Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I found this post I made about a year an a half ago on another philosophy forum I frequent. It made for an interesting discussion there, so I will invoke my skills at necromancy to revive it here.

I wrote:

Theism, of course isn't rational. But neither is agnosticism.
I used to be agnostic, I would use the word because I believed I really couldn't know if the god myth was true or not, even though I didn't lend it any credibility. Then I got to thinking.
What IS any theology, if not a guess? In order for one form of theology to be any more credible than another, it must have reasonable evidenciary backing. Since no theology present's any real evidenciary backing, they all sit on the same level playing feild. Guesses.
There are probably thousands of 'theologies' that have and are being practiced and all of them wildly different in their creation myths and moral codes. (although most share some basic humanistic behavior qualities)
But being that each theology is no more than a guess, what makes existing theologies any more valid than ones that do not exist?(in fact, the lack of evidenciary backing despite extensive searches makes existing theologies LESS likely to be true than non existing ones) How many possible theological myths can the universe hold?
Infinite.
So what are the chances of any one being correct? About one in googleplex.
Is it rational to put any real weight or credibility in any one theological school of thought or practice? No. Is it rational to put any credibility into all of them combined? no, not really because they are just several thousand guesses out of infinite guesses.
Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 7,924 • Replies: 184

No top replies

Waiting to see the fur fly, I am.

Your friend,

neo

0 Replies

We have only five senses to observe the universe. We cannot hear very high or low frequency sounds. We cannot use sonar underwater as whales and dolphins to create a picture under the sea. We cannot see ultraviolet nor infrared colors. We cannot observe using other mediums(ia?) if there are any. Our best sense of sight is even inadequate to observe subatomic particles as the smallest unit of light the photon actually interfere with observation by pushing the electron further.

At one time we thought the earth was flat and didn't know of the continents of the Americas. The use of telescope and science enabled us to get a somewhat more accurate picture of the solar system.

As time goes by as we increase our knowledge and extend our observational skills maybe we may discover more things, dimensions unless we destroy ourselves before we get there.

Who knows what the future holds. At this moment of time the extent of our knowledge limits us in understanding many things among those would be the spiritual. There maybe something out there but we cannot detect it. Just because we cannot detect it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, it would be a waste of time spending endless hours, days and years if one doesn't have the intellect, tools, means to pursue the search for meaning.

0 Replies

Dr S,

Good argument !

I seem to be forever doomed to repeat (like the Ancient Mariner Sad

) that the central issues in this question are ontological and epistemological ones: namely (1) what do we mean by "exist" and (2) how we distinguish between "knowledge" and "belief". I adopt a "social reality" position with respect to these issues which leads me to the conclusion that agnostics simply don't seem to understand these issues at all. Theists cash in on the blurred boundaries between knowledge and belief in favour of "knowledge of God" and "straight" atheists tend to take arguments such as your own above as glaringly obvious.

I call myself an atheist, but for me each of the labels is actually significant only in terms of its social consequences i.e. "bias towards social action". In this respect I agree with those who see theism as pernicious, and agnosticism as social inertia or misplaced political correctness. And for those who would argue that "atheism" has been shown to be a disasterous social force itself I would point out that its manifestation as "communism" had all the aspects of "religion" in that it replaced celestial "deities" with earthly ones. The masses exchanged one opiate for another. Unfortunately it may be the case that the average human psyche will be forever prone to such opiates.

As for whether "agnosticism" is rational", this depends on how we interpret the word "rational". Since there are problems in equating "rationality" with "logicality" I would argue that rationality is a "coherent framework for viewing ones place in the world". So perhaps we could argue that agnosticism is "irrational" because such a framework is lacking.

0 Replies

bookmarker

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.

I agree that a god is one guess, but why would not knowing be considered irrational? If you don't know if there is a god or not, that certainly does not preclude that there may be not "something else" out there. Agnosticism is merely a limiting concept, focusing on the idea of a god.

0 Replies

Re: Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Doktor S wrote:

I wrote:

Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.

This definition is actually 2 guesses - not one. In saying that one doesn't know if there is a god they are also saying that they don't know that there isn't a god.

IMO, If a person is presented with multiple choices and none of them have adequate supporting evidence then NOT giving any one of them more weight than the others is the only rational option. That is what the agnostic does. As a result I disagree with your conclusion.

0 Replies

Re: Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

fishin' wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
I wrote:

Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.

This definition is actually 2 guesses - not one. In saying that one doesn't know if there is a god they are also saying that they don't know that there isn't a god.

IMO, If a person is presented with multiple choices and none of them have adequate supporting evidence then NOT giving any one of them more weight than the others is the only rational option. That is what the agnostic does. As a result I disagree with your conclusion.

Thank you. I've been trying to word my reply to Dok but just couldn't get the words right. You have captured my sentiments exactly.

0 Replies

Fishin and Wolf,

The problem is this:

If you want to use the word "know" about the concept "God" you are forced into a consideration of "evidence". A single counter example within such evidence would force you to reconsider the status of such "knowledge". There is asymmetry in the logical status of a thesis and its rejection. (Popper) The agnostic argument for equivalence based on "knowledge" is "false" or "logically invalid". Whether such a position is "irrational" is a matter of debate (as I argue above).

If on the other hand the agnostic position is based on "lack of evidence either way" or "the impossibility of evidence" then his use of the word "knowledge" in the traditional sense is meaningless because theists are claiming the positive "existence" of such "evidence". The agnostic is forced into epistemological considerations of the terms "knowledge" and "belief" which essentially transcends his orignal position.

0 Replies

Fresco,

Stating the 'impossibility' of evidence presumes that one is omniscient, would it not?

0 Replies

Oh, Doc...you have flipped.

And I thought you were made of sterner stuff.

Agnosticism is the only rational position in this "there is a God" "there are no gods" continuum.

You are one of those atheists, Doc, who want to pretend that you are doing nothing more than the etymology of the word suggests...namely: that you simply do not "believe" in gods.

But everything you write indicates that you are fooling yourself...and just about no one else.

You do "believe" there are no gods.

You are doing the same thing the theists do...making wild, blind, unwarranted guesses about the unknown...probably because you do not have the guts and sense of honestly to simply acknowledge that you do not know if there are gods...and you also do not know if there are none.

But I thank you for reacting as you have to my challenge of you in the other thread. I can always use a good laugh.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
I wrote:

Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.

This definition is actually 2 guesses - not one. In saying that one doesn't know if there is a god they are also saying that they don't know that there isn't a god.

IMO, If a person is presented with multiple choices and none of them have adequate supporting evidence then NOT giving any one of them more weight than the others is the only rational option. That is what the agnostic does. As a result I disagree with your conclusion.

He actually has no "conclusion" with which to disagree, Fishin'.

Doc and I were discussing this topic in another thread...and I pretty much shot his boat out of the water. So in what is obviously a retaliation of some childish sort...he has started this thread to do what atheists have taken to doing these days...disparaging a philosophical position infinitely superior to theirs.

Just get a kick out of it. It is nothing more than a kid stretched out on the floor kicking his heels and holding his breath.

I love it.

0 Replies

Real Life

No,

The theist or agnostic might argue that if "God" is a "supernatural being" then "he" might chose "not to reveal himself ." If this thesis is adopted, the proposer can no longer talk in terms of "traditional knowledge".

0 Replies

Frank,

".... philosophical position infinitely superior to theirs...." Laughing

Come on now, if you are going to lay claim to the adjective "philosophical" your qualifications must include some acknowledgement that the words "existence", "knowledge", and "belief" are up for grabs.

0 Replies

Let's see now...

...the agnostic position with regard to "there is a God" vs. "there are no gods" is this:

I do not know...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

And the author of this thread and some of these others participating...

...claim that is not a rational position.

This is almost too funny for words.

Honestly...this is farce worthy of Hollywood.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

".... philosophical position infinitely superior to theirs...."

Come on now, if you are going to lay claim to the adjective "philosophical" your qualifications must include some acknowledgement that the words "existence", "knowledge", and "belief" are up for grabs.

Fresco...

...the premise of this thread is so absurd that even your formidable talent for sidetracking and derailing threads will not give it any relief.

Oh, the joy of seeing a thread like this is almost too much to bear.

I only hope none of my favorite people miss this one.

0 Replies

The only rational response to this thread is no response.

0 Replies

Frank,

If you can define "meaningful guess" and "evidence" in non-subjective terms then you have a "philosophical position". If not you are stuck in a circular argument in which "evidence" and "meaningful" are entirely user defined.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

If you can define "meaningful guess" and "evidence" in non-subjective terms then you have a "philosophical position". If not you are stuck in a circular argument in which "evidence" and "meaningful" are entirely user defined.

As I said, Fresco...

...the premise of this thread is so absurd that even your formidable talent for sidetracking and derailing threads will not give it any relief.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The only rational response to this thread is no response.

At least you...and Edgar...are atheists with the balls to proclaim your atheism in an honest and ethical way. You and he are not trying to weasel your way past the rough spots in the road...

...you atheistic slimeball, you.

Feel free to make that, Mr. Atheistic Slimeball if you prefer.

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know