015_agnostics.pdf

So far as deities are concerned, agnostics believe that the existence of deities cannot be proven or disproven. That’s it. Despite what some people think, just knowing that someone is an agnostic does not tell you whether or not they are also an atheist.

One may be an agnostic theist (believing in a deity though proof is impossible), an agnostic atheist (not believing in deities although — or because — proof is impossible), or simply an agnostic (neither believing nor disbelieving in deities because it’s impossible to discover the truth). Any of these people might be correctly referred to as agnostic.

Some people like to call themselves agnostic because, although they are atheists, they feel that “atheist” is either socially loaded or misrepresents their position (because they incorrectly assume all atheist think there definitely are not deities, which conflicts with agnosticism).

A pure agnostic — someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in deities — might be tempted to take Pascal’s wager (the argument that when in doubt it’s better to believe in God and hedge your bets than disbelieve in God and perhaps be punished). Pure agnostics who do not find this argument compelling may be acting as if there is no God while attempting to maintain some element of neutrality on the subject, and in many cases these supposedly pure agnostics are indistinguishable from agnostic atheists.

Moral atheism is not agnostic in that it does not hold that compelling proof for the existence of deities, however unlikely, is impossible. For example, a personal religious revelation might be compelling proof to the individual who received it (although it would not be compelling at all to anyone else). If nothing else, the moral atheist is not willing to rule out the possibility that some proof for a creator’s existence that we currently cannot conceive of might be discovered in the future.

Agnostics and moral atheists would agree that it is in principle impossible to prove that no possible deities exist. There is no way to absolutely prove a negative statement of this sort without absolute knowledge of the universe.

Author of this site really needs to look up what ‘Agnostic’ means.. or maybe just *understand* it. That was a terrible response.
“…but you are wrong that I do not believe in the possibility of a God…”
- That is the very definition of agnostic.

Not to say I don’t find the aethiest extremity hilarious and for the most part, useful to refer to when trying to ’smack some sense’ into idiots that get carried away with how great their god(s) are.

Oh well. It’s all in good fun (I hope; massive countrywide and worldwide wars lasting years have started over this kind of crap).

Okay, just to be safe, I looked up “agnostic.” Blatantly stealing from Dictionary.com, I get:

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Neither of these apply to me. I don’t hold that the existence of God (or other deities) is unknown or unknowable, and I think knowledge of God’s existence is possible, which specifically makes me not an agnostic.

While we’re here, let’s check the site’s definition of “atheist.”

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And that part after the “or” would be me — I disbelieve the existence of God. But show me compelling evidence, and I will believe.

I highly doubt the existence of a God. I believe observable evidence points to the lack of a God. I do, however hold agnostic beliefs. I accept the fact that the only definite truth is that we exist. There may indeed be a God, who is hiding his existence to you for an unknown purpose. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? NO! Maybe a God a created the universe with a big bang and then went on his merry way. Maybe he is watching through methods you cannot comprehend. What if God really was a total power hungry asshole and he just wants you to blindly worship him or hes throwing you to the depths of hell?

As an atheist you are making a stand. You do not believe in a God nor do you believe in the possibility of a God. How is it that you realize the ignorance of believing in a God, but not the ignorance of being so sure that there is no God?

You are right that I do not believe in God, but you are wrong that I do not believe in the possibility of a God. I agree that it would be ignorant to assert that there are not deities without proof. I do not assert that there are no deities. I only assert that I do not believe in any deities; hence I am an atheist. If I come across compelling proof that a deity exists, then I won’t be an atheist any more.

Now let me ask about your beliefs. You say that it is unlikely that God exists, but that you are agnostic on the subject. How unlikely do you think it is that God exists? More unlikely than it is that talking zebras exist? If God is more unlikely than talking zebras, would you describe yourself as agnostic about talking zebras? If your child asked you if talking zebras existed, would you answer “Maybe”?

My point is that I don’t understand why you treat your knowledge about the existence of God differently than you treat your knowledge about the existence of other things (assuming you do), and I do not understand why you both refer to yourself as agnostic and talk about evidence for God’s existence. If you do not believe that God exists but allow the possibility that your mind will change in the future, then at the moment you do not believe that God exists and can correctly refer to yourself as an atheist. If you think it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of deities, then you are an agnostic regardless of whether or not you believe deities exist.

From your description of yourself, you sound like an atheist to me. If I am misunderstanding you and you do not think that proof of the existence of deities is possible one way or the other, then you are an agnostic atheist. Would you agree?

Atheism, by definition, is the belief in the non-existence of any deity. I am non-religious, but no sir, I am not an atheist. I believe there is something more to life then what we can possibly come close to understanding through science or religion. If you cannot truly believe(<—key word there) that there is no deity at all, then you will have to fess up and admit that you are an agnostic, not an atheist. But then you would have to change up this website and that would take up too much time.

I disagree. Atheism is, by definition, the non-belief in a deity. Some atheists assert the non-existence of any deity, but not all of them. I do not.

An agnostic is someone who believes that it is in principle impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. I believe that if a deity exists, it might be possible to prove to me that it exists. Therefore I am not an agnostic; I am an atheist.

Isn’t Agnosticism the fear of God by an athiest?

That’s a perplexing idea. I don’t believe in God, or a diety, but JUST IN CASE… I’m going to say that I can’t prove either way, so I don’t want to difinitively claim there is no god… hmmm…

Just my thought on Agnosticism.

Agnosticists believe that anything is possible… including erasing yourself with a pencil… just because they haven’t seen it done, doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

There are a number of ways one can be an agnostic without being a “fearful atheist.”

For example, an agnostic might believe that nothing supernatural can possibly exist, but that this statement is impossible to prove. Or an agnostic might believe that the supernatural might or might not exist, but that the two can never interact so there’s no way to make testable statements about the supernatural. Or an agnostic might think that the evidence for and against the existence of deities is roughly even. Or an agnostic might believe that the phrase “God exists” is undefined and therefore meaningless.

Then there are extreme agnostics who just refuse to say that they know anything with certainty. I find this impractical and, in practice, a bit annoying.

Workability:

When I say something supernatural has zero workability I mean simply that it does not provide me a tool for accomplishing anything or discovering other reliable information. A map of London may prove useful and workable. A map of heaven is not of much value that this feeble mind can imagine. Of course a person could say “The way to happiness and salvation is to let Jesus into your heart.” and they could conduct their life accordingly and could therefore describe their untestable assumption as “workable”. Well, good for them. For me, I simply have no idea what their statement even means, so for me it is unworkable.

Bigfoot(s):

Reports of divine resurrection are anecdotal. I should have said no empirical evidence. My bad. Apparent design is, again, subjective interpretation. I’d be prepared to wager that if one took 10 million coins, dropped them from some height onto the ground enough times, eventually a perfect likeness of my face would appear, thereby proving to some people that I am god. As to the efficacy of prayer, I am not familiar with any studies concluding that, though I admit to having seen reference to this phenomenon. If it is true, then that is something that should be studied in depth. I am not saying there is no possibility of evidence for supernatural phenomena or beings; only that I am unaware of any and cannot conceive of any – unlike with Bigfoot, for whom I can easily conjure up potential evidence.

Footprints:

Again, I think you are posing a false, or at least unnecessary, problem. If someone brought me the footprint why on earth would I consider any question other than “What made this footprint?”. Why must I relate it to Bigfoot who is psychic, Bigfoot who can walk through walls, or any other wacky version of Bigfoot? A scientist does not, when encountering some piece of beetle-related physical evidence, ask “I wonder if this is related to a beetle… or to a beetle with telepathic powers?”

Logic:

I think “logical investigation” is something of an oxymoron. “Logical consideration” or “logical contemplation” I could accept, but investigation is investigation – observation, manipulation, and measurement of that which is observable, capable of manipulation and measurable – not simply thinking about it. I disagree when you say science uses logic all the time. Is this not exactly what Galileo railed against when he dropped his whatsit from the tower? Perhaps I am mistaken but I have always thought that one of the primary purposes of the scientific method was to remove logic in favor of empirical examination because historically logic had led to incorrect conclusions. Logic may come to bear in the construction of an objective investigation, of course, but may not be used as a substitute for it.

Furthermore, and this is a point we seem to disagree on, if the subject is supernatural then logic, which is based on the consideration of relationships between natural phenomena, objects, or games conditions, can simply not be used as a valid tool for examination. When one introduces “logic” into discussion of the supernatural it can lead only to the statement “That defies logic.”. “God is everywhere.” is 100% illogical. However, by definition, God is metaphysical, beyond the physical, so science and logic may not be assumed to apply. Whatever wild statement one may make about god, all that science and logic can say is “That could not be so in this universe.” But god is not in or of this universe. It seems to me you keep trying to apply (or to get me to apply) baseball rules (physics/logic) to a game of football (metaphysics), which you are free to do, of course, but I suspect the result will always be unsatisfying.

To summarize:
Q: What can logic tell us about the supernatural?
A: Nothing.

Occam’s Razor:

I do not believe I said these things are equally meaningless in the sense you seem to attribute to me. I said that because their actual existence is untestable, the differing details appended to that existence are irrelevant to me. The equivalence I assert is about relevancy, not likelihood. I am agnostic about likelihood of existence and therefore agnostic about anything that flows from or is a function of that existence. Is it more likely that an invisible flying blue weejee-weejee has 4 limbs or 687 limbs, each with an eye having Superman-like X-ray vision? Well, I really don’t know. I will debate the various levels of limb-age likelihood and other fantastical attributes after it has been shown to me that the creature, whatever its form, actually exists.

I believe that Occam’s Razor is applied to theories for which there is evidence, as a guide to evaluating the relative quantity and weight of evidence vis a vis two competing theories. e.g.

1. The universe explained by Big Bang/Physics, with the varieties of evidence available combined with the variety of currently untestable assumptions the theory requires, vs

2. The universe explained by God with the fact of existence of the universe plus the biblical account of Genesis combined with the near infinite number of currently untestable assumptions the theory entails.

Or:

1. Money replaced a lost tooth under my pillow because a creature named The Tooth Fairy whom nobody has ever seen made a swap while I was asleep, vs

2. Money replaced a lost tooth under my pillow because my mother made a swap while I was asleep.

Here the known facts are the same: missing tooth + new money. But the assumptions are unequal (qualitatively, not numerically, since the parent’s alleged actions are testable in theory at least) and on Occamite grounds I’ll opt for Mommy’s deceptive generosity.

However, replace number 2 above, with:

2. Money replaced a lost tooth under my pillow because a creature named The Telekinetic Tooth Fairy with telekinetic powers whom nobody has ever seen made a swap via telekinesis while I was asleep.

Here Occam is of no help because, despite the fact that #2 contains more assumptions, the sine qua non (existence) is itself an assumption upon which any others depend (invisibility, telekinetic power) and is qualitatively equal for both. Prove to me that the invisible creature exists and then perhaps I will say the Tooth Fairy is more likely than the Telekinetic Tooth Fairy.

Where both theories are supported only by assumption(s), how could one and why would one try to apply Occam as a guideline?

Jehovah:

If Jehovah exists, perhaps he impacts on my life and I am unaware of it. Fine. But why would I bother pondering that possibility if I have no evidence of it being so? Because a Christian tells me it is so? Must I consider or attempt to calculate the veracity of every statement or claim made to me by anyone? Provide me objective evidence and I most certainly will consider the whole matter.

Discussion of deities:

I simply disagree with your assertion that such discussions would be useful, unless by useful you mean entertaining or time-killing. Otherwise, I’d be hard pressed to imagine anything more useless than two people who disagree completely on a basic premise discussing anything that might flow from that premise with a view to reaching agreement or arriving at conclusions. Perhaps a Swahili speaker and a German speaker debating intricacies of Farsi syntax might be in the ballpark.

Dowsing:

When I say “supernatural” I mean something that is not bound by the laws of physics. I do not believe anyone has ever described dowsing in those terms. Science does not say that all untestable things are equally likely and neither do I. I say they are equally meaningless.

Uri Geller:

I agree but disagree slightly but significantly with your wording. Science’s conclusion should be “No evidence has been found to support the hypothesis that Uri Geller can bend spoons without the application of physical force and it is therefore not accepted at this time.”

Two camps:

Correct. I fall into neither camp.

Me as materialist:

I couldn’t disagree more. When I say “I am an agnostic” I mean “I do not know.” Nothing more than that. To call myself a materialist would be to say “I do know.”. But I do not know, so I am not a materialist; I’m an agnostic.

My philosophy:

1) Science is the only valid method of gaining information about the world.

I do not agree with that statement at all. (That view is what the writer Ken Wilber, I believe, called “scientism”. An excellent word, in my opinion.)

2) That which cannot be tested for might or might not exist, but there is no way to tell the truth so there is no point in discussing such things.

Also an incorrect interpretation of my position. However, if you insert the word “currently” before “no way” and amend the final few words to “….there is no point in pontificating about, making declarations about or drawing conclusions about such things.” I would agree completely.

3) I have no opinion about whether or not things that cannot be tested for exist.

Correct.

Have I missed anything?

Cheers,
John

Excellent! I think this lets us narrow the scope of our conversation quite a bit.

The question about bigfoot footprints was, I think, very helpful. You are completely correct that a scientist wouldn’t even consider it to be evidence for a supernatural creature. But what this points out is that you do not consider “Bigfoot” and “Psychic Bigfoot” equally unworkable, even though that was the impression you were giving me. That makes much more sense.

I would argue that modern science uses logical investigation. We differ from the ancient Greeks in that we do not consider logic to be the be-all and end-all of science, but we still use it. Logic is used to weed out possibilities that might be tested so that we waste less time on fruitless experimentation. Einstein spent a lot of time logically analyzing what would become relativity before he proposed any experiments (other than thought experiments). It might be argued that some scientific disciplines, such as exobiology and theoretical physics, are largely logical investigation since they often involve things that cannot be currently tested.

Science certainly prefers investigation to pure logic, but sometimes pure logic is all we have.

We definitely disagree on the nature of logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy and can be expressed mathematically. I do not see why its nature should be tied to natural phenomena, etc., as you propose. To me, saying that logic is tied to the natural world is like saying that numbers are meaningless if there is nothing to count. Some people think that statement is true, but I don’t.

I disagree that the statement “God is everywhere” is illogical. I’d say that it depends on how you define your terms. (Of course, a statement can be logical but still be untrue, but that’s a different subject.)

Certainly Occam’s Razor applies to things for which there is evidence, but in a broader sense it applies to any theory, whether or not evidence exists. This is important because it implies that Occam applies not only to things for which there is evidence, but also to things for which there might one day be evidence. Occam says that Bigfoot is more likely than Supernatural Bigfoot, so we can say that, if evidence ever appears, Occam will prefer the former.

I would say that your statement that Occam is of no help in the discussion of Tooth Fairy vs. Telekinetic Tooth Fairy is incorrect. Occam’s Razor says entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, so it would seemingly prefer a supernatural thing to that same supernatural thing plus an additional supernatural power. I grant you that, because I consider the possibility of the existence of the tooth fairy to be nil (you might disagree) the difference in this case is effectively meaningless. But in more practical situations, this distinction can be important.

A mathematical aside — if the probability of the existence of fairies and the probability of the existence of telekinesis are both zero, then multiplying their likelihoods gives us zero. But if the probabilities are non-zero, then multiplying them gives us an even lower probability. Then, from your statements, it seems that you are assigning these things zero probability. But in our previous conversations you were unwilling to say that fairies don’t exist, which implies a non-zero probability. Can you see why I would find this counterintuitive?

You ask when/why would one apply Occam when discussing two theories supported only by assumptions. I can think of several examples. Proponents of undiscovered physical phenomena often simply increase the complexity of their theories when confronted by evidence that they are wrong. It is useful to be able to point out that the more complexity they add, the more proof they are going to have to provide. More down to earth, it is useful when discussing purely theoretical branches of science, such as theoretical physics, or certain subjects in disciplines for which it may be hard to get evidence, such as history or evolution. For example, if we assume that there is an undiscovered species that serves as a transition between modern species A and past species B, Occam says we should search for a terrestrial B before searching for an extraterrestrial one, even though both possibilities are supported only by assumptions.

I agree that you are not required to consider whether or not supernatural beings may impact your life if you have no evidence that such things exist. However, it seems to me that implicit in this is an assumption that the likelihood of the existence of such a thing is very low. Would you agree?

We also definitely disagree on the usefulness of being able to have a conversation about deities. I can think of at least three cases in which such discussions are useful: 1) when I am trying to convince someone that their way of thinking is incorrect, 2) when I am trying to convince someone that their basis of morality is incorrect, and 3) when I am trying to understand how someone thinks. Practical, real-world results can come from such conversations.

I understand your clarification of my statement about Uri Geller. In terms of pure science, you are correct. But most scientists don’t practice pure science, they practice practical science. This means that, once a level of evidence gets low enough, they generally go ahead and say that something isn’t true. Again, this is a place where you and I have a fundamental difference in how we present ourselves.

I understand what you mean when you say you are not a materialist. This makes sense. But when you say that science isn’t the only valid method of gaining information about the world, you surprise me a bit. What else do you consider valid? I believe we’ve already eliminated pure logic. What about personal revelation?

Regarding your revision of my statement: “That which cannot be tested for might or might not exist, but there is currently no way to tell the truth so there is no point in pontificating about, making declarations about or drawing conclusions about such things.” I accept this as a statement of your philosophy, but do you recognize that it invalidates certain areas of scientific inquiry? It is not terribly uncommon for scientists to delve deeply into areas that are currently immune to investigation.

Hello again.

“Yet you have resisted my attempts to get you to assign a degree of “workability and usefulness” to the supernatural or unproven.

Ah, but I do. I assign values of zero workability and zero usefulness. That is precisely the point, I believe. Any statements about the supernatural/untestable are, from a scientific viewpoint, meaningless noise. From an entirely subjective viewpoint of course one might consider “god” both workable and useful, but again, that has only personal, not objective, meaning.

“It looks like you treat the existence of bigfoot as equally likely as the existence of a deity that I have made up on the spot.”

I believe you have presented me with a false problem here. Bigfoot and your ad hoc deity differ qualitatively. The existence of Bigfoot could, at least theoretically, be testable – for example if we devised some means to examine every square meter of the earth simultaneously. Your deity on the other hand cannot even in theory be tested for.

Similarly, while no evidence has ever been produced for the existence of any deity ever, it is a common occurrence for previously unknown species to be discovered. Bigfoot may not exist or may exist but be elusive. The important point about Bigfoot is not that its existence has not been established, but that no supernatural characteristics have been attributed to it.

As to practicality, I don’t see how “practical” or any related word can be used in the context of discussing something purely theoretical.

So, I would say, in my present circumstance, I am equally agnostic regarding Bigfoot and your deity. I do not know (or care) and the “workability and usefulness” of either means nothing to me – equally. Should my circumstances change – say, I should decide to do a solitary wilderness adventure in the Canadian northwest – perhaps I would want to consider the so-called evidence for Bigfoot a bit more closely. But I doubt it.

Regarding your two different statements about UFOs you ask “so would you treat them as equally true/untrue?” I would treat them as neither true in any degree nor untrue in any degree, but as simply meaningless (for now). That is my whole point about agnosticism, is it not? A statement is true, as borne out by testing, false, as borne out by testing, or meaningless because it cannot be tested and ergo something about which I can have no knowledge and no informed opinion.

The degree of likelihood of various individual elements within a statement simply do not concern me if the central point of the statement is one about which I can have no knowledge. One may argue ’til the cows come home whether Jehovah is an all-loving and kind father figure or a vengeful, sadistic, egotistical scrotum. What does it matter if the root statement “Jehovah exists” is meaningless to me?

As for the balance of what you say:

Deities, faeries or whatever, of course there are degrees of likelihood if the entity being referred to is a purely objective, material, being. Science applies. If the entity’s description contains even a single supernatural element, then testability goes out the window and with it objective meaning. And with that, my caring. Add even a single untestable element and it is all angels dancing on pinheads to me.

Yours in Jesus, John

You say that you assign values of “zero workability and zero usefulness” to the supernatural. You also say that you are agnostic about the existence of the supernatural. But if a thing has zero workability, it seems to me that such a thing cannot exist, so saying you don’t know whether or not it exists makes no sense. That leads me to believe that something else is going on here, and I will get to that at the conclusion of this letter.

I don’t think that the bigfoot-versus-deity question is a false problem, but your response is a good one. As you say, the difference between bigfoot and a deity is that the existence of bigfoot could, in principle, be proven. I’d say that this is a good reason to assign the two subjects different positions on the spectrum of reasonableness, but you say that you are equally agnostic about both. This is an important point, as it is really the crux of our disagreement.

You say, “no evidence has ever been produced for the existence of any deity ever.” That statement seems false on its face. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of deities (reports of divine resurrection, apparent design in nature, the efficacy of prayer, etc.). Do you mean to say that there is no compelling evidence or that there is no possibility of evidence? (I’d say the former and am guessing you’d say the latter.)

Continuing with Bigfoot, you say, “The important point about Bigfoot is not that its existence has not been established, but that no supernatural characteristics have been attributed to it.” You may be interested to learn that this is not the case. A number of people have assigned psychic powers to Bigfoot or associated it with UFO sightings. To me, the “supernatural” and “non-supernatural” versions of Bigfoot have different likelihoods of existence. If someone came to me with a footprint that they said was evidence of Bigfoot, I would consider it to be potential evidence of non-supernatural Bigfoot, because such a creature’s existence is more likely. If I considered the likelihood of the existence of both types of Bigfoot to be equal, I don’t see how I could make such a distinction. This would compel me to say either, “That footprint might be evidence for the existence of a supernatural creature,” or “That footprint could not possibly be evidence for any kind of Bigfoot.” Neither statement seems to make sense from a scientific standpoint.

You ask how “practical” can be used in the context of something theoretical. To avoid confusion, what if we use the word “reasonable” instead? I am guessing that you would say that no concept of a deity is any more reasonable than any other. If that is the case — and because you do not categorically rule out the possibility of deities existing — then I’d say that it appears that you are denying the usefulness of logical investigation when physical investigation is impossible. Scientists use logic in this way all the time, and philosophers build their careers on it.

Turning to my question about two forms of UFO (visitors from another planet, and visitors from another planet who can travel through time). You say that you consider these concepts to be equally meaningless and imply that it is because they cannot be tested. This seems to deny us the ability to use Occam’s Razor when dealing with the unknown. By assigning zero probability to all untested things, you can conclude that any combination of unlikely things is equally unlikely. Doing this makes it much more difficult to decide how to go about investigating those things we currently have no information about, so it is only useful when the subjects at hand are truly, absolutely untestable (as is not the case with either alien visitations or time travel).

You ask why the attributes of Jehovah should make any difference to you if you think the statement “Jehovah exists” is meaningless (and by the way, in all of this I’m assuming that by “meaningless” you mean unprovable either way, not linguistically meaningless). In general, you are correct, so long as you assume that a deity cannot impact your life (or afterlife, should one exist). But making such an assumption is assigning an attribute to a deity, which you say you will not do.

Using logic to examine the attributes of proposed deities is also useful in discussions of moral philosophy. There are times, for example, when it is useful to be able to point out that there cannot logically be a deity who would never let a child come to harm but wants people to kill children. It is also useful when discussing deities with people who believe that there is subjective evidence for the existence of God (such as personal revelation).

In your concluding paragraph, you say, “If the entity’s description contains even a single supernatural element, then testability goes out the window and with it objective meaning.” I’d say that such a statement denies science the ability to reach conclusions on some subjects, such as dowsing, which are described in terms of the supernatural but are testable. Science does not say that all untestable things are equally likely, but rather puts the burden of proof on the person proposing something new and treats new phenomena as non-existent until there is evidence to the contrary.

Putting it another way, if science finds that Uri Geller uses slight of hand to bend spoons, its conclusion should be closer to, “Uri Geller most likely always uses slight of hand to bend spoons,” than to, “Uri Geller uses slight of hand to bend spoons when observed by experts, but may bend spoons by supernatural means at other times.”

Before corresponding with you, I had spoken with two types of people who I thought were valid agnostics: those who believe that the supernatural, if it exists, cannot in principle interact with the natural, and those who believe that the statement “God exists” has no linguistic value. You do not seem to fit precisely into either of these camps.

Rather, you are coming across as a philosophical materialist who refers to himself as an extreme agnostic because he enjoys the reaction that provokes in others. At this point, I feel that our conversation has gone on so long in part because you are trying to shoehorn pure materialism into agnosticism, and this is causing fuzziness along some philosophical boundaries.

To test this, and perhaps to bring us toward a conclusion, let me try to sum up your philosophy:

1) Science is the only valid method of gaining information about the world.

2) That which cannot be tested for might or might not exist, but there is no way to tell the truth so there is no point in discussing such things.

3) I have no opinion about whether or not things that cannot be tested for exist.

How close is this to correct?

Hello:

Ah, this shows every sign of spinning out of control into “angels on the heads of pins” land and beyond.

We agree, it seems, about something fundamental here: The problem, to a large extent, is rooted in language.

So, rather than continue down this language-trapped track, I will just say a few words about my views on language and its usage.

I admire adherents to that discipline called “E Prime” by which one avoids usage of identifier verbs (is, are etc.) in favor of active verbs (do). This not only removes ambiguity and, sometimes, outright falsehood, from the meaning of one’s statements for the listener, but also forces the speaker to think through and clarify his/her own thoughts.

So, I will restate what I think, avoiding labels:

“I hold no opinion regarding god, deities, fairies, leprechauns, sasquatch, UFOs, or other entities or phenomena for which I have neither direct apprehension nor plausible report from trusted parties.”*

You, and “atheists” and “agnostics” and “theists” or any of the foregoing, with or without adjectives or qualifiers appended, may make similar, non-label, declarations and I will agree or disagree with them. I think that from now on I will no longer ask people which category they fit into, but rather, will ask them to state their beliefs or positions.

*That said, I must confess to taking some delight in pointing out to my Christian friends that I, personally, have far more empirical evidence for the existence of The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus than I do for that of Jesus. Several times I left the tooth under my pillow and the next morning found cash, as predicted by the theory. Several times I went to bed on Christmas Eve to awake Christmas morning to find bundles of wonderful gifts, as predicted by the theory.

Best,

John

I think we understand each others’ vocabulary pretty well at this point. I also think that the real difference in our beliefs isn’t vocabulary, but practicality. I mentally assign probabilities to all possible facts, and treat some as more likely than others. If something is less likely, I require more evidence before I will say that it is likely true. This is, in general, a skeptical/scientific viewpoint.

It seems that you, on the other hand, assign these probabilities only when discussing certain subjects. For example, you said in a previous note, “I know I exist. Everything else I accept or reject according to its degree of workability and usefullness, and that acceptance is subject to change.” Yet you have resisted my attempts to get you to assign a degree of “workability and usefulness” to the supernatural or unproven. It looks like you treat the existence of bigfoot as equally likely as the existence of a deity that I have made up on the spot. If I am understanding your position correctly, then I find it extremely impractical.

For another example, consider these two statements: “UFOs are the spacecraft of aliens from another solar system,” and “UFOs are the spacecraft of aliens from another solar system in the far future.” You have no direct knowledge or plausible report supporting either of these statements, so would you treat them as equally true/untrue? I would not, and I believe science would not.

You are completely correct when you say that science has no business saying “God does not exist” because a purely supernatural being is beyond scientific investigation. But I think you are incorrect when you treat all possible deities as equally likely (since specific concepts of deities can be investigated logically or, in some cases, scientifically), and incorrect when you treat subjects that can be in principle investigated by science (UFOs, bigfoot, fairies) as equally impossible to make scientific statements about as deities.

In closing, I completely agree with you that it is better to ask people for the specifics of their world view than to ask them what label they use. It’s too bad that so many people seem much better at labeling themselves than explaining their personal philosophy.

My my. A big one.

Let’s consider the basic question: Is the universe:- (A) something created by a sentient, all powerful being, (B) the result of naturally occuring process containing no element of will – like the Big Bang or vacuum fluctuations (C) something that always has existed as we find it (a la steady state theory)?

To me (stress “me”), a theist says the answer to that question is A. An atheist says the answer to that question is B or C. My answer to that question is: I don’t know. I neither believe nor disbelieve any of the three explanations and have no explanation of my own.

Now, you and many others aver that makes me an atheist. As you said before, we are reduced to what definitions we are willing to accept for words. (And i DO acknowledge that several dictionaries support your position. I just think they are inadequate.)

I would suggest that one possibility is that rather than us agnostics being mistaken – i.e. that we are really atheists – that the truth may be just the other way around – that many many people who call themselves atheists are, in fact, agnostic.

The truth is that, just as there are those who wake up every morning with an unshakeable belief that a supreme being created the universe in a week, there are others who wake up with an unshakeable belief that the universe was not created and, ergo, there is no creator. I think it is critical here to stress the word “belief”. Not logical conclusion. Not hypothesis. Not notion. Not desire. Belief. Belief is involuntary. It should not be confused with a decision to take a position and behave as if it was a belief. Those we call Christians can be people who absolutely believe in the scriptures’ account or they can be people who adopt that story as some sort of behaviour guide or cultural identity without actually believing that some guy created a fast food outlet from a loaf of bread and died, was resurrected and his corporeal body shuffled off to heaven.. Only the former, in my view, are actually Christians.

As I said, it may well be that many atheists lack that unshakeable belief that one or the other of the latter two explanations for existence is the explanation. I would call those people agnostics; you call them atheists. As you said earlier, we must agree to disagree on definitions. Frankly, I wish the words ‘atheist” and “agnostic” would be replaced by something else.

Deities etc.

I accept your position that deities need not be super-universal or omnipotent. But, really,so what? As they relate to my belief about them (i.e. unknowingness) it matters not at all. My position is the same regardless of their purported characteristics.

“However, I don’t see how even a supernatural being could not be bound by logic.” So?

“For example, could a deity be so simple that a child could completely understand its nature, but at the same time impossible to comprehend? Please explain further.” I would think (A) yes, and (B) it cannot be explained. That’s what a paradox is – something for which no explanation will suffice. That people are capable of conjuring up such paradoxical questions means nothing other than that some people are capable of conjuring up paradoxical questions. An arrow in flight is in motion, yet at any point in time it must “be” in some location. How can it both be somewhere but be moving (i.e. not be somewhere)? But, somehow, the arrow gets from the bow to the target despite having to “be” at an near infinite number of locations en route. Meaningless noise.

Now, let me, just for fun, turn that one on its head for you: Could deep reality be so simple that a Buddhist or Taoist monk can completely understand its nature, but at the same time impossible for a quantum physicist to comprehend?

As to philosophy and consistency, probably my favorite quote sums up my philosophy (at least to the extent required by this conversation): “We are here and it is now. Further than this, all human knowledge is moonshine.” – H.L.Mencken.

I know I exist. Everything else I accept or reject according to its degree of workability and usefullness, and that acceptance is subject to change. I may not “know” that there are fish in the Atlantic, but the cans of tuna I buy say that’s where it came from, so I’ll go along until shown otherwise. Should I come across a can of tuna saying “Made from the best tuna picked from sycamore trees” however, I’ll probably change stores until I get a good explanation.

“Once the possibility of something being true is small enough, I treat it as if it is not true. You, it appears, do not do this. ” I have not made myself clear. This is precisely what I do. I treat it as if it is not true. (Usually that just means ignoring it.) But I do not insist that it is not true – as an atheist does – I simply use the data at hand, which does not include proven truth of the “something”.

“For example, would you remain strictly agnostic when asked, “In our universe, are the laws of physics unchanging?” ” Yes, I would remain agnostic, which is to say my answer to the question would be “I don’t know.” And would that answer be thus in order to remain philosophically consistent? No. That would be my answer because I don’t know if the laws of physics are unchanging. If the question were “Do you conduct yourself as if the laws of physics are unchanging?” my answer would be “Yes, I do.”, because thus far they have appeared to be unchanging. That, however, does not mean I believe it is impossible for them to change tomorrow – only that I don’t have any evidence to make me expect them to change tomorrow or the day after etc. so it would be perverse to behave as if I expected that change.

(I also assume that you use the phrase “I would never state anything absolutely” rhetorically and not as a statement of your philosophy since it is self contradictory.) No I do not use it rhetorically. And its self-contradictory nature is irrelevant. But, to avoid the verbal pardox, let me reword: Other than the aforementioned “I know I exist”, I have not yet stated anything absolutely and have no plans to do so in the future.

“Likely enough that you act to avoid the possibility of eternal punishment (as per Pascal’s wager)?” If I am ever actually confronted with that situation I will answer. For now, I have no idea how I would answer.

Cheers,

John

These letters are indeed getting long, but I feel that progress is being made, so it’s worth it!

You are incorrect when you say that I would call you an atheist because you take no position on how the universe came to be. If you neither believe nor disbelieve in a supernatural creator, I’m fine with calling you an agnostic. That fits my definition of the term.

I also agree that some people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics, so long as we are using your definitions of the terms. This is because you define atheists as only those who categorically rule out the possibility of deities. It also apparently leaves us with no word for my philosophy, which is why I’m sticking with my set of definitions.

I agree that there are dogmatic atheists, those who have an unshakable belief that there are no deities. I disagree with these people.

I understand your wish that “atheist” and “agnostic” could be replaced. However, I think that the problem is largely solved if we do not treat atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive. One can be an atheist, an agnostic, a theist, a dogmatic atheist, a dogmatic theist, an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. You would be an agnostic. I’d be an atheist. I think that covers the bases reasonably thoroughly.

Regarding the qualities of deities you say, “so what?” Well, it’s pretty important that we know what we are talking about. For example, some agnostics define deities such that deities would have to be purely supernatural and have no impact on the physical realm. That’s a very important distinction. Also, it would be good to know how wide you are drawing the net when you say deity — are fairies included? The human soul?

You answer “So?” to my statement about not seeing how a supernatural being could not be bound by logic. I’m not sure if you mean “So what if you don’t understand” or “So what if supernatural being are bound by logic”. I’m going to assume you didn’t mean to be insulting.

I disagree with your discussion of paradox. “1=2″ is not a paradox; it is a logical contradiction. Your example of a Zeno-type paradox is not a contradiction, and in fact it is only an apparent paradox — with more knowledge, the situation makes complete sense.

I feel that you are not directly answering my question about why logic should not apply when examining deities. This is a question of rather large import. For example, let’s say that a theist makes the following series of statements: “Killing babies is always evil. God is all good. God wants me to kill babies.” If logic does not apply to deities, then we cannot discuss these statements, even within the context of theology. In fact, it seems that we would also have to accept the possible truth of such statements as, “God is pink, and God is tall, therefore God wants me to kill babies.” Such a statement is indeed meaningless noise (to use your phrase), but only because it fails within the laws of logic.

You ask, “Could deep reality be so simple that a Buddhist or Taoist monk can completely understand its nature, but at the same time impossible for a quantum physicist to comprehend?” Yes, that’s possible, given that these two people would be looking for different kinds of understanding. However, my original question was posed as a logical contradiction, as I’m sure you understand, and this question does not appear to be.

I understand what you mean about accepting or rejecting things according to their degree of workability and usefulness. This brings us right back to the questions I keep asking — how workable and useful do you find the concept of deities? Do you find any concept of a deity more workable and useful than any other?

I feel that I can now answer these questions to some small extend on my own (and ask you to correct my reasoning where necessary). You say that you do indeed treat small possibilities as not true. Since you do not treat deities in this way, I would conclude that you believe there is more than a small possibility that deities exist.

You say that the statement “I would never state anything absolutely” being self contradictory is irrelevant. You then rephrase your statement in a way that really doesn’t improve the situation so far as logical contradictions go but does reinforce my growing sense that you might be over-defining your philosophy. Your answers to the questions in this e-mail will help me see if I am wrong about that (and I hope I am).

Regarding Pascal’s wager, you say, “If I am ever actually confronted with that situation I will answer. For now, I have no idea how I would answer.” That answer surprised me. The whole point of Pascal’s wager is that you ARE being confronted with that situation. You, right now, can choose to act as if God exists so as to avoid eternal punishment if the existence of God turns out to be a fact. There is nothing to wait for. If you are waiting for certainty, then if God exists it will be too late to change your behavior when you are confronted with the truth and you will be eternally punished. So how do you answer right now?

Continuing along this line of thinking, do you feel that you behave in a way consistent with the belief that deities may or may not exist? Or to put it another way, what is the difference between your behavior and the behavior of an atheist who tries not to make absolute statements?

I look forward to your response.

Hello.

Curioser and curiouser…

All right, let’s do some house cleaning. Let’s forget that the words “theist”, “atheist” and “agnostic” exist. Let us say:
1. There are people who believe that god exists.
2. There are people who believe that no gods exist.
3. There are people who do not believe that god exists and do not believe that no gods exist.

I believe you fall into category 2. I most certainly fall into category #3. Call the categories what you will, no two of them are equivalent.

“For example, if it could be shown that the qualities of a specific deity were logically inconsistent would you agree that such a deity could not exist as described? ”

I have seen this before. God as a spherical cube. Paradoxical characteristics. My answer is: Paradox is of this universe. i.e. things that cannot, according to pyhysics (or logic), exist. Deities are not of this universe and therefore not subject to phsyics, logic, or any other measure we might use. So, my answer is “No, I would not agree.”

If, on the other hand, omnipotence and extra-universality were not included as a characteristic, my answer would be, “What deity? No omnipotence; no deity.”

“…if I made up a deity, would you be willing to state absolutely that it doesn’t exist?”

No. It would exist – at least in your mind. And perhaps even in reality. Perhaps you did not actually “make up” the deity. Perhaps it placed the notion of itself in your mind, as if you made it up. Preposterous sounding idea, of course, but one which neither of us can test. And, of course, I would have thought it was plain by now – I would never state anything absolutely.

I am not comfortable with your list of philosophical categories since none of them correctly represents my beliefs. My beliefs would be more correctly stated as, “There are people who do not believe there are gods.” The difference is subtle but extremely important in the context of our conversation. I do not assert that no deities exist; rather, I am not convinced that deities exist. You might say that I’m in category #3 but assign a very low probability to the existence of deities.

You say that, “Deities are not of this universe and therefore not subject to phsyics, logic, or any other measure we might use.” I agree that something not of the universe would not necessarily be bound by this universe’s physics since physics is tied to the material. However, I don’t see how even a supernatural being could not be bound by logic. For example, could a deity be so simple that a child could completely understand its nature, but at the same time impossible to comprehend? Please explain further.

You go on to say that omnipotence is a necessary quality of a deity. On what do you base this statement? Would you not consider the Greek gods to be deities?

You also list extra-universality as a quality of a deity. From other statements you have made, I am assuming you do not believe that a deity must be strictly outside of this universe. That is, you believe in the possibility of a deity that can have effects in the physical universe. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

I understand your position on allowing the possibility that a deity I made up exists. That is consistent with your position as I understand it.

It seems to me that our difference of opinion is largely in the area of pragmatism. Once the possibility of something being true is small enough, I treat it as if it is not true. You, it appears, do not do this. What puzzles me is why you characterize your behavior as scientific when science could not progress if it acted in this way. For example, would you remain strictly agnostic when asked, “In our universe, are the laws of physics unchanging?” I assume I am misunderstanding something somewhere, and would appreciate your pointing it out.

I would be very much interested in your view on the probability of the existence of specific deities. For example, would you say that it is likely the Christian God exists? Likely enough that you act to avoid the possibility of eternal punishment (as per Pascal’s wager)?

I appreciate your answering all these questions. The limits of your beliefs are very important, in that they represent the difference between “I have a consistent agnostic philosophy” and “I just refuse to say anything absolute.” I assume you fall into the former category, so there is certainly more to your philosophy that I need to learn. (I also assume that you use the phrase “I would never state anything absolutely” rhetorically and not as a statement of your philosophy since it is self contradictory.)