Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[Anymouse]

Errrr no, come on Anymouse. We know the conditions necessary for life to exist on a planet. We know there are other planets that share these conditions. We can surmise through the number of solar systems we know there to be that there are several billion planets with these conditions. The chance that of all the planets in the universe that could hold life, that we sit on the only one that does seems statistically negligible. That is evidence, but it is not proof.

Why is it statistically negligible? We have a statistical universe of one example of life: only one planet has ever been discovered with life on it.

We can therefore assign no odds as to the likelihood of life on other planets. We cannot even be sure that another planet with what appears to have the proper characteristics has life; proper distance from sun, proper compounds as determined by spectral analysis, &c. mean nothing if, for example, the planet is plagued by 1,000 mph winds, or has an orbital rotation of an hour and a half.

An example of a small statistical universe: I bought a lottery ticket in September that won $500. (Really.) I bought another lottery ticket last week (the first since the $500 prize), that won $8. Those are the only two lottery tickets I ever bought in this state. I spent $2, and won $508.

From this, if I knew nothing about lottery tickets, I could conclude all lottery tickets are winners. (I bought two and they both won.)

Likewise, we have discovered exactly one planet with the same conditions as Earth that also has life, that is, Earth. We only know of life on Earth. We know nothing about life on other planets, like the lottery tickets I didn't buy in the example above.

We can suppose there might be others, but we do not know. It is possible that all similar planets have life. It is possible that no similar planets have life. We cannot assign "odds," therefore the phrase "it seems likely" cannot apply. We do not know it is likely. "Seems" means it sounds plausible; it doesn't mean it is true.

Like other scientific questions we do not have the answer to, the correct answer is, "We don't know."

[mayor of simpleton]

Perhaps I just don't have the words to explain this well, but I do fear that in many cases we are working here under a false analogy. (That is when addressing the god/deity issue once more and not life on other planets and such.)

How is it appropriate to draw an analogy of one physical entity being substanciated via the evidence presented by another physical entity; then use this analogy to grant credence to the substanciation of a metaphysical entity via evidence presented by another physical entity?

How can physics be utilized to substanciate anything metaphysical?

There is a terms called Non-Sequitur:

In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

Could this assumption of a metaphysical property being substanciated via a physical one be such a violation of logical discourse?

Meow!

GREG

btw... I need to pop out to go to the Chemists, perhaps an "Alchemist" would be just as appropriate?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Errrr no, come on Anymouse. We know the conditions necessary for life to exist on a planet. We know there are other planets that share these conditions. We can surmise through the number of solar systems we know there to be that there are several billion planets with these conditions. The chance that of all the planets in the universe that could hold life, that we sit on the only one that does seems statistically negligible. That is evidence, but it is not proof.

Why is it statistically negligible? We have a statistical universe of one example of life: only one planet has ever been discovered with life on it.

We can therefore assign no odds as to the likelihood of life on other planets. We cannot even be sure that another planet with what appears to have the proper characteristics has life; proper distance from sun, proper compounds as determined by spectral analysis, &c. mean nothing if, for example, the planet is plagued by 1,000 mph winds, or has an orbital rotation of an hour and a half.

An example of a small statistical universe: I bought a lottery ticket in September that won $500. (Really.) I bought another lottery ticket last week (the first since the $500 prize), that won $8. Those are the only two lottery tickets I ever bought in this state. I spent $2, and won $508.

From this, if I knew nothing about lottery tickets, I could conclude all lottery tickets are winners. (I bought two and they both won.)

Likewise, we have discovered exactly one planet with the same conditions as Earth that also has life, that is, Earth. We only know of life on Earth. We know nothing about life on other planets, like the lottery tickets I didn't buy in the example above.

We can suppose there might be others, but we do not know. It is possible that all similar planets have life. It is possible that no similar planets have life. We cannot assign "odds," therefore the phrase "it seems likely" cannot apply. We do not know it is likely. "Seems" means it sounds plausible; it doesn't mean it is true.

Like other scientific questions we do not have the answer to, the correct answer is, "We don't know."

No, we don't know. Even though you are playing devils advocate, you must be able to see that the numbers are so vast that life elsewhere is probable.

The main reason "we don't know" is down to the obvious difficulty in gathering evidence from beyond our solar system.

[The Grand Nudger]

The analogy of a lottery ticket isn't the best fit. Perhaps you could conclude that all lottery tickets were winners. However, all of those who bought losing tickets could help you rid yourself of the notion. If all we ever saw (all of us) were winning lottery tickets, and we didn't have an industry behind it that produced them, then, maybe I could go along. As it stands it's your case example presented as support for a conclusion, but you must ignore the examples of anyone else on the subject to maintain that conclusion. "Well, my tickets were winners so they must all be winners (keep your mouth shut losers!)".

The notion that there is alien life in the universe is plausible, but not demonstrated. It's plausible because of our current understanding of life and the cosmos. If it were just some thought exercise with nothing to tie it to the real world then the idea would be in trouble. However, alien life neither requests or requires faith. It does not perform miracles, and, aside from the "Mars Attacks" type of alien,is not a concept that has it's origins in legend, myth, fairy tale, or cultural embellishments.

We can therefore assign no odds as to the likelihood of life on other planets. We cannot even be sure that another planet with what appears to have the proper characteristics has life; proper distance from sun, proper compounds as determined by spectral analysis, &c. mean nothing if, for example, the planet is plagued by 1,000 mph winds, or has an orbital rotation of an hour and a half.

We can actually assign some back of the envelope odds to the example you've just presented. Firstly, if a planet is plagued by 1000mph winds or an orbital rotation of an hour and a half (that's actually something we would be able to observe, but I'm gonna go with it anyway) it would not technically fall into the group of planets that could support life (as we know it). I understand what you're trying to say here, about the difficulty in knowing for sure what the situation on the ground at some rock light years away might be. However, lets go ahead and dustbin 99% of all of the rocks we currently feel are capable of supporting life (due to some unforeseen and currently unobserved planetary circumstances). The number of potential sites for life is still unimaginably large. Understand that most of these places are giants, like Jupiter, which makes them easy to detect. We haven't taken into account habitable moons, which are near impossible to detect, or earth sized planets, which are exceedingly difficult to detect at great distance. However, lets say that we get extremely permissive with those requirements. The statistical likelihood of finding something like an oak tree on such a planet is approaching 0%, palm tree like organisms would be marginally more plausible (wind speed and orbital speed/seasons). Moving at those speeds, and with those winds, we would expect whatever lived there to be exceptionally sturdy, or small enough so that neither of those two things mattered. The place could be covered in microbes, bacteria, etc. So the probability of a giraffe-like animal nears 0%, extremophiles (assuming the planet had life) nearing 100%. Or maybe the rock is barren, no worries, there are more. Many, many more.

[Angrboda]

I've always been of the opinion that agnosticism is nothing more than a category error. The question is, do you believe? Your arcane opinions on the tractability of the epistemic question are fascinating, but quite beside the point. There are plenty of things I hazard we will never know, such as what happened 1.0x10^-1,000 seconds after the big bang, if there is life on other planets, or what the actual state of reality is. I don't go around inventing labels for these things, and if I did, I'd not blame people for thinking me a nut, or just somebody trying to impress. And if you don't believe it is possible to know whether there is a god or not, any position but atheism would be silly and irrational. The other side of the equation is those -- whom I only suspect -- whose agnosticism is nothing more than a cloak to allow them to sit on the fence. Daniel Dennett claims to have interviewed a number of atheist theists; if you're not ready to take the leap, unwilling, or unable, I'd imagine agnosticism can be rather appealing. But, imho, it is a cheat; nothing more. (Though I rather doubt many here fall in the latter category.)

Launch the yard-a-pult! *thwang!*

[Epimethean]

Dennett is at the top of his game when discussing mind over matter, or, perhaps rather, the matter of the mind. I love his work. I do not think, though, that agnostic atheism falls into the same problem of atheist theism. Instead, it seems to be the best scientific approach to one of the big unanswerables.

[Whateverist]

I quite agree that agnosticism is not an adequate response to the question "do you have belief in god(s)"? Nonetheless, I am an agnostic atheist. That means, no, I don't find I have any belief in gods but neither do I have any belief about the impossibility of the existence of god. Agnosticism does not mean you have to believe it isn't possible to ever know. That would be strong agnosticism, not my position. My weak agnosticism means I find no objective basis on which to argue for or against the existence of god. Someone else could look at the same meager objective evidence for or against god and conclude that they nonetheless harbor a strong hunch that there is a god. (Of course, the lack of any positive evidence of gods is overwhelming but what is available to say in response to someone who does believe in god is not.)

I find the great advantage of my position, aside from the fact that it is authentically the one I hold, is that it permits me to interact with people who think differently without harboring a low opinion of them. You might be surprised how subtle and sharp a person may be who, for whatever reason, still harbors a belief in god.

[dtango]

That means, no, I don't find I have any belief in gods but neither do I have any belief about the impossibility of the existence of god.

.
That means that you do not think that the idea of the existence of god is completely idiotic because you have some evidence on the contrary.
Do you have some such evidence? Some quasi-inspired writings for example?

[Mister Agenda]

As been said before: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because people say it does not make it correct. People say lots of stupid stuff. Absence of evidence is INDEED evidence of absence. It is not PROOF of absence but the fact that there is no evidence for a given thing is a fairly decent indicator that the thing claimed is false.

Absence of evidence where there should be evidence is evidence of absence.

---

Agnostic atheism doesn't mean you can't rule anything out. I rule out anything that is both omniscient and also omnipotent or free-willed. I rule out anything that should have a measurable effect on reality but doesn't (like a real, earthly tooth fairy or Santa Claus). Things that are unfalsibiable might be real, but by definition there's no way to know if they're real or not: I'm slightly agnostic about them, I'm pretty sure the hidden God that intercedes--but only in ways that can't be confirmed--doesn't exist, but I've no way to prove it. I can put the probability pretty low since the number of things that could exist but don't is infinite...but some things that could exist but can't be currently verified actually do exist, law of large numbers.

I shouldn't have to bring up my agnosticism, people don't grill me on whether I'm absolutely certain the tooth fairy doesn't exist, except in conversations over semantics like this one. Theists are in the same boat, they have no way from distinguishing between God and a powerful alien: something doesn't have to be omnipotent to convince you it is God, it only needs to be powerful enough to convince you. Even if God showed up, and signed its name in galaxies, we couldn't be sure it isn't an alien with technology millenia ahead of ours capable of, say, plunging us all into a virtual reality. There is no way to know with epistemelogical certainty that God does exist, even if God does exist.

[dtango]

There is no way to know with epistemelogical certainty that God does exist, even if God does exist.

Before reaching the point of involving epistemological certainties wouldn’t it be simpler to investigate first the origin of the idea?

Let us suppose that someone, long time ago, said “Oh, there are clouds in the sky”
His family and friends thought he said “Oh, there are gods in the sky,” they spread the news, the gods turned into God and we now are talking of scientific evidence for or against the existence of what?

Moreover, what you wrote above is true for the God of today who has moved from the clouds to the outskirts of the universe. What about the gods of our ancestors who had their residence on the mountains and anyone could climb up there and investigate. Those were false gods and ours is not? Were the ancestors not so intelligent or what?

Epistemological certainties are produced by studying the subject, whatever it is, by paying attention to the slightest detail from start to finish and we seem not to take into account but the latest image of God.
Scientific research on the subject can only reach one outcome: that the idea of gods is just an archaic joke!