Lucaspa,
I think you have successfully created a false dichotomy: between faith and knowledge.
True, knowledge is not just faith - and true, faith does not constitute knowledge. However, one can lack faith without having knowledge.
Stay with me here:
1) Atheism is not knowledge. It dis-
belief.
2) Atheism is not "scientific." It is a metaphysical matter, not subject to empirical support (or falsification, since you are so keen to point out that criterion of scientific support).
Does this leave atheism to the limbo of agnosticism? No. Atheism is a
reasoned disbelief. Confronted with a dubious and unsupportable (yes, unfalsifiable) hypothesis, a reasonable response is to remember that this hypothesis is a member of an infinite set of hypotheses, only a finite number of which model closely to reality. Under a reasonable epistemology, in the absence of a convincing reason to believe, disbelief is an acceptable and often preferable default position - based only on the reasoning that it is easier, when merely guessing, to be wrong than to be right.
I will overlook the inflammatory comments you made to the effect that you understand my position (without holding it) better than I do, but if you continue to harp this tune without demonstrating it to be the case as you seem to have done in Morat's thread, I will become somewhat irate.. Going on to address your points:
The response you make to it is one of faith. Since you don't have the data that it is false, that means that you have faith it is false.
His hypothesis, again, is not my problem. I need not even respond to it. In principle, that is what my rejection is - a failure to respond cast as a statement of disbelief, i.e. "I am unconvinced," which is equal to "I do not believe you."
Sorry, again. But this is mere semantic quibbling. Tell me the real difference between "lack of faith that Butler is correct" and "faith that Butler is wrong"?
No, this is the essence of my position. Butler formulated a hypothesis. In effect, his hypothesis (being untestable) is nothing more than a made up story. My knowledge of the way that humans make up stories is such that I am aware that most made up stories are untrue. I disbelieve them. If my son tells me that he has an invisible friend named Horace --- I will disbelieve him on the same principle. I will allow the possibility that he may be telling the truth and may someday demonstrate it, just as I will do for Butler and his story. I will not remain agnostic on the matter, though. I will disbelieve his story, not out of faith - but from experience and skepticism. My
core epistemology is succinctly paraphrased "likely untrue until convincingly demonstrated." As I said - I do make exceptions... such is necessary for the formulation of my own hypotheses, and such is expedient for certain personal issues. Atheism is not one of those exceptions: it is the rule.
First, "unconfirmable" betrays the same logical postivism that underlies Morat's position.
You are incorrectly reading logical positivism into our position. Logical positivism says "that which is not observed does not exist."
It is
not the same as "we are not constrained to believe that which is not convincingly demonstrated." It is not the same as "we are allowed to disbelieve that which is not convincingly demonstrated."
True this: my epistemology, a rational one, does allow me to believe false a thing which is true. However my epistemology is a pragmatic one: degrees of certainty can be attained, where absolute certainty cannot. I have prioritized the ability to have a level of certainty in my evaluation of a thing over the desirable but unattainable goal of having absolute certainty in my evaluation of a thing. This unattainable goal is what yields agnostics and believers alike.
Remember, your favored explanation has the exact same probability of being wrong.
Assuming that I have a favored explanation (and for the origin of the universe, I do not) - and assuming that it is one that has been confirmed scientifically, then it
does have a much lower probability of being wrong. This is beside the point.
My favored explanation for a thing has absolutely **nothing** to do with it! I may confess the inability to explain it just as well. Butler's hypothesis must stand on its own merits - not on the accident of whether I have an alternative explanation or not.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't reject it. It is possible.
So you choose to remain agnostic to panspermia by extra terrestrial design. I don't. I disbelieve in panspermia by extra terrestrial design and expected you to as well. Since you are comfortable with agnosticism on that one, let's go a little further out on the ledge and do another postulate.
There is a fat elf, who lives at the north pole, and who is responsible for the yearly abundance of toys for many boys and girls around the world.
Do you believe?
Do you disbelieve on faith?
Do you remain agnostic on the accuracy of this hypothesis?
or...
....
....
do you maintain a reasoned disbelief in the accuracy of this hypothesis?
I think that fundamentally - if you take the few moments necessary to consider this question, you will see that you do have a reasoned, but unscientific, disbelief in the accuracy of this hypothesis - and you will see where weak atheism fails to "degrade" as you predict into an alternative position. Please bear in mind that I have put no other limits on the properties of this elf, or how he goes about bringing about Christmas toy-time. You cannot reject it on having a better hypothesis. You may have seen mom & dad stuffing the underside of the tree with goodies, but you cannot falsify the possibility that the elf was (ultimately) necessary for this phenomenon, and did (ultimately) bring it about.