Why don't agnostics get over themselves and just plead.....Atheist?
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
-
Re: Why be an agnostic when you can be an atheist?
Mon, November 27, 2006 - 4:15 PMAs an agnostic you get to piss off both the fundamentalist believers and the fundamentalist atheists. -
-
Re: Why be an agnostic when you can be an atheist?
Sat, January 13, 2007 - 9:04 AM"As an agnostic you get to piss off both the fundamentalist believers and the fundamentalist atheists."
Huzzah to that
-
Re: Why be an agnostic when you can be an atheist?
Fri, February 16, 2007 - 8:25 AMI give a subjective probability to athiesm. But I think subjective probability is a calculated form of agnosticism., since I have the feeling I want to know, and I want to be right.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Why be an agnostic when you can be an atheist?
Mon, November 27, 2006 - 4:19 PMIn my case it's a reflection of how I came to be agnostic in the first place. It was a process of applying critical thinking and scientific analysis to my original orientation as a Southern Baptist. For me, I can't begin to speak for anyone else, I can only draw conclusions based on the evidence available.
This may not be a very satisfying answer, but before anyone takes issue, you might ask yourself, "Why do you care?" I don't mean that as a dismissal of your query, I mean it as a fundamental question. Is your desire that I (we) accept atheism any different than an evangelical's insistance that I (we) accept Christianity?
I seem to pick up a little conflict between atheists and agnostics from time to time. By all means, debate these issues over a friendly beer (or in a forum like this) but observe the formalities. We, agnostics and atheists, have two many common enemys to get snarky with each other. -
-
Re: Why be an agnostic when you can be an atheist?
Mon, November 27, 2006 - 6:55 PMI am simply interested in what the tipping point is for an agnostic. I certainly am not antagonistic toward agnostics, and am not in the habit of forcing an atheistic system of beliefs (nonbeliefs) on anyone.
If an agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or who is skeptical about the existence of god, what would tip you toward an atheistic view, if anything?
I went straight from hard core catholicism to atheism. For me, agnostics are a little like 'purgatory', although I know many would argue with me about that.
-
-
Re: Why be an agnostic when you can be an atheist?
Tue, November 28, 2006 - 10:22 AMThere was a thread called "Why does agnosticism piss off atheists?" where a bunch of us hashed this out. It generated a couple hundred posts, many of them fairly lengthy. There were some ruffled feathers, but I think those of us who were willing to listen to another viewpoint learned something about how other people approach the question of God. I came out thinking that the difference between atheism and agnosticism hinges far more on semantics than on substance or evidence. It's largely a language game. In contrast to the theist, both the agnostic and the atheist decline to form a belief in God, and hence cannot organize their lives around such a belief.
I agree with Bubba that we non-believers need to stick together and not get hung up on minute differences. The worst thing a minority group can do is splinter into yet smaller and more insignificant minorities. Discussing the issue rationally is fine and good, but all too quickly people launch into the personal insults and it becomes a war of egos. People get very hung up on their labels. Lately I've been bypassing the atheism/agnosticism pseudo-debate by using the simple and neutral label of "non-religious." -
-
The Agnostic Fallacy
Tue, November 28, 2006 - 2:29 PMThe Agnostic Fallacy
Agnostic is best defined as, 'noncommittal' - dictionary.reference.com/search
I can appreciate agnosticism in the sense that it is a safe place to hang out for all the time one needs before they make a decisive decision. And to get over the fear & discrimination tied into being Atheist.
All theistic arguments have failed - when one is willing to accept this fact, then one realizes that Atheism is the most rational position. Agnosticism is really not much of a position at all since it is best defined as 'noncommittal'. But take all time you need.
The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing, just like a-theism means not-belief in god.
Agnosticism is mostly considered a vague middle ground in the debate surrounding the god question. Some people see it as the most rational alternative, given the sheer weight of debate going on from both theists and atheists.
If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god question. But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. If any single argument is valid, then agnosticism must crumble. Many such arguments are available in the atheist literature, and it is disingenuous to deny them.
Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we cannot claim it exists, or discuss it rationally.
If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must inevitably lead to strong-atheism.
Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an undefined object. Whatever exists in reality has attributes. If we admit that we have no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to define it, then it cannot exist. Thus assuming agnosticism is true leads to a contradiction.
Agnostics have to answer the following question, if their position is to make any sense at all :
How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no knowledge about "god" ?
"I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong" ~ Richard Dawkins' Evolution"
www.objectivethought.com/athei...c.html
; -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Fri, December 1, 2006 - 9:04 AMThis arguement is non valid.
If their is any proof of their being no higher beings, it disproves Atheism. If there is any proof that there are _NO_ higher beings it disproves all theologies. If there is proof that there is One higher being, or that one pantheon does in fact exist it disproves all other theologies.
Sorry, to vauge, try again. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Fri, December 1, 2006 - 6:03 PMThanks for your reply Mike.
Now, that very lack of evidence by theists over the course of many, many millennia *IS* enough evidence that their gods don't exist. If you disagree then, how many more millennia will it take to convince you?
The burden of proof is in the theist hands. They made the claim for god, they need to rpovide the support evidence or proof. Until there exists sufficient evidence to support their claim for god, it is perfect reasonable to hold an absence of belief.
"Absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence"
-----
The Absurdity in Religion Explained:
The Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Celestial Teapot.
* The Invisible Pink Unicorn:
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a satiric parody religion aimed at theistic beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.[1] These attributes serve to satirize the apparent contradictions in properties which some attribute to a theistic God.[2]
The IPU is commonly used to highlight the perceived fallacious or arbitrary nature of supernatural beliefs by, for example, replacing the word "God" in any theistic statement with "Invisible Pink Unicorn".[3] A quote from the alt.atheism FAQ sums up this use of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of preaching about the IPU.[4]
It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith also serve to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception.
It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist. This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God, i.e. that because God is omnipresent, inability to detect him does not reduce his believability. The IPU serves as a parodic demonstration that utilizing a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's nature is ultimately absurd; that by this logic the IPU is just as credible as God. The IPU's two defining attributes, invisibility and color (it is pink), are inconsistent and contradictory; this is part of the satire. The paradox of something being invisible yet having visible characteristics (eg. color) is reflected in the mythology of some East Asian cultures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invi...nk_Unicorn
------
* The Flying Spaghetti Monster:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter on his website, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator that resembles spaghetti and meatballs called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for Pastafarianism to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design.[1][2] Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) call themselves Pastafarians, a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian.
Due to its recent popularity and media exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, as a modern version of Russell's teapot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyi...ti_Monster
Flying Spaghetti Monster spotted in Germany!!!
www.youtube.com/watch
------
* The Celestial Teapot - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
; -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Fri, December 1, 2006 - 8:16 PMThere's equal evidence that someone, or perhaps several someones gods do exist. Personally speaking, touting an ideology at either end of the spectrum is indestinguishable from other forms of arrogant presumption. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Sat, December 2, 2006 - 9:18 AMAccording to my view of things, no one knows the true nature of reality. Or more accurately, no one knows everything. Therefore in order to be 100 percent certain there is no supreme being, you'd have to know everything. but then if you did know everything, you'd be a god. I think Baltar from the new Battlestar Galactica said something similar.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Sat, December 2, 2006 - 11:21 AMOr in terms of probability, the exisitence of god is perhaps immeasurably small, but not necessarily impossible. But in absolute terms, god either does or doesn't exist. I prefer the probabilistic view.
-
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 11:08 AM
Chopper,
While I am also an athiest, I don't think that "Absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence" is really something to proclaim so loudly. It's too static, it doesn't represent a worldview that can morph as conditions change (and since we're always learning more about our world, conditions are _always_ changing). I can imagine people using that to justify all sorts of bad judgements or behavior throughout history -- judgements that turned out to be bad once evidence _was_ discovered.
I tend to look at "evidence" as cumulative e.g. new discoveries bolster some theories while making others less likely, and "absense" doesn't seem cumulative in this context. After all, before the discovery of germs, anyone suggesting that diseases were caused by small organisms that we cannot see with the naked eye could have been met with the "there is no evidence, and absence of evidence is evidence of absense" mantra. The same thing applies to anything which we might posit without having [enough] evidence to justify our positions to others. In a broad sense, "absense of evidence is evidence of absense" isn't parsimonious -- it doesn't scale well.
I'm an athiest for a lot of reasons, and there are many tools I use to explain and justify my perspective ... but "absense of evidence is evidence of absense" isn't one of them.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 5:09 PMYes, you do John. You just don't know it yet. You're putting to much into the phrase "Absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence".
It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. "Evidence" is not considered proof. "Absence" is absence.
We don't live in 1st century anymore. Theists have made the claim for god for several millennia now. They have turned up no evidence to support their case that can stand up to scrutiny.
"Germs" - nobody knew about germs so nobody was was looking for germs so nobody cared about germs. Until there was a discovery that could provide the evidence to back it up. This is not very comparable to god but okay. Consider what folks in the 1st century believed when one got sick. All kinds of crazy stuff. usually from god or some form of Satan.
I totally disagree with you that the phrase cannot change. It can. As soon as the evidence shows up. When god comes down from heaven to endorse a particular religion, more specifically its denomination. Then chooses a political party then, we will certainly have something interesting to talk about. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Sun, December 10, 2006 - 11:31 PM
Chopper,
I appreciate your response, though I think perhaps I didn't word my initial post clearly. Let me try again :-)
I think we need to ask ourselves, "is evidence cumulative?" In other words, if absense of evidence is evidence of absense, and evidence is cumulative, then every passing day in which evidence of a creator / god is not found amounts to yet more evidence that he / she / it does not exist. If this is the case, then as time passes, the amount of evidence that any new evidence that might point to the contrary would have to overcome would increase. In other words, if evidence is cumulative and absence of evidence is evidence of absense, and some new discovery were to be made that implies that there was a god, then anyone would be able to say "well ok, you've that one piece of evidence that maybe says there is a god, but we've millenia worth of evidence that there is not." If this same argument were used with the discovery of microbes that caused disease (and many people were searching for the cause of disease, so we can't really say that no one cared and I think my analogy, while not perfect, is germane to this discussion), then the amount of evidence _for_ the existence of germs would not compare to the amount of evidence _against_ it (because evidence is cumulative and absense of evidence is evidence of absense), so it wouldn't be accepted as true for a long, long time, if at all.
I realize this is all about semantics (and may even be nit-picking), and i'm in complete concordance with you regarding athiesm -- religion just makes no sense at all to me (though I try to be respectful of my friends who do believe), but since I do tend to think of evidence as cumulative, if I assign a mathematical value of 0 to the absence of evidence, it doesn't accumulate and, well, amounts to 0. This is why I, personally, don't believe that absense of evidence is evidence of absense. There are all sorts of other reasons i'm an athiest <smile>, but that's not one of them.
Regards,
John, who enjoys the exchange :-)
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Mon, December 11, 2006 - 7:15 AMYou've just repeated the same nonsense John. As I said, the disease thing just doesn't work here.
Answer me this, if we do not have an absence of evidence for god today then tell me, where & what is the evidence for god? -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Thu, December 14, 2006 - 10:03 PM
Chopper,
We _do_ have an absence of evidence for god. You and I agree on this point i'm sure. I'm also quite sure that we agree that it's far, far better to put one's faith in humanity rather than some sky fairy that, if they were to exist, would be far more cruel and barbaric (if the christian bible is any indication) than any human. I'm also sure that you and I agree that, logically, the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent creator makes no sense. I very much dislike the idea of a predetermined "destiny" or "purpose" when applied to me (or anyone), and i'm quite sure you also do. I highly suspect that we would agree on many other things regarding this subject as well.
What i'm saying is that "absense of evidence is evidence of absence", in general, doesn't scale to different scenarios. It may fit the god premise really well, but it falls apart in other situations, so it's unparsimonious in my view e.g. it demands exceptions when applied to different circumstances and subjects. This is why I personally don't use it.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Tue, December 19, 2006 - 10:40 AMJohn, I agree with you about absence of evidence. It's a convenient argument when it supports what one already happens to believe (or disbeileve as the case may be) but I don't see how anybody could apply this type of reasoning consistently unless it were qualified more strictly.
Typically we do think absence of evidence means evidence of absence when it comes to things like phlogiston, aether (in the sense it was used in 19th century physics), and the alleged benefits of "snake oil."
On the other hand, we usually don't think absence of evidence means evidence of absence when talking about intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, the early "macromolecules" that allegedly led to life, or the possibility that we're being spied on by our government in ways we're not aware of.
There is an important difference between claims of the first type and claims of the second. In the ones where we do see absence of evidence as evidence of absence, we have the knowledge and the means to empirically investigate these claims and come to a pretty reliable answer. And the answer seems to be that phlogiston and aether are bad scientific models and any benefits one gets from "snake oil" can be written off as the miracles of the placebo effect.
The second class of claims, those in which absence of evidence is comfortably compatible with the claims nonetheless being true, are claims in which we are not in a very good position to have evidence, because they require information gathering techniques beyond our current reach, because they happened a very long time ago, or in the case of domestic spying, because the individual doesn't have a very good way to find out what the various government agencies might know about them, when said agencies don't want them to know.
So I think absence of evidence only means evidence of absence when we know exactly how to check for the existence of something.
And claims can slip from one category to the other as our epistemic condition changes. At the beginning of the 20th century we didn't have hard scientific evidence of psychosomatic effects (mental states influencing bodily health). Skinner and the Behaviorists saw this as evidence of an absence, and they turned out to be flat wrong. As the claims of psychosomatic effects came into the realm of the testable, they turned out to be real.
As to which camp God falls into, it probably depends on your concept of God. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Tue, December 19, 2006 - 3:44 PMGeoff you've just repeated the same nonsense as John. I see your points & agree somehwat but it's just not totally accurate.
"Absense of evidence is evidence of absence" makes sense. Even kids understand it. Adults seem to have a problem with it. Either we have evidence for something or we do not. I'll agree with you if it is applied towards something that hasn't really been investigated - like life on far away galazies that we've never studied. That's an unfair claim & a "convenient argument".
"So I think absence of evidence only means evidence of absence when we know exactly how to check for the existence of something."
- I agree with your point. However, in the case for god, Theists have written holy books telling stories & making claims about their gods for several millennia now. The burden of proof is theirs, as you know. Today they have nothing supporting their case for god. If you think they do, lets see it. This is not just a "convenient argument".
"As to which camp God falls into, it probably depends on your concept of God."
- Utter bullshit, either we have evidence for god or we don't regardless of the concept. We have no evidence for ANY gods. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 1:57 PMChopper, I love how you call my post nonsense and then go on to agree with pretty much all my points. That's hot. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 3:10 PMNo sir, trying to be slightly diplomatic I said, " I see your points & agree somewhat but it's just not totally accurate."
& then went on to demonstrate why I disagree with some of yours & Johns comments & points. Lets be honest shall we.
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 3:50 PMCalling someone's ideas "nonsense" and "utter bullshit" is your version of diplomacy? Wow...
Let's look at the parts of my post that you don't think are totally accurate. You think my example of intelligent life somewhere else in the galaxy is an unfair example. I think it's a perfect example of an area where we've done some research (e.g. SETI) but thus far we don't have enough evidence to form an informed opinion. Thus it's a case where the absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of an absence. I can't see the objection here. I don't understand what you mean by calling it a "convenient argument." Is this some new fallacy that I haven't heard of yet?
My point in addressing the issue of what to make of an "absence of evidence" was not to argue that there really is a God or that we can't know whether or not there is a God. I don't believe in God either. I think that rather than arguing that absence of evidence means evidence of absence, you should argue that the God hypothesis doesn't explain anything that doesn't already have a more plausible secular explanation, and that the human psychological tendency to atrribute anthropomorphic causes to phenomena we don't understand is just that, a psychological tendency...
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 4:44 PM
Chopper,
"Utter bullshit, either we have evidence for god or we don't regardless of the concept. We have no evidence for ANY gods."
People used to (and some still do) worship the sun as a god. The sun obviously exists -- there are boatloads of evidence supporting this theory, and independent studies verify it every day. What Geoff is trying to say is that people can define "god" differently, and in doing so, define it in such a way as to jive with some body of evidence.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 6:10 PMThe Sun never has been a god. it is a Sun that's it. No god. Now, mind you, it's a damn good sun. the reason they held so much appreciation for the sun was because they recognized that all life on the planet would die without it. Their very survival depended on the sun. It's called "SOLAR MYTHOLOGY" - notice the word, "mythology".
G "your version of diplomacy?"
- Again, you're not being accurate, I said "Slightly diplomatic". I am making an effort to see your view point & possibly agree with you & John, best I can.
"You think my example of intelligent life somewhere else in the galaxy is an unfair example. I think it's a perfect example of an area where we've done some research (e.g. SETI) but thus far we don't have enough evidence to form an informed opinion. I don't understand what you mean by calling it a "convenient argument.""
- That's not completely accurate. Here's why, there will ALWAYS be a galazy or planet that we've not found yet until we've scanned the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. That's why it's a "convenient argument."
So far, we've made it to the moon, robots to Mars & seen as far as a telescope will allow us. Which is not all that far in terms of the scale of the universe. So the argument about "intelligent life somewhere else in the galaxy", may at times, be used as a fallacy. 'Argument from Ignorance', or the implication that if something is not disproved then it must be true. The same fallacy is used for the existence of god. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, particularly when said evidence must exist for the claim to be believed.
Yes, SETI has performed much research & yes, they may form some opinion of that research to the best of their ability at this time based on their findings
"My point in addressing the issue..."
- You've just made it more complex than it needs to be. It is easily summed up in a simple phrase, "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Children even understand it, it's the adults that struggle with it. Stop making it more difficult than it needs to be. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 7:49 PM
Chopper,
"The Sun never has been a god. it is a Sun that's it. No god. Now, mind you, it's a damn good sun. the reason they held so much appreciation for the sun was because they recognized that all life on the planet would die without it. Their very survival depended on the sun. It's called "SOLAR MYTHOLOGY" - notice the word, "mythology". "
Yeah -- agreed. I look forward to the day when belief in the current crop o'gods is considered mythology as well by the general public. When I see the results of these beliefs manifested today, it's all too often in the form of hatred and war. These gods -- I want no part of them.
That being said, I do still believe in people. If the subject comes up with thiest friends of mine, I often phrase my value system as "I don't believe in your god, but I believe in you."
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 8:20 PMJohn "That being said, I do still believe in people. If the subject comes up with thiest friends of mine, I often phrase my value system as "I don't believe in your god, but I believe in you."
- that's interesting, what do you mean by that? When you tell them you don't believe in their gods but believe in them, what do you mean by believing in them?
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Thu, December 21, 2006 - 7:18 AM>>"So I think absence of evidence only means evidence of absence when we know exactly how to check for the existence of something."<<
I think that comparing evidence for God with evidence for intelligent life outside the Earth is a fallacious argument. We know there is intelligent life on Earth (assuming you consider humans intelligent). We know there are rocks made mostly of silica. Postulating that these things might exist elsewhere is a reasonable hypothosis. Because we cannot check out the rest of the universe very easily means we will never have good evidence for that rocks made of silica or intelligent life are present elsewhere, but the absence of evidence really applies to things being different than they are here rather than the same. In other words all the evidence that we actually have in abundance is that some planets have rocks made of silica and carbon-based replicating forms that sometimes exhibit intelligence. We have no evidence that other solar systems lack these features because we have not been there.
God theories come in many forms, but they generally do not consist of entities for which there would be no evidence. Often God is considered "omnipresent". If something is "omnipresent" would we not have to be totally blind not to see or feel it. This is in fact how many theists view atheists- as blind people who cannot see what is in front of their face. Other God theories invoke a being or beings who have interacted and continue to interact extensively with humans. Any such activity should leave traces that would amount to evidence for God. The only God theory that would leave no evidence is the Deist God who makes the universe, then walks away and is not involved in it in any way. Whether one believes in a Deist God or not has no meaningful philosophical impact; either way there is a set of nautual laws that govern the universe and man is set alone in this universe to suffer and die, to survive or not, depending on nothing but his own resources.
People often cite the apparent design in nature as evidence for an intelligent designer = God. If one actually understands the apparent design in nature, it quickly becomes apparent that there is no intelligent design behind it; that the myriad of flaws in nature preclude intelligent design and point to an evolutionary process that does not produce fully optimal structures in most, if not all organisms.
The absence of any kind of viable evidence to support any of these God theories is certainly evidence, if not actual "proof" that these theories have no merit and should be totally discounted. Most, if not all theists consider that God is the most important thing in your life. Is it not absurd to claim that no evidence for the most important thing in your life, is not evidence for the absence of this thing? Again, please note we are talking about evidence not proof- these are two different things. Basically, what is being said here is equivalent to living on a world with no sun and claiming that the lack of heat is not evidence there is no sun. Sorry, if you cannot feel the heat, there is no sun and to believe otherwise or to suspend judgement is simply not justified or reasonable in any way. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Thu, December 21, 2006 - 12:44 PMRene
<"I think that comparing evidence for God with evidence for intelligent life outside the Earth is a fallacious argument.">
I suspect you're right. I hope you didn't interpret my post as trying to make this sort of argument by analogy.
My point was specifically directed toward the principle that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. I was suggesting the context of the claim has to be considered (God, aliens, X-rays, whatever) because in some cases, this principle can constitute an argument from ignorance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argu..._ignorance
For just about any scientific discovery, there was a time when there was no evidence for it, but to claim that the lack of evidence for it counts as evidence against it is to base the conclusion on our ignorance rather than our knowedge. On the other hand, if we know exactly how to check for X and we don't find any evidence, then we have a good procedural/operational argument against X. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Thu, December 21, 2006 - 1:32 PM>>"For just about any scientific discovery, there was a time when there was no evidence for it, but to claim that the lack of evidence for it counts as evidence against it is to base the conclusion on our ignorance rather than our knowedge."<<
I don't buy this. One must have some basis to make a conjecture which might lead to a more fully fleshed out hypothesis. If the hypothesis is verified by repeated observations and cause and effect relationships are established and quantified in a way that allows for further testable predictions, then the hypothesis becomes an accepted scientific theory. If one simply makes a conjecture with no basis; say I claim, for example, that there is an invisible, giant, yellow fish a the the center of the Milky Way galaxy, there is no reason such a conjecture should be given any consideration; absence of evidence is enough to dismiss such ideas because of the extremely low probability such conjectures correspond to any reality.
The idea of God is a conjecture with no basis. Those who put forth this conjecture actually believe they have a basis for it, but in my estimation, they are mistaken. Therefore I would consider that there is no basis for the conjecture and we can dismiss the idea until and unless some evidence is forthcoming. No one needs to prove that there is not a giant, yellow fish at the center of the galaxy in order to not believe it. No one should be agnostic about this fish, although it might very well be swimming there- we can't be sure until we go there. Exactly the same things apply to the God theory as both are conjectures with no basis.
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Thu, December 21, 2006 - 5:59 PM"My point was specifically directed toward the principle that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. I was suggesting the context of the claim has to be considered (God, aliens, X-rays, whatever) because in some cases, this principle can constitute an argument from ignorance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argu..._ignorance "
You probably should've actually read the link you just provided us. It demonstrates what I've been saying all along.
"Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence" - is NOT a fallacy
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" = a FALLACY
"...This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burd...l_fallacy)
Savvy mate?
; -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 27, 2006 - 12:08 PMChopper,
<"You probably should've actually read the link you just provided us.">
I don't know why you find it so difficult to respect people who hold views other than yours, but If you really feel confident in the arguments you are presenting, then you shouldn't feel the need to talk shit.
The wikipedia entry I posted ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argu..._ignorance ) simply does not say or imply "Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence" - is NOT a fallacy or that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" = a FALLACY" as you claim. These are your own words and nothing I can find in the article supports them. In fact the article says quite explicitly:
"An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more."
It later goes on to add a point that reinforces what I've been saying about how lack of evidence does matter when we have a known way to check:
"However, in some cases (such as that which the noted author Irving Copi describes below) where affirmative evidence could reasonably be expected to be found, but following careful unbiased examination, this evidence has still not been found, then it might become expedient, and sometimes even prudent, to infer that this might suggest (though it does not prove, deductively, it suggests inductively) that the evidence does not exist."
The quote you give from the article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burd...l_fallacy) is not at all inconsistent with what I've been saying. Especially when you put the claim in context by adding the next sentence which you left off of the quote: "If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default." If one asserts some proposition P, one is responsible for proving P. If one asserts ~ P (read "not P"), one is responsible for proving ~ P. Saying that there is no evidence for P is very different from asserting ~ P.
(One way to argue for ~ P is to show that if P were true, then a certain type of evidence would be findable by a certain procedure, and that we have tried that procedure and failed. Then one would have a valid Modus Tollens argument.)
That article even goes on to specifically address the issue of God (which I've been avoiding intentionally):
"This fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of God, and the existence of aliens in the following form:
* "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist".
However, the converse is also true, according to the argument from ignorance:
* "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist"."
It's saying that these two assertions are logically equivalent and both fallacious. -
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Wed, December 27, 2006 - 12:31 PMThe following piece by Richard Carrier seems to fit nicely into this discussion:
www.infidels.org/library/m...heory.html
-
-
-
Re: The Agnostic Fallacy
Thu, December 21, 2006 - 6:05 PM
Geoff,
"For just about any scientific discovery, there was a time when there was no evidence for it, but to claim that the lack of evidence for it counts as evidence against it is to base the conclusion on our ignorance rather than our knowedge. On the other hand, if we know ex
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
