Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ash Pryce on February 18, 2012 at 9:05am

I am an agnostic atheist.  One deals with knowledge one with the belief position.  I do not know for certainty there is no god so I am an agnostic.  I do not however believe there is a god so i am an atheist.  When asked what I believe I say atheist.  When asked about knowledge or certainty I'll answer agnostic.  I have met few atheists who would call themselves a gnostic atheist.

Atheism isn't about absolute certainty and no one says it is.  That is a theistic misconception.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Diane Klungle on February 18, 2012 at 9:24am

I am not agnostic or agnostic atheist because there is no reason to assume that god is real.  As far as anyone knows, man made up god(s).  In that case, why give any consideration to the idea that god(s) are real?  It's not as if there is some evidence that there is a god and I am choosing to ignore it and not believe it in spite of that.  There is no proof or evidence that there is now or ever was any god or gods.  Being agnostic means that you are willing to concede that, despite there being no evidence or proof, you are open to the idea that gods are real.  I don't have that willingness to concede.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 9:45am

In reading your response it's unclear to me how it's a reply to the question that was asked by the OP. He said "If absolute certainty is impossible then why are you an atheist rather than agnostic atheist?" and you replied to say that you find no reason to assume that god is real. But that's a different question, one that may have been formulated as "Since absolute certainly is impossible then why don't you just assume god is real?" The OP's question doesn't ask you to assume that god is real, it merely asks you why you would conclude with absolute certainty that god is not real.

You say, pointing to the lack of evidence that there is a god, that we shouldn't give any consideration to the idea that god(s) are real. But that's not incompatible with agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist can express this same sentiment without claiming absolute certainty.

"Being agnostic means that you are willing to concede that, despite there being no evidence or proof, you are open to the idea that gods are real.  I don't have that willingness to concede."
Are you really saying that you're not open to the possibility that a god could exist, that some argument or piece of evidence might lead you to think that one does? Why isn't that just as dogmatic a position as the theist who refuses to consider that an argument or evidence (or the lack of evidence) should indicate that god(s) are unlikely to exist? I think it is. I think you should consider whether you can reasonably hold that position and at the same time complain that theists refuse to consider argument and evidence when it comes to their position.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Diane Klungle on February 18, 2012 at 10:17am

If a god or demi-god (Jesus) came to Earth and made itself known to a large group of people, and it was obvious that a god existed...then I would believe it.

I wouldn't deny something that was obviously real.  Anything short of that though, and you can forget it.  There is no reason to believe anything about gods existing just as there is no reason to believe in any other storybook creature.

Since I just joined this site and you are commenting on my second post, I don't really understand how you can assume to know what I do and don't complain about when it comes to theists...but in answer to the last part of your reply;

I'm not the one making a positive assertion about something that I cannot prove.  Theists are doing that.  I don't have to prove that god does not exist, nor do I have to concede that one may exist considering that man has made-up everything having to do with god.  Man has made up many stories about many creatures, and there is no controversy about not believing in those other creatures, so why this one?

Absolute certainty doesn't mean anything to me in the discussion about god.  I mean, I'm absolutely certain there isn't a god in the same way that I'm absolutely certain that Dr. Seuss characters don't exist.  I don't see the difference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 10:37am

If a god or demi-god (Jesus) came to Earth and made itself known to a large group of people, and it was obvious that a god existed...then I would believe it.

I wouldn't deny something that was obviously real.  Anything short of that though, and you can forget it.  There is no reason to believe anything about gods existing just as there is no reason to believe in any other storybook creature.

But that means that you do leave open the possibility that, even while you don't think it will happen (and I don't either of course), it could. And that stands in the way of absolute certainty. That's all I'm saying.

And I agree that theists are making the positive assertion "God exists" but atheists that say "Gods absolutely certainly do not exist" are also making a positive claim. You don't have to prove that a god does not exist until you claim that one absolutely certainly does not. I don't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and anyone that says there are has the burden of proof on them to establish that they do, but if I say "There absolutely certainly are not fairies at the bottom of the garden" then simply saying "No one has ever found them there" doesn't establish the claim, all it does is justify the weaker position of "I do not think that there are..." or "I see no reason to think that there are..."

Dr. Seuss characters are known to be fictional. That's a poor comparison. It begs the question by equating known fictional characters with the absolute certainty that all gods everywhere are fictional when that's the very question at hand. I agree with you if you want to say, to reuse the example above, that I know gods don't exist in the same way that I know fairies in the bottom of the garden don't exist. But then we've qualified what we mean by "know" here to exclude absolute certainty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Hurst on February 18, 2012 at 9:40am

"If absolute certainty is impssible"

Your premise is false because it is not specific enough. We can not be absolutely certain about what is true. But, we can be absolutely certain about what is not true, in many cases. That is, ideas CAN often be ruled out with certainty.

Let's look at a couple examples...
Our understanding of physics is really just a collection of "guesses." They are guesses at rules that would explain the world we can see and measure. If we can apply the rule and it predicts the correct outcome in every situation, we feel pretty good we know what it is true. If we can deduce totally novel and unexpected features of the universe by playing the "if this is true, that would mean that X is also true" game, we feel really good we are on to something meaningful. But, we still aren't certain. There can come along a situation we've not yet encountered or anticipated that may yet prove it wrong or incomplete.

But let's say that we guess that the strength of gravity varies by the cube (rather than the square) of the distance between the masses. We can compute the implications and we get the "wrong" answers. That formulation of gravity doesn't match the observed orbits. It is not true, we can be certain. The negative evidence will never vanish. It is an idea forever excluded.

The God of Abraham is very much the same. There is precisely one reason to believe in the God of Abraham and that is He gave us a revelation and it is true. That is no other reason to suspect a God with those particular attributes exist except the claims of that book. So, let's play the "if X is true than Y also must be true" game and see that "revelation" varies from observed reality.

First off, He claims to be the creator of the universe. OK then, it is entirely reasonable to expect the Bible's portrayal of the shape and history of the universe to strongly correlate with observation.  The Bible portrays a geocentric universe, with a flat Earth, a dome of a sky holding back the water.  The Sun, Moon, planets and stars are set in that dome and sail across the motionless Earth once each day.  Surely I don’t have to point out how astonishingly wrong that is.  Moderate religionists like to say we aren’t meant to take the beginning of the Bible literally, but the Bible provides no license to take it any other way.  

Even the gross history of the Bible is false.  The Exodus is really the key story of the Bible.  All knowledge of the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, is traditionally held to have been dictated to Moses while he was receiving the Law.  At the very least, we would have to agree that such information would have had to have been carried into the future by that group of people escaping Egypt, wondering for 40 years, slaughtering the Canaanites, and founding Israel.  Thanks mostly to Israeli archaeology, we now know now of that is history.  The Jews were never in Egypt in large number requiring an Exodus, there was no wondering of a million in people in the Sinai for 40 years, and it seems the Jewish people are actually the remnants of a collapsed system of city-states… that is, they are the very Canaanites they claim to have displaced.  So, the whole supernatural history of the Jewish people is FICTION.

Skipping on to the NT, Jesus was spectacularly specific about the power of prayer and how God takes care of his believers.  If God was interested and intervening in the lives of believers in any way like is claimed, the first question on every insurance form would be “Are you a Christian?”  Statistically, there is no faith group that has any appearance of divine protection.  That is simply not compatible with any reading of the NT.

There are thousands more such comparisons might be made, but why?  The Bible is contradicted by reality in huge and fundamental ways.  It contains no information distinguishable from the ignorance of the people of the time.  It cannot be a revelation of the creator of the universe.  When it comes to the well-specified “God of Abraham” I am very comfortably a gnostic atheist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 9:57am

A premise isn't false when it isn't specific enough, it's merely in need of additional support. It may be false, sure, but it may be true. We don't have enough information yet.

Leaving aside that it seems unclear whether the God of Abraham is the same as gravity when it comes to determining truth or falsity, the OP never stipulated the God of Abraham. You're assuming that that's what is meant owing to our status as Westerners steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition. But the question of whether absolute certainty is reasonable applies to the God of classical theism or Deism, or even to pantheism or panentheism, to what philosopher J.L. Schellenberg calls an "ultimate salvific reality". The question applies to any position that is not atheism or agnosticism. Even if it is allowed that the God of Judaism and Christianity can be said with absolute certainty not to exist, that doesn't answer the question. It's not specific enough. (But, of course, the lack of specificity doesn't necessarily indicate it's falsity. You just need to clarify.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Hurst on February 18, 2012 at 10:08am

"A premise isn't false when it isn't specific enough"

Really?  Ok, "people have vaginas."  I qualify as "people" but I have no vagina. 

Look, "absolute certainty is impssible" was used as an unqualifed premise from which to continue reasoning.  And as such, it is false.  The wrong conclusion is being drawn (that atheists should be agnostic atheists) because of its falsity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 10:24am

Ok, "people have vaginas."  I qualify as "people" but I have no vagina.

You're a male person. There's your specificity. That you have a vagina is false. But it's also false to say "People have a vagina" because included in the set "people" are those who don't have a vagina.

Look, "absolute certainty is impssible" was used as an unqualifed premise from which to continue reasoning.Look, "absolute certainty is impssible" was used as an unqualifed premise from which to continue reasoning.

But that it's unqualified doesn't mean it's necessarily false, just unqualified. The right thing to do is to ask the OP, "Are you saying that absolute certainty is impossible with regard to the question of a god's existence?" and then challenge that premise if you disagree with it.

And it's just as fallacious to reason thus:

"Some things are absolutely certain, therefore I need not concern myself that the question of a god's existence is or is not absolutely certain." Which is what it seems you've done. Because even if some things are absolutely certain, it doesn't answer the question of whether it is or ever could be absolutely certain that a god does not exist. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Hurst on February 18, 2012 at 10:28am

You've just moved yourself beyond being worth replying to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 18, 2012 at 10:38am

It's troubling that you think so Scott.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Hurst on February 18, 2012 at 10:58am

I cannot help someone that disagrees with the basic rules of logic and reason.

When a premise is stated for the purpose of making furhter inferences, if it is lacking the specificity to make correct inferences it is "false" for the purposes and needs to be restated or withdrawn.

Returning all the way to the OP, it could be stated as:

"absolute certainty is impossible" therefore "atheists should be agnostic" and he is asking why that is not universally true.

The premise "absolute certainty is impossible" is not universally true, therefore the conclusion does not follow.

A correct statement of premise would be "we cannot be absolutely certain what is true."  As atheism is a statement about what is NOT true, you cannot logically get to go "therefore atheists should be agnostic"

Going futher to "We can often be absolutely certain about what is not true" (which I provided examples illustrating how that is so) it become very clear why atheism with regards to the God of Abraham (or any other popular well-defined god) can be other than agnostic.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page