Agnosticism

[RockAndRoll]

I am a ‘devout’ agnostic, so I’m here to put forth an argument for it, or perhaps what should really be called a criticism of atheism and theism alike. (Yeah, this is extremely long, meh)

The first attack on agnosticism which I’m forced to counter is the idea that it does not actually exist. As far as I can tell there are two main arguments which support the idea that agnosticism does not exist. The first argument goes that if you do not believe in god you must therefore believe there is no god, and tries to apply the law of the excluded middle. The second is that there is no difference between an agnostic and an atheist because neither believes in god so all distinctions are for political correctness at best.

The former falls victim to the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is essentially misapplication of the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . There are in fact more than two options. To say that not to believe god exists means to believe there is no god is implying that there is no such thing as lack of a belief in this case. For to admit that there is such thing as complete lack of belief is to admit a third option and therefore concede that the law of the excluded middle does not apply.

So then from this argument it must follow that in this case there can be no lack of belief. The criticism most easily leveled against this view is that inanimate objects clearly have a complete lack of belief. The response to which is generally that although inanimate objects may hold no beliefs people cannot withhold judgment. This however is once again demonstrably false. Every time you’ve genuinely not known the answer to a question you’ve essentially been withholding judgment. Just as if I were to ask you what the value of x is you would most likely not jump to any conclusion. The response to this typically is that withholding judgment is only possibly in situations where there are multiple options. Once again however that is to suggest that were I to ask you if the value of x is 3 or 4 you would reach with some degree of certitude a conclusion. Although it may be easy to pick an answer as nothing rides on you getting the answer correct I would imagine that you would admit to not knowing the answer. This demonstrates that someone can indeed be agnostic. Not believing in one option does not mean belief in the other.

As for the criticism that agnostic really is no different from atheism this, though true for the most part is not entirely correct. Both agnostics and atheists lack belief in god and thus tend not to spend there time at church services etc. however it should be admitted that no one who was convinced that god does not exist would do something such as write this essay in defense of not making any decision. Likewise no agnostic would write an essay about how they know god doesn’t exist. Though in almost all aspects an agnostic would be completely indistinguishable from an atheist this is not to say they are entirely the same or that it is meaningless to call oneself an agnostic.

Now that I’ve spent way more time than should be necessary (but from my various arguments on this board seems to be) showing that agnosticism does actually exist I’m going to present some of my arguments against atheism and theism alike.

Lets start with atheism. Many atheists seem to pride themselves in being the ‘rational ones’, but even beyond the angsty teen atheists many of their arguments fall short of actually making them worthy of that title. One common argument is that there is no evidence for god and thus it is rational to believe there is no god. This however is a logical fallacy, it really is argument from ignorance, or sometimes argument from personal incredulity. It does not follow that because there is no evidence for god we can deduce that god does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Another argument I’ve seen made for agnosticism is that the conjunction fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy ) makes it more likely. This is however untrue. In the same way that in ‘the universe was created by God’ “by God” is an extra term and thus makes the statement less likely in ‘the universe popped into existence on it’s own’ “on it’s own” is an extra term and makes the statement less likely. The conjunction fallacy applies equally to theists and atheists and can only really be used to support agnosticism. Although the argument is sometimes a good critique of a theist’s argument it does not support atheism.

There have been however several well done and completely correct criticism of certain conflicting ideas of God, people have often shown how certain beliefs about god cannot be held simultaneously or how certain conceptions of god are impossible, often through reduction ad absurdum arguments. This may disprove the existence of certain specific gods these arguments do not disprove the general idea of God. Just as disproving one religion would not disprove the others neither does disproving one particular conception of God disprove the whole idea.

As for theism there are also arguments made on rational grounds (which once again tend to be poorly reasoned) but equally there are irrationalist arguments. Arguments about how people can feel God’s presence, or how they simply know god exists. These types of arguments however are completely useless as they have failed to demonstrate anything and are at best appeals to emotion, another fallacious form of argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion these arguments often appeal to the sense of the universe being something special, but they lack any actual substance.

One of the retorts used to criticisms like this (and to many other rational criticisms of theist beliefs) is that God is beyond logic. That logic is insufficient when it comes to matters of God because God is beyond that. However if this is your train of thought you’ll at the very least need to rethink it in any debate because debates are based on logic. The fact remains that no logical argument for the existence of god has been presented. The fact remains that the argument is about as convincing as “God exists” is. It’s hardly adequate.

In a similar vein theists often speak of personal proof, some proof of god existence which they cannot share with others, such as some experience they had. I however certainly don’t have any of this ‘personal proof’ and any personal proof which you may have is completely useless to me. Though I would encourage you strongly to ask yourself whether this personal proof is actually proof, and not once again some type of appeal to emotion, if you do genuinely have this proof good for you, but I don’t so I’m stuck as an agnostic.

Other support for the idea that there is a god however comes from how special our universe is. The order of the universe and how amazing it all seems to be is taken to be proof of God’s existence. It is argued that it is so great and orderly that it must have been created by God. Once again this is among other things attempt to appeal to emotion. However there are other things at play in this arguments. There is the idea that such complex things, such special things must be designed by something. As they say ‘just as you will not paint the Mona Lisa by throwing paint at the canvas our universe could not be created at random, or at least likely wasn’t.

The logic is that complex, orderly things are designed, so then our universe must be. The problem with this is that the entirely argument is flimsy due to the fact that there really is no proof that something complex must have been designed.

Generally when making this argument people point out things like that if we see a building or a nice painting etc we do not assume it happened by chance, we figure someone deliberately made it to be so. However it is our lack of experience of happenstance paintings and unplanned buildings which makes us come to those conclusions, which then seem reasonable. Out of the thousands of paintings and buildings we may have seen none have been a product of chance, so we assume the next one to be no difference. However the same cannot be done for the universe, as we have only seen this one and so have nothing to compare it to. The universe in it’s being unique to us cannot even really be made subject to an argument of induction. Furthermore despite the awesomeness of the universe it’s hardly a small and tidy place who’s main purpose seems to be to contain life. Our view of the universe has changed radically since the dark ages (as it will most likely change again) and doesn’t exactly seem tailored to fit us as it was supposed back then.

When you get down to it the problem really is that there is no reason that our universe should not be or could not be a product of something other than God, no matter how special it may seem. Arguments to the contrary tend to be either non-sequitors or appeals to emotion.

I’m sure I’ve left out a million and one arguments that people have made in favour of both sides, but I’m going to conclude here for now anyways.

[RockAndRoll]

What it comes down to is this you can’t really make a valid argument off of no proof for either side, and in this case that is exactly what people are trying to do. Atheists tend to believe they have taken the rational side and while some of the arguments seem logical they are ultimately flawed, we just have no way of discounting the concept of God, as things stand it cannot be done. Although on a practical level atheism makes sense on a philosophical level it falls short. Theism, likewise, fails to put forth any truly convincing arguments, something that many theists do not deny, but argue are not necessary. For me however they are, despite any personal proof you may have I don’t have it, and for everyone theist who tells me all I need to do is search within myself (or without myself depending on their take) I tell you I have, and not as skeptic as you may assume I did, I was once Catholic. Just as when I was a little kid and I would search for some hidden power deep within me I searched for God, but never was there truly anything there. I have no proof, so I cannot believe.

I hope I’ve actually managed to sway some people’s opinions, or managed to make some people reconsider some things, We'll see I suppose.

[griftadan]

i used to be and then i realized that the logic of "you cna't prove it doesn't exist" was bunk so i just became atheist.

[Iskandar]

Great thread! I did read every single word of it, honestly.

Originally Posted by RockAndRoll

The first argument goes that if you do not believe in god you must therefore believe there is no god,

That's an atrocious argument! It's utter fallacy.

[RockAndRoll]

Originally Posted by griftadan

i used to be and then i realized that the logic of "you cna't prove it doesn't exist" was bunk so i just became atheist.

It's not though that's the thing. Practically speaking I'm an atheist (other than the essays and long drawn out arguments I suppose), but philosophically speaking I'm agnostic because in this case the best we can do really is "I don't know".

[RockAndRoll]

Originally Posted by The Dropper

Great thread! I did read every single word of it, honestly.


That's an atrocious argument! It's utter fallacy.

Thank you. Honestly though, I've heard that argument so many times.

[Iskandar]

Originally Posted by RockAndRoll

Thank you. Honestly though, I've heard that argument so many times.

It's awful! There is no logical reason to suppose that withholding judgement on something implies you believe it doesn't exist.

[RockAndRoll]

Hey, you don't need to tell me that.

[Riva]

Good argument. I read it, and even got a tiny bit sidetracked on the Wiki articles. I'm not going to defend myself, I'm an atheist because it fits easiest to my hand. However, I do agree that every side, including the agnostics, have the annoying side which is out to prove their point.

[Iskandar]

Even though I'm an atheist, I do admit the logical superiority of agnosticism .. at least, if the argument takes place in a vacuum.

[B Radd]

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

[Riva]

Originally Posted by B Radd

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

Define god. I don't worship nature, since I'm not a Druid/Pantheist/Wiccan or a Pagan in general.

[RockAndRoll]

Originally Posted by Riva

Good argument. I read it, and even got a tiny bit sidetracked on the Wiki articles. I'm not going to defend myself, I'm an atheist because it fits easiest to my hand. However, I do agree that every side, including the agnostics, have the annoying side which is out to prove their point.

Thank you. I thought the Wiki articales were a good aid. I guess I'd be the annoying agnostic in this case . I'd agree every side does have the annoying type, though I'd say least of all agnostics due to the fact many of them are just generally unsure. That could just be my experience though, and afterall I guess I'm leaving myself out of that .

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

That would make them theist. Regardless those beliefs are all so incredibly and radically different in every way that to call the believers all theists is meaningless and does nothing but render several words in the english language completely useless.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'm an apatheist.

[Atomic Rain]

Agnosticism; there's nothing wrong with it, it just has no place in discussion. It's schroedingers religion, without the attatched maths.

[BassRevelation1029]

I have some kind of feeling that this was directed towards an old argument of mine, so I'll add my two cents

Originally Posted by RockAndRoll

The former falls victim to the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is essentially misapplication of the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma .

just for future refrences, I wouldnt recommend using wikipedia as a source. Not to mention just anyone can put anything on there, this article was copied directly from atheist.com

Just as if I were to ask you what the value of x is you would most likely not jump to any conclusion....Not believing in one option does not mean belief in the other.

Let me clear something up: an atheist denies the existence of God outright while the agnostic claims he does not have enough evidence to make a judgment. With this, if God can be accepted/denied, He is defined. In this case, we're not asking, "what is the value of x" but rather "do you believe in x?" Had i asked that question, there would be some possibilities: yes and no. One can say "I dont know," however you cannot hold both ideas. Thats like saying x = not x.

I think 'agnostic' is leaning one way or the other, but it seems that its the stance so commonly taken to be on the safe side-sort of that like the creative evolutionist.

As for the criticism that agnostic really is no different from atheism... Though in almost all aspects an agnostic would be completely indistinguishable from an atheist this is not to say they are entirely the same or that it is meaningless to call oneself an agnostic.

Heres a similarity ive picked up in my own experiences talking to them: neither one of them is willing to accept evidence. As you've heard billions of times before, i believe evidence is subjective, and until one puts on the glasses of one who believes in God, they wont see any evidence. This is another problem i have with agnosticism. They claim they have no evidence, but have they really looked? I say believing is seeing, not the other way.

Arguments about how people can feel God’s presence, or how they simply know god exists. These types of arguments however are completely useless...

This argument should be left out of debates if one is trying to convince. However, this is the "proof" for the person arguing. Though This obviously wont convince the other person one bit, it does have substance for the one arguing. We cannot assume because it cannot be explained and is without substance in the debate, it is therefore without substance period and is not real.

That logic is insufficient when it comes to matters of God because God is beyond that. However if this is your train of thought you’ll at the very least need to rethink it in any debate because debates are based on logic.

but you are bringing in an element of FAITH into the debate, so of course you're gonna talk about personal beliefs.

The fact remains that no logical argument for the existence of god has been presented.

this isnt even a fact.

In a similar vein theists often speak of personal proof, some proof of god existence which they cannot share with others, such as some experience they had. I however certainly don’t have any of this ‘personal proof’ and any personal proof which you may have is completely useless to me.

I no longer argue for the existence of God on this board, seeing how people just wont see. Nevertheless, im still asked "why do YOU believe in God?" Something like that i would rather leave out, but it seems as if im driven to answer the question. If it does nothing for one, so be it, but my goal isnt to prove God's existence.

When you get down to it the problem really is that there is no reason that our universe should not be or could not be a product of something other than God, no matter how special it may seem. Arguments to the contrary tend to be either non-sequitors or appeals to emotion.

take a look into Aquinas's argument. Its not one I live by or even hold highly, but you should get a look at it.

[CabbageStabbage]

Originally Posted by RockAndRoll

It's not though that's the thing. Practically speaking I'm an atheist (other than the essays and long drawn out arguments I suppose), but philosophically speaking I'm agnostic because in this case the best we can do really is "I don't know".

Same here. Philosophically I am agnostic. I don't think the concept of a god has been defined properly - look at the many contradictions about it.

Also, if a single god created the universe, why should we worship or acknowledge it? Since he created everything, why would prayer be the only way of worshipping?

Also, you could say that the universe was created by 2 or more gods, which is why there is all this suffering and chaos and whatever. Of course, who created the gods?

[Against Miik!]

I would consider myself an agnostic, but I think it's safe to say the average person doesn't really know what that is. And I REALLY don't want to say i'm an athiest, because, well, i'm not, and also you end up getting crap from all sides.

But as i've gotten older, i've really come to realize that there is absolutely nothing behind this whole religion thing. Some of the craziest most intolerant people I know or have seen, personally or say, on the political scene, are religous. Our own president is trying to say many of his actions have been handed down from God. I mean, what the hell is that? We see corruption in the church, and it seems that they are just making things up as they go along. The Catholic church gets rid of purgatory. I mean, did nobody catch this? Either it exists or it does not. What if we were just told someday that Asia actually doesn't exist? It's the same thing, except we know Asia is actually there. In the Buddhist religion also, they generally outlaw television for pleasurable purposes, but somehow, through some divine intervention, its o.k. for Buddhist to watch the World Cup. Well that makes sense.

It's not so much that I need proof of God's existance. If everybody had just stfu, I probably would have continue a 100% blind faith in God. However, everywhere I look, the people who are susposed to strengthen our faith are doing everything possible to disprove a higher power.

[Aklerc]

You know what I think? (this isn't aimed at anyone or attacking anyone) I think people need to drop the labels. There are too many beliefs and morals floating around people to put into one group. I believe it's another way of making people channel their beliefs into something so black and white.

I believe so many different things. I don't believe there is a God... but I think He exists. You can't deny that. Every single person that believes in God has made him exist. Even if he just represents a common belief. Even if he is just an answer to the unanswerable. He is definitely something... I just don't know what. I have no idea if there is a 'higher authority' and to be honest I don't care. I'll live my life a day at a time- even if we can prove this authority exists or not will not change hpw we live our lives. We will still live and we will still die. I also believe in karma, and that things happen for a reason.

And I believe that an explanation of my beliefs like that is much more fulfilling and more representative of me than just one word.


Hell that was off topic but meh.

[Der Übermensch]

Originally Posted by B Radd

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

To paraphrase a quote brought up in the other thread, you are an atheist as well. There are a million gods you don't believe exist for one reason or another... Atheists just don't believe in a million and one gods...