Why Agnosticism?

[Violet]

Even a simulation, a delusion, a being there only in the depths of psychosis or the most depraved being that it the figment of a mouse's imagination, an illusion, a thing that you don't see... it all exists. Everything exists. Necessarily.

It's not a question of science, but of logic... and if you have faith in it.

[DeistPaladin]

I haven't read this whole thread yet but having reviewed the first page, the following four words leap to mind:

Tempest
in
a
teapot

If we can agree we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood through science and reason, the rest is just abstract philosophical musings that have little impact on our real lives.

The whole "hard" atheism vs. "soft" atheism vs. agnosticism vs. pantheism vs. deism argument given our struggles with religion today is a waste of valuable bandwidth. Let's at least wait until Islamo-Christianity is tossed into the scrapheap of dead mythologies before we revisit this issue.

Just my suggestion, FWIW.

[diffidus]

Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Diffidus please prove to me that your abstract math is true in the empirical sense. I want to observe a real world perfect geometric shape very much.

Diffidus:

I said that it was a statement of absolute fact not that you could prove it by empirical measurement. An empirical fact might be that the planet earth is smaller than the universe that contains it.

Yes but under science all laws and theory are open to adjustment should new evidence be discovered. This leaves open the very improbable possibility that the whole universe and the earth does not exist at all and we are all part of a simulation in the real universe. This does not mean we should adopt a view of being agnostic to the idea of each being part in a simulation. we can rule it out as statistically insignificant. I believe we should and can do the same with supernatural myths.

There is any number of improbable realities that would be able to disprove anything empirical or otherwise. This does not negate the value of empirical evidence. It does negate the value of the highly improbable until empirical evidence is provided.

You have lept from an insistence on empirical measurement in a real world back to an abstract philosophical argument. It seems that your argument is circular. When I state an abstract truth, such as Pythagoras' theorum you demand an empirical truth. When I give an empirical truth you defeat it with an abstract example. I think there is a fundamental problem with any approach that states that there must be at least some doubt in any empirical statement. This due to a contradiction: If everything is in someway doubtful, then why not doubt this very phrase? It seems self defeating!!

However, let us take your supposition that the real world we perceive, absolutely everything, is just a mirage in a machine in a real world. Then it becomes impossible to estimate the probability of this machine existing. Imagine what the beings in this world would decide based upon their empirical measurements . They would deduce that such a machine did not exist or that it was highly improbable. In this world, however, the probability that the machine exists is 100%!!

Finally, the statement that the planet earth is smaller than the universe that contains it is still a statement of empirical fact, even if the 'real world' is a machine. This is due to the fact that although, in such a universe, the earth may not exist as we perceive it, it must exist in some form within the machine(if only as a shadow or electrical pulse etc) and hence the statement is still a statement of truth.

[Violet]

If we can agree we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood through science and reason, the rest is just abstract philosophical musings that have little impact on our real lives.

If... being the key word.

[eric209]

I am going to individually address your claims

I think there is a fundamental problem with any approach that states that there must be at least some doubt in any empirical statement.

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. The validity of any statement always depends upon further experience and observation. In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations, we must make use of induction, also known as indirect empirical knowledge. We never have a empiricall statement we can say is unequivocally true. We only have theories that have stood the test of time.

When I give an empirical truth you defeat it with an abstract example.

I would not have defeated it if it was unequivocally true. My example was intended not to defeat you but to show you the value of empirical data. It has a value but it is not 100%. Nothing empirical is ever beyond doubt.

This due to a contradiction: If everything is in someway doubtful, then why not doubt this very phrase? It seems self defeating!!

This is a false equivocation on your part. Certain things are highly doubtful while other things are so infinitesimally doubtful they do not require consideration or notice.

However, let us take your supposition that the real world we perceive, absolutely everything, is just a mirage in a machine in a real world. Then it becomes impossible to estimate the probability of this machine existing. Imagine what the beings in this world would decide based upon their empirical measurements . They would deduce that such a machine did not exist or that it was highly improbable. In this world, however, the probability that the machine exists is 100%!!

Now you seemed to totally have glossed over the point i was making. There is always a possibility that something that was empirical observed will be due to our limitations in observing or sensing. A non hypothetically example if you will...
When our understanding of the world was much less then it is now men believed the world to be flat. They based this on empirical data that everywhere they looked it seemed rather flat. This continues to be an empirical statement. This statement was not proven untrue until someone observed with instruments finer then our own senses. This contradiction makes the statement false. There are still people that believe the world is flat and our instruments are wrong. This is an example of a highly unlikely statement.

[tavarish]

Saying one is "agnostic" rather than "atheist", when the two mean exactly the same thing is a cop out, often to avoid the negative connotations of atheism.

The OP's first argument is full of holes, and I think they should definitely refer to a dictionary before making a statement.

Sorry tavarish ( and others ) but the two don't mean the same thing.
An agnostic says it is not known if god exists.
An atheist disbelieves in god...period.

The atheist position is a stronger statement as to the improbability of god's existence.

I can't get the attraction for adding agnostic before atheist. How many times on this site do we explain the atheist position to the religious by stating atheism is no more than not believing in god?????
Would the site logo be better for changing the wording to " agostic atheist forums "? I think not.

Thanks for playing.

An atheist doesn't believe in God. He claims no belief.

An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God. He claims no knowledge.

Please tell me how being an agnostic in this context doesn't necessarily lead you to atheism, as they deal with the same entity. Atheism isn't a positive statement, it's simply a lack of belief. It isn't necessarily "no gods exist", but it is "I don't believe in gods".

The reason some put agnostic before atheist is because there is such a thing as a gnostic atheist. I am a gnostic atheist to the God of the Bible because such a character would be impossible, and the entity has many contradictory traits. To other Gods not conjured yet, I am agnostic.

[diffidus]

I am going to individually address your claims

I think there is a fundamental problem with any approach that states that there must be at least some doubt in any empirical statement.

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. The validity of any statement always depends upon further experience and observation. In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations, we must make use of induction, also known as indirect empirical knowledge. We never have a empiricall statement we can say is unequivocally true. We only have theories that have stood the test of time.

When I give an empirical truth you defeat it with an abstract example.

I would not have defeated it if it was unequivocally true. My example was intended not to defeat you but to show you the value of empirical data. It has a value but it is not 100%. Nothing empirical is ever beyond doubt.


This due to a contradiction: If everything is in someway doubtful, then why not doubt this very phrase? It seems self defeating!!

This is a false equivocation on your part. Certain things are highly doubtful while other things are so infinitesimally doubtful they do not require consideration or notice.

However, let us take your supposition that the real world we perceive, absolutely everything, is just a mirage in a machine in a real world. Then it becomes impossible to estimate the probability of this machine existing. Imagine what the beings in this world would decide based upon their empirical measurements . They would deduce that such a machine did not exist or that it was highly improbable. In this world, however, the probability that the machine exists is 100%!!

Now you seemed to totally have glossed over the point i was making. There is always a possibility that something that was empirical observed will be due to our limitations in observing or sensing. A non hypothetically example if you will...
When our understanding of the world was much less then it is now men believed the world to be flat. They based this on empirical data that everywhere they looked it seemed rather flat. This continues to be an empirical statement. This statement was not proven untrue until someone observed with instruments finer then our own senses. This contradiction makes the statement false. There are still people that believe the world is flat and our instruments are wrong. This is an example of a highly unlikely statement.

Diffidus:
[i] This due to a contradiction: If everything is in someway doubtful, then why not doubt this very phrase? It seems self defeating!!

This is a false equivocation on your part. Certain things are highly doubtful while other things are so infinitesimally doubtful they do not require consideration or notice.[/i]

No - there was no error in the logic - which is why I used the word 'someway'.

Now you seemed to totally have glossed over the point i was making. There is always a possibility that something that was empirical observed will be due to our limitations in observing or sensing. A non hypothetically example if you will...
When our understanding of the world was much less then it is now men believed the world to be flat. They based this on empirical data that everywhere they looked it seemed rather flat. This continues to be an empirical statement. This statement was not proven untrue until someone observed with instruments finer then our own senses. This contradiction makes the statement false. There are still people that believe the world is flat and our instruments are wrong. This is an example of a highly unlikely statement.

Yet the fact is world was not flat. My central point is how do you know from empirical observation what the probability of an un-measured quantity such as the 'flatness of the earth' actually is. Your assumption is that, at any moment in history, if you cannot measure a phenomena directly then there is only a small probability that such a phenomena exists. My contention is that history shows the complete reverse. If we knew we were close to the edge of all knowledge, then and only then, may we state with any confidence, that certain proposed phenomena (that we currently cannot measure) have a low probability of existence. But we do not know where on this scale we are and, therefore, just like the flat earth 'high probabilities' of the past we must acknowledge our ignorance and refrain from making bold statements.

Empirical knowledge can only be used to defeat a proposition such as, 'Is the Earth flat?' when a measurement exists which refutes it.

With a statement such as, ' Does God exist'? we currently have no measurement which demonstrates this, and so we cannot be certain on its probability unless we adopt a 'flat earth' mentality.

Finally, although empirical knowledge is important, it is not the only source of truth. Much of science is not based upon empirical measurement it is based upon models which derive their knowledge from more abstract and intuitive sources. A statement such as, the earth is smaller than the universe that contains it, is absolutely true and, as such, is a form of knowledge that should not be ignored. We can only utter statements about 'things in the world'. Whether the statements are true, depend on our reasoning which may or may not employ empirical data. I think relying completely on empirical data is a false representation of the Human condition. What I mean by this is most aptly exemplified by Albert Einstein, who when asked if everything could be empirically represented, he replied, 'yes it could. But what use would it be? It would be like representing a Beethoven Symphony as an air pressure curve'

[eric209]

You try to dismiss real and very carefully done scientific work by equivocating it to assumptions made before the scientific method was discovered. You try to safeguard your statements by use emotional words like "seems to me". You dismiss science with these vague emotive phrases then purport that since the theory's of science are subject to revisionism that they are as equally true or untrue as supernatural or mythological sources.

You are trying to use "Argument from authority" in a phrase where Einstein was talking about music to devalue empirical data. The whole point of asking for any empirical data for god is because there has been none so far. There is empirical data for music it just has little value. This is a false dichotomy on your part.

tl;dr
The complete lack of empirical data is not the same as empirical data having little value.

[diffidus]

You try to dismiss real and very carefully done scientific work by equivocating it to assumptions made before the scientific method was discovered. You try to safeguard your statements by use emotional words like "seems to me". You dismiss science with these vague emotive phrases then purport that since the theory's of science are subject to revisionism that they are as equally true or untrue as supernatural or mythological sources.

You are trying to use "Argument from authority" in a phrase where Einstein was talking about music to devalue empirical data. The whole point of asking for any empirical data for god is because there has been none so far. There is empirical data for music it just has little value. This is a false dichotomy on your part.

tl;dr
The complete lack of empirical data is not the same as empirical data having little value.

I am not dismissing scientific method or work. The 'flat earth example' I took from your post as a point of discussion. I could have used more up to date examples. Up to the mid 1900s it was widely held by the scientific community that the problems of physics had been largely solved. It was thought that the universe was deterministic with deterministic laws. At that time, it would have been considered a minute possibility that, in fact, the world is non deterministic. However, now we know with 100% certainty, that it actually is the latter. It was also believed, that the probability that Isaac Newtons theory of gravity was wrong was a remote possibility - now we know it was wrong, not just empirically but its fundamental principles. I could go on with endless examples - but these are exactly the same as tha 'flat earth case'.

There is, currently, no empirical data for dark matter, dark energy or the seven of the eleven dimensions of string theory - all leading scientific ideas. Are we supposed to assume that these ideas are somehow unlikely or remote?

Finally, I have not made any reference to any supernatural sources in my posts - this is an assumption that you have made. If God exists as a being/entity in the universe, I would expect it to be part of the natural universe possibly (or maybe not) open to empirical proof. I am saying that, at this point in history, judging from our previous performance, it seems unlikely that we are at the edge of knowledge and ,therefore, we cannot deduce the probability of God's existence from current empirical measurement. I am wary of leaping to conclusions from such a weak position, namely, the full weight of Humakind's historical errors.

[Napoléon]

I am saying that, at this point in history, judging from our previous performance, it seems unlikely that we are at the edge of knowledge and ,therefore, we cannot deduce the probability of God's existence from current empirical measurement. I am wary of leaping to conclusions from such a weak position, namely, the full weight of Humakind's historical errors.

You are basically saying that because we have not found evidence of god yet we must just say 'he might exist' and wait until we do find evidence to confirm his existence (even though we probably won't find any evidence).
Judging by your logic we should say there might be pixies, and yeti's, and little red riding hood, and bigfoot etc. We don't have the knowledge to dismiss those mythical creatures do we? According to your own logic?