Thoughts in a Haystack

Ok, I will buy into this discussion.

My understanding of the word "agnostic" is that it describes a person who says that they do not KNOW whether a god exists or not, and an atheist is one who does not BELIEVE that god exists.

Personally, I have 2 bites of the cherry. I call myself an agnostic atheist, as I consider that no one KNOWS if god exists or not, and I don't BELIEVE in the existence of god either.

But, I don't worry if people call themselves agnostic or atheist. It means their critical thinking thinking are working, and that is the prerequisite.
 

The problem with all such terminology, of course, is that people keep insisting on using it ... but not consistently across the board.

I am reminded of a well-known law professor who said that the law would be a wonderful profession ... if it wasn't for clients. Philosophers must think about the same of people in general.

Anyway, like Wilkins, I believe that it is more than just that we do not know (Dawkins' Temporary Agnosticism in Practice) but that the question, for coherent theologies not making defeasible empiric claims, is, itself, incoherent. Dawkins' dismisses that position as fence-sitting "Permanent Agnosticism in Principle."

But what I think Dawkins' own example (inadvertently) demonstrates is the correctness of PAP. The scientific community itself, through its practices, recognizes that miracles (assuming, as you must for the sake of this argument, that they exist) cannot truly be addressed by empiric investigation. "Miracles" may be debunked (at least by showing fraud or trickery -- merely showing a sufficient naturalistic cause for something does not mean you have shown the phenomenon is not miraculous) but they may not be empirically confirmed. That inability to truly engage the issue means that empiricism is not capable, in the end, of answering the question of whether God exists.

And since I share with Dawkins the view that empiric investigation is the only game in town for obtaining knowledge, and that the rest is mere opinion, refusing to claim knowledge of God's status is not fence-sitting, it is good scientific practice.
 

Ah, you're not saying what John believes, you're just saying what his interpretation is. It all becomes clear ...
 

Yes, that's what PZ is saying.

He's saying that John has a completely unworkable and unrealistic view of atheism. He believes, incorrectly, that lack of belief in the prevailing superstition of religion means that you can disprove the existence of God.

That's nonsense. I am an atheist and an agnostic—agnostic in the same sense that I'm agnostic about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. So is John. How about you?
 

I feel no need to respond to attempts to "poison the well".

The only certainty I'll express about Santa is that the roots of the story of the elf and his reindeer are historically known and non-spiritual. As to the tooth fairy, the only known purveyors of that account are admittedly faking its existence.

Why should I consider those cases as even remotely equivalent to a God sincerely believed in by people I personally know to be honorable and intelligent?

As I said in my earlier comment, the problem can be one of terminology but if, as I and John believe, these questions are not amenable to scientific/empiric determination at the level of real "live questions" (as John calls them), then there are real "live" differences between us and Dawkins and [cough] others who think these issues can be treated as scientific questions.

John and I might, coincidentally, wind up at the same practical point that Dawkins does (not that we have to -- agnosticism doesn't necessarily bar belief). But the method of how we got there does count. Just as you have no mercy on those people who make bad arguments in support of evolution, a mere agreement on the outcome does not make someone spouting New Age crap as evidence for common descent the equivalent of some hard-headed biologists I've known.
 

One has to wonder how the omnipotent designer being ever would have thought of even designing the laws of nature ... Not to mention the fact that the mere act of having some thoughts about anything at all would in and of itself have required some laws of nature right there.

Well, (ala Spinoza) there may be no difference between God and the laws of nature.

But I'm curious as to why you say "the mere act of having some thoughts about anything at all would in and of itself have required some laws of nature."

Anyway, thanks for your contribution to the silly argument.
 

I am a Jedi Knight. Please learn a bit about my group at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
 

The interpretation I am rejecting is his idea of what atheists like me believe.

I thought that was perfectly clear.

I'm sorry ... I thought his interpretation of your belief that "if you don't believe, you're an atheist" was spot on.

But that's just my interpretation, of course.
 

The example of Jesus's virgin birth was probably unfortunate for illustrating the vacuousness of the non-overlapping magesteria proposition. Imagine that we found out, in controlled experiments, repeatably, that prayer (let's say some very specific christian prayer) can heal sick people. Can you really imagine Christian theologians ignoring that evidence?

Another point: John Pieret said

The only certainty I'll express about Santa is that the roots of the story of the elf and his reindeer are historically known and non-spiritual. As to the tooth fairy, the only known purveyors of that account are admittedly faking its existence.

Why should I consider those cases as even remotely equivalent to a God sincerely believed in by people I personally know to be honorable and intelligent?

First of all, we have a pretty good idea where the story of Jesus comes from, and its origins are entirely non-spiritual. Most elements in the story predate the supposed life of Jesus and can be found in various pagan myths abundant at that time.

Which brings me to the second point: Are you suggesting that given two stories which, given all the available evidence, are equally unlikely, one automatically becomes more likely if lots of "honorable and intelligent" people believe in it? Because what other reason would you have to be agnostic about that one while dismissing the other?

Or are you automatically agnostic about all stories whose origins are not completely accounted for?
 

As to the question of prayer actually shown to be correlated with some physical phenomenon, sure the theist will try to incorporate it into his/her theology. So will atheists, just in a different way. We all try to incorporate the "facts" of the world into our worldviews ... what else? (And if prayer was shown to work by a definite regularity, it would become part of the natural world -- but that's a whole different argument).

It's been a long time since I read Gould's book but, if I remember right, he wasn't splitting NOMA by subject matter -- the natural world exclusively belonging to science and religion cannot even mention it. He split it by who had the "authority" to determine what the "facts" of the natural world are. Religions can accommodate their theology to the Earth being round and common descent having occurred. That's not a violation of NOMA in my view. If science produced those results on prayer, why shouldn't they incorporate them in their beliefs?

As to the Jesus story, you do realize that many people dispute those claims and none of them actually go to his existence or divinity, right? In any event, as John Wilkins has said over at PZ's place, there is no absolute scale of belief/nonbelief to agnostics. These aren't either/or propositions. There is a sliding scale of credulity, with, in my case, Santa on the very low end, a virgin-birthed man-god somewhat (but not much) more believable and something like Spinoza's God almost probable.

If sincere, honorable and intelligent people tell me that they have experienced something that science admittedly can't address, why wouldn't I consider that as good, evidence-wise, as, say, my experience of pain when I dropped something on my foot? I should at least put that claim higher on my believability scale than the tooth fairy, where equally sincere, honorable and intelligent people have told me that they snuck into their kid's room and put money under the pillow in exchange for the tooth.

As to the rest, I am technically agnostic about everything because I cannot prove to myself that I am not a brain in a tank. As I said somewhere recently, I don't understand why people are so afraid of doubt.
 

'If sincere, honorable and intelligent people tell me that they have experienced something that science admittedly can't address, why wouldn't I consider that as good, evidence-wise, as, say, my experience of pain when I dropped something on my foot?'

Oh puh-leez. You are one confused guy.
 

Oh puh-leez. You are one confused guy.

And I would know that from your "comment," exactly how?
 

Ah, those militant agnostics!

The Darwin Correspondence Project has an interesting article about his belief, which puts forward evidence that he and Emma shared active doubt, in her case as a Unitarian approach to religious faith, and in his case a more materialistic science – though materialistic in the early 19th century usage which could include deism. Both seemed reasonably comfortable with doubt.
 

I take it you mean this article.