RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 2, 2015 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 7:36 pm by ManMachine.)
(February 2, 2015 at 12:46 pm)whateverist Wrote:(February 2, 2015 at 11:11 am)ManMachine Wrote: Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.
Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.
MM
Agreed. I'm also happy to acknowledge that any hunch I may communicate regarding the existence of god, is not up to my highest standards of knowledge claims. I may exclaim that there is no way I get dealt a straight flush in the next hand of poker, but I realize there actually is a very, very small chance it will happen. Nonetheless I'm folding my shitty starting cards without a worry.
The situation with god claims is much, much worse than for being dealt a straight flush. With the latter, we all understand what a straight flush will look like, and its probability is not zero. If anyone ever turns one over, we'd all recognize it. No one knows what a god would look like, and there is little or no agreement between those few who do claim to know. I'm fine with dismissing god claims without careful examination. However that doesn't mean I believe no gods exist, and I know full well I have no argument for their non-existence. I just carry on as if that were true as a practical matter as I have better things to do, no expectation of that a good case for god's existence will ever be found, and no interest.
And that's as good as any answer can get.
It's simply a matter of what we prefer to think and how we justify that thinking. If we can recognise that it is important to others how they think then it becomes a matter of how we decide on whether or not we are going to respect other people's opinions. One thing is for certain we need to draw a line at some point otherwise or the cognitive framework around these concepts becomes indistinct and our ideologies irrelevant.
I propose that agnosticism is important because it helps to maintain a cognitive structure around this particular ideological issue, without which we would not be having this discussion.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
