Ask an Agnostic...

[bob135]

I've been an agnostic for some time now. I don't know if there are threads like this already, but this one was inspired by another Q&A thread that seemed like a cool idea. If you have any questions about agnosticism in general, why I'm an agnostic, or anything else you think of, ask away.

 

[FSTDT]

Getting in the first question before everyone else:

How many gods do you believe in?

 

[Ledifni]

I've been an agnostic for some time now. I don't know if there are threads like this already, but this one was inspired by another Q&A thread that seemed like a cool idea. If you have any questions about agnosticism in general, why I'm an agnostic, or anything else you think of, ask away.

Ok, I have a question: What's the difference between you and me?

I observe that there is no credible evidence for God's existence. I observe that, though lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a belief held without evidence is no better than writing ten beliefs on a poster board and tossing a penny with your eyes closed. Therefore, I do not believe in God, pending evidence. For that reason, I consider myself an atheist.

In what way(s) is your position different?

 

[levi501]

I'll answer it...

You both are agnostic Ledifni while bob135 has made no statement as to whether he believes in a god.

 

[KCDAD]

I've been an agnostic for some time now. I don't know if there are threads like this already, but this one was inspired by another Q&A thread that seemed like a cool idea. If you have any questions about agnosticism in general, why I'm an agnostic, or anything else you think of, ask away.

Agnostic thinking reminds me of being a political moderate; "I have no firm opinion about anything because I haven't invested myself in trying to understand anything, and I don't want to offend anyone." So, my question is this: What do you believe to be ultimately and objectively true about anything?

 

[Multi-Elis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an agnostic someone who says something like: "Even if I don't see the evidence for God, there could be evidence I don't know about, so my answer to whether there is a God is: I don't know."?

I'm so glad you started this thread, I have been wanting to find out what agnostics really think for the past couple of days..., with all respect, since really I don't know much about it.

 

[levi501]

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge not belief.
When someone says they're agnostic, it means they have no knowledge of God.
An agnostic can still have or not have faith in god.
People will many times say they're agnostic when what they really mean is that they're an agnostic atheist. If you're in a particularly religious part of the country, telling people you're an atheist is sometimes met with akward looks or disdain. Agnostic in light conversation is usually taken to mean you have no stance on religion... and to a certain degree that's true. It doesn't mean you haven't given the matter a lot of thought. That's an assumption that's all too often made.

 

[levi501]

Most Christians I encounter are actually Agnostic Christians.
They don't know if any of their faith is true, but they choose to believe for varying reasons. Several reasons are... Christ imbodies what they believe to be moral truths, they're optimistic that there's more to this life and they've never known or explored anything else.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I've been an agnostic for some time now. I don't know if there are threads like this already, but this one was inspired by another Q&A thread that seemed like a cool idea. If you have any questions about agnosticism in general, why I'm an agnostic, or anything else you think of, ask away.

Aren't you sick of the posts poking your butt while you ride the fence?

 

[skinner]

Why is there air?

Do you think Martha Stewart is a moral person?

Doe's God believe in you?

Why did they come out with the new Coke?

What is your favorite resturant?

What's the differnce between an agnostic and a squirrel?

 

[sinner/SAVED]

What would it take to push you over the edge?

Do you think Martha Stewart is a person?

What does an agnostic smell like?

What's the last book you read?

The atmosphere of the earth contains 21% oxygen. If the percentage were to increase or decrease 5% life could not exist on earth. Why is that?

 

[bob135]

Getting in the first question before everyone else:

How many gods do you believe in?

As an agnostic, I withhold judgement. I don't believe that God(s) exist, or that God(s) don't exist. So I guess the answer to your question would be undefined.

Ok, I have a question: What's the difference between you and me?

I observe that there is no credible evidence for God's existence. I observe that, though lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a belief held without evidence is no better than writing ten beliefs on a poster board and tossing a penny with your eyes closed. Therefore, I do not believe in God, pending evidence. For that reason, I consider myself an atheist.

In what way(s) is your position different?

I would consider myself a weak agnostic.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence would be necessary to evalutate propostions about God currently, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to compel me to be a theist or an atheist.

Like levi501 said, our positions are very similar, although I use the term agnostic.

Agnostic thinking reminds me of being a political moderate; "I have no firm opinion about anything because I haven't invested myself in trying to understand anything, and I don't want to offend anyone." So, my question is this: What do you believe to be ultimately and objectively true about anything?

I don't really want to avoid offending anyone. I could offer firm counter arguments to some positions presented by atheists or theists.
Like my position on God, I don't know if objective truth really exists, as there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to say one way or the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an agnostic someone who says something like: "Even if I don't see the evidence for God, there could be evidence I don't know about, so my answer to whether there is a God is: I don't know."?

I'm so glad you started this thread, I have been wanting to find out what agnostics really think for the past couple of days..., with all respect, since really I don't know much about it.

Thats part of it. I would also say that "Even if I don't see the evidence for or against God, there could be evidence I don't know about, so I will withhold judgement." To me, there is a burden of proof on both the theist and the atheist, since they are both making assertions.

1-Why is there air?
2-Do you think Martha Stewart is a moral person?
3-Does God believe in you?
4-Why did they come out with the new Coke?
5 - What is your favorite resturant?
6 - What's the differnce between an agnostic and a squirrel?

1) My views on metaphysics aren't developed enough to answer that question. Basically, I don't know.
2) Depends how you define moral.
3) Maybe
4) Marketing
5) No particular favorite. I'm not that picky.
6) There are many differences, but I guess the biggest one is that an agnostic is a human being and a squirrel is a squirrel.

What would it take to push you over the edge?

Do you think Martha Stewart is a person?

What does an agnostic smell like?

What's the last book you read?

The atmosphere of the earth contains 21% oxygen. If the percentage were to increase or decrease 5% life could not exist on earth. Why is that?

1) Can you elaborate? Do you mean push me to atheism/theism? Do you mean push me to insanity/suicide?
2) Depends how you define person
3) Huh?
4) I am currently reading Candide by Voltaire.
5) Probably because life as we know it today evolved with 21% oxygen. Of course, anaerobic bacteria might make it, but most life would die off if what you say is correct.

For future reference, try to keep questions somewhat serious/relevant.

 

[ond_magiker]

What are the main goals of the agnostic agenda?

 

[skinner]

6) There are many differences, but I guess the biggest one is that an agnostic is a human being and a squirrel is a squirrel.




For future reference, try to keep questions somewhat serious/relevant.

So, you're saying a squirrel cannot be an agnostic?

Ok, a somewhat serious question: If God came down and bopped you on the head, said, "Hey, buddy, I exist." would you then become a theist?

 

[joebudda]

As an agnostic, I withhold judgement. I don't believe that God(s) exist, or that God(s) don't exist. So I guess the answer to your question would be undefined.

So then wouldn’t you believe that gods both exist and don’t exist? Such a stance seems illogical and paradoxical.

If a god or gods existed how would you describe them/it/him/her?

If god or gods didn’t exist why would you believe that?

 

[levi501]

I agree it is strange... if you don't have faith in a god(s) then you're an atheist.
You can still be hopeful that there is a god... and entertain the thought of an existence of one.

 

[Ledifni]

Well, Bob, I can see that our positions are very similar. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of using the "agnostic" label. The reason for this is that I am "agnostic" about everything, and so is everybody else.

I take the position that unless one is omniscient (and I seriously doubt there is such a person), it is impossible to know that there is not unknown evidence out there that contradicts all of one's existing beliefs. For example, the Matrix is certainly a possibility, though perhaps an unlikely one.

Certain people often make the argument that this doesn't matter because they've got a direct line to omniscience and are thus allowed to share in this omniscience; clearly, however, it really makes no difference whether you think the person who told you something is omniscient. Without being omniscient, it's impossible to be certain that the being in question is actually omniscient, or even that said being exists at all.

From that position, then, I can argue that any belief held by any non-omniscient being is merely an opinion (even if you've got an omniscient drinking buddy). No human "knows" anything. We make guesses. Some humans make uneducated guesses, others make educated guesses, and some humans (Einstein, for example) make excellent educated guesses; we can judge which are the best guesses by their agreement with real data and their effectiveness as useful models.

Since I do not believe that I or anyone else is sure about anything, and since everything I "believe" is really a tentative (and hopefully educated) conclusion pending new evidence, there is really no use for the distinction of "absolute knowledge" from "educated guess." An educated guess is the best we ever get, so if I have reasonable grounds to make an educated guess, it is perfectly reasonable to take that position, since I don't claim that any of my conclusions are anything other than tentative.

In other words, it seems redundant for me to say, "I'm not sure if God exists." I'm not sure of anything, so naturally I'm not sure of that either. Thus, being explicit about my uncertainty implies that I could be sure, which is clearly not true. It implies that there are three possible positions -- absolute disbelief, absolute belief, and uncertainty. In fact, the only two possible positions, in my opinion, are positive uncertainty (agreement) and negative uncertainty (disagreement).

Therefore, on all questions I take one of the two positions. I consider positive uncertainty justified only in cases where there is concrete evidence of truth, and where that evidence is not reasonably denied by other evidence. In the case of God's existence, neither condition applies, and so I take the position of negative uncertainty (disagreement, or disbelief). I do not call myself an agnostic because by doing so I would imply that I could potentially be certain about it -- which is clearly untrue.

 

[bob135]

What are the main goals of the agnostic agenda?

They don't really have an agenda.

So, you're saying a squirrel cannot be an agnostic?

Ok, a somewhat serious question: If God came down and bopped you on the head, said, "Hey, buddy, I exist." would you then become a theist?

Probably.

So then wouldn’t you believe that gods both exist and don’t exist? Such a stance seems illogical and paradoxical.

If a god or gods existed how would you describe them/it/him/her?

If god or gods didn’t exist why would you believe that?

I just don't take a position on the issue.

Ledifni-
I think that first principles are sort of arbitrary, but once you pick first principles, anything that follows has evidence, so it is justified. I can't really think of a good way to pick first principles. I guess I would go with whatever seems "self-evident," but this can vary between people.
You seem to believe that empirical evidence is the best way to approach truth. Thats fine, but not everyone believes that.
As far as being sure, how do you evaluate claims that aren't empirical. If you say:
Men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Are you "sure" that if men are mortal and socrates is a man that Socrates is mortal, or is there some uncertainty there? Is truth achieved by reason alone certain?
If you say yes, then then you can legitimately say "I don't know" if you haven't been given sufficient logical argument on either side?

I'm sort of tired. I hope that made sense.

 

[skinner]

Ledifni-
Men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Are you "sure" that if men are mortal and socrates is a man that Socrates is mortal, or is there some uncertainty there? Is truth achieved by reason alone certain?

The trouble I see here, is that you can take this to the extreme. For example, I can reason that since I believe in my own existance, and see other people every day, I assume that they exist. But, can I really be sure? Perhaps they are all just figments of my imagination.

What truth does not require some reasoning on my part to understand or believe?

So, using this logic, how can you be sure that anything is? Or, was that your point?

 

[Ledifni]

Ledifni-
I think that first principles are sort of arbitrary, but once you pick first principles, anything that follows has evidence, so it is justified.

I don't agree. Once you pick first principles, everything that follows is certainly justified by them; but unless you have evidence for your first principles, you don't have evidence for anything that follows.

I can't really think of a good way to pick first principles. I guess I would go with whatever seems "self-evident," but this can vary between people.
You seem to believe that empirical evidence is the best way to approach truth. Thats fine, but not everyone believes that.

Empirical evidence is part of making educated guesses, in my opinion, yes. It's certainly not the only part. What are you getting at?

As far as being sure, how do you evaluate claims that aren't empirical. If you say:
Men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Are you "sure" that if men are mortal and socrates is a man that Socrates is mortal, or is there some uncertainty there? Is truth achieved by reason alone certain?
If you say yes, then then you can legitimately say "I don't know" if you haven't been given sufficient logical argument on either side?

But logic and truth aren't the same thing. Logic is a way to check whether statements are consistent with one another. Yes, I am quite confident that the two premises "Men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" are consistent with "Socrates is mortal." If I'm wrong (that is, if the laws of logic don't hold), then I don't see that there's any way to meaningfully ask or answer a question anyway, so it doesn't matter if we're right or wrong.

But do you think that you've proved the conclusion "Socrates is mortal?" You demonstrated that if two other statements are truth, then your conclusion must be true. But have you actually determined anything at all about the truth of your conclusion? No. Without examining your premises for truth, you have no idea whether your conclusion is true or false.

You also asked another question: am I certain that truth is found by reason alone? No. Actually, I'm pretty sure it can't possibly be found by reason alone. But what if I did believe that? I wouldn't be certain of it, no. And it really wouldn't matter. I get the impression that you think I'm trying to prove that truth is found only by reason, or that empirical evidence is the pinnacle of truth-finding, or something like that. I'm not trying to argue anything of the sort.

My claim is very simple: Unless you are omniscient, you do not absolutely know that your beliefs are true. Therefore, there is no middle position of uncertainty, because everything is uncertain. I find the "agnostic" label redundant and misleading for those reasons, and so that is why I don't use it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure why you're bringing ways of finding truth and empirical evidence and so on into it.