mystically revealed certainty without evidence. So then it means the stance that there is no way to know without evidence. Agnosticism properly addresses knowledge, not belief. Atheism addresses belief, not knowledge. The word "agnstic" was only invented in the late 19th Century by a man named Thomas Huxley, who wrote voluminously about what he meant. Socrates, apocryphally, was tried partially for atheism. Where was this "debate" in the intervening 2500 years? Nowhere, because then, as now, atheism included all who lack belief in gods.

The problem is exacerbated to be honest by the fact that there is a tiny minority in atheism who avow that all gods are universally impossible. Strong or explicit atheism DOES take a position based on faith, albeit with at least absence of evidence for any such claim to at least tilt the odds in their favor a smidgen. However they are no more the whole of atheism than Christian Scientists are the whole of Christianity.

To boil this down to one sentence: When your friend truly considers the difference betwen "believe" and "know" and which label refers to each, this false dilemma will disappear.

I am 100% atheistic and 100% agnostic. I challenge anyone to prove that this is impossible, or even difficult or terribly unusual.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. Well said.

[cleanhippie]

28. Can you post this as a sticky so it can be used as a reference

We could save so much bandwidth by having a few things like this defined for the purposes of furthering conversation without having to rehash the same crap over and over.

[get the red out]

26. I like that

Thanks for posting. You are brave to do so.

[Iggo]

27. Um, no.