Why Agnosticism?

[diffidus]

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding. This gives us an ever deeper understanding of nature and the universe in which we live.

But the problem with this approach is the sheer size of the gaping holes in our understanding. Let me list a few examples that inspire awe in me:

i) The stars in our Galaxy revolve around a central black hole. However, the stars on the outer edges are moving much faster than predicted by scientific observation of the amount of mass in our Galaxy. So scientists have invented 'dark matter and energy'. The whole of space is filled with this dark matter and dark energy, it is all around us and the only problem is that we cannot see it (hence dark). Now guess how much of this dark matter/energy is required to restore scientific order in the universe? Over 95% of all matter in the universe. This is astounding - all the stars and planets that we can empirically observe account for only ~5% of the universe the rest is the magic invisible stuff!!

ii) At the small scale, a Physicist called Heisenberg has set an absolute limit to our knowledge. This is based upon 'Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle' which implies that there are regions of subatomic space that we can never observe, not even in principle!! What strange worlds may exist in these regions of space which we will never know.

iii) The law of cause and effect lies behind all scientific laws. Yet the philosopher David Hume has demonstrated that this principle cannot be proven using any empirical measurement and must be adopted on the basis of faith. Yes - at the heart of science is pure faith.

iv) The latest scientific views have resulted in 'String Theory'. This theory relies upon eleven dimensional space. These are the three usual four dimensions of space and time, within which we make our empirical measurements and seven other dimensions that are completely invisible to us. Not only that, but the strings, which make up everything in the universe, are completely invisible to any empirical measurement!!!

I could go on, but these monumental examples are suffice to show that it is not just that which we do not know, but we do not know how much we don't know. It is quite possible that humankinds current knowledge is just a drop in the ocean.

On this basis, for me, the only logical position is one of the type of Agnosticism that I have defined. Atheism must rely, hugely, upon a good dose of faith!

[Gawdzilla]

The rest is simple.

[diffidus]

The rest is simple.

Diffidus

In times gone by, it was thought that the earth must be flat based upon empirical evidence. Christopher Columbus, when he set out on his historic voyage, was trying to find the edge of the world by sailing west. I suppose if you had been born a few hundred years ago, you would have 'come off the fence' and joined the rest of the orthodox flat earth certainties of the day.

But hey! we know so much more nowdays don't we, no such mistakes could possibly be made!!!

[leo-rcc]

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

By that definition you make the label complety meaningless. Because with that definition every single person on the planet is agnostic.

For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding.

Why? I don't believe that gods exist. Why would I need a scientific view of the world to hold that disbelief?

On this basis, for me, the only logical position is one of the type of Agnosticism that I have defined. Atheism must rely, hugely, upon a good dose of faith!

You set up one hell of a strawman here by making up your definition of atheism, then debunking that definition, and then forming a conclusion from that.

[Timothy]

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

Do you believe that there is anything whose truth we know with 100% certainty?

[Minimalist]

I couldn't help but notice that you spent all of your time outlining scientific "issues" which you do not understand. That is the argument from incredulity. You failed to apply that same sort of rationality to the absurd concept of an all-powerful sky-daddy.

Your argument is decidedly one-sided.

[Doubting Thomas]

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

That's like saying we can not rule out with 100% certainty that elves, gnomes, fairies, leprechauns, sprites, pixies, unicorns, gremlins or any other magical creatures exist. However, it's fairly obvious that they all come from human mythology and folklore and were never based on any scientific basis that they exist. The same can be said for gods. The only difference is that gods have received a special place of honor in the minds of most humans to where they're considered quite real, while all those other magical creatures are just considered mythical beings from folklore. Even some gods have been relegated to folklore or mythical status since nobody worships them any more. But without any factual evidence to support the existence of such beings, it's ridiculous to believe in them, but for some reason the burden of proof gets shifted onto the atheists when people claim that they can't know 100% for certain that no gods exist.

[Chido-Wan Kenobi]

Diffidus: Oh yeah? Well... I don't think so.

I hope you will not be offended if I summarize your argument thus:

1. We know a minuscule, negligible amount of all there is to know.
2. Hence, even the most enlightened scientist is, for all practical purposes, an ignorant person.
3. And now that we have established that we are all a bunch of ignorants, let us feel free to believe in whatever mythological crap people have decided to make up.

Ha! An argument like this on the same topic could have happened in the 12th century:

Doubter> "You know, I don't think it is true that the World is flat and that you can sail to the edge and fall into the void"
Believer> "Well, if you don't think that is true, what would you say is there, at the edge of the World?"
Doubter> "I'm telling you, I don't know."
Believer> "If you don't have a better story, then you are just being sacrilegious!"
Doubter> "Your momma wears woolen underwear!"
Believer> "Guards! Take this man to the stake and burn him!"

My point is that the burden of proof should obviously fall on the shoulders of the believers. I don't need the idea of a benevolent God waiting for me to croak, so that he can find me a nice cloud to sit on and worship him for eternity. But if the Pope, Harold Camping or Tom Cruise think they know better, let them show solid proof... or shut the fuck up. (I actually prefer the latter)

[bozo]

I will repeat here what I have said on an earlier thread. I think most agnostics are too cowardly to describe themselves as atheist.
I think most know that it is 99.9999% certain gods do not exist, yet they cling on to that minute possibility. As to why they do that, I can only presume a big part of themself WANTS to believe.
I know some atheists describe themselves as agnostic atheists, but I don't see the point in that.

[Faith No More]

It depends on what God we are talking about. If you are referring to the Christian God, I completely dismiss that as untrue. As an agnostic, the only God I would say is possible is something like a deist version. The key word being possible, as I don't know for sure, and don't really care as any God I can think of would not care one way or the other what a low little human being like me thinks.

The main reason I consider myself agnostic, however, is the fact that I do not accept my reasoning skills and perception of the world as 100% definitive. So I would say that as I cannot perceive any God, I do not see my finite human intelligence as powerful enough to completely understand the issue. It has nothing to do with being afraid to label myself as atheist or holding out for any sort of hope for a God. Honestly, I could care less if a God exists, I just don't trust in my ability to say definitively either way. This leads me to my next point, which is I don't understand why this is an issue among the non-religious. I don't see theists, atheists, agnostics, and deists. I only see theists and non-theists.

So some agnostics might be fence sitting, just unable to pick. Me, I am sitting back, loooking at both sides asking, "who gives a shit?"