EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[nikolayevich]

I see what you're saying. Here's the problem:
As a believer myself I...

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Don't believe it's impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Am not skeptical about God's existence.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Am fairly committed to my faith.

Therefore, I doubt that I'm in fact an agnostic, or even leaning that way. I can't speak for other believers, but that is my take on it.

Doubt in God is actually a belief that God probably doesn't exist. One needs faith to believe this as much as one need faith to believe in God.

[mrmufin]

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

Can we "prove empirically" that Bigfoot does or does not exist? What about the Loch Ness monster? And the Single Footed Dryer Goblin (who recently made off with a favored tube sock of mine)? What about those elusive "stockpiles" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? At what point does our inability to observe the subject prove the nonexistence of the subject?

Proofs, I've heard, are for alcohol and mathematics. Everything else is an assessment of evidence. Ultimately, we either find the evidences for something convincing or unconvincing. As my fifth grade English teacher explained to one inquisitive student, "Once thunder was understood, Thor wasn't really needed anymore." Perhaps once love is better understood we'll no longer need Cupid.

As far as I'm concerned, detectability matters. To understand the nature of anything --be it gazelles, trolls, B.B. King, thorium decay, Iraqi WMDs, whatever-- observational data trumps theory, conjecture, political opinion and wild-arse guess. To the best of my knowledge, an accurate theometer has not yet been developed. With objective, empirical evidences for the gods (and trolls and Iraqi WMDs) in such short supply, I find the most frugal explanation to be that those things are more than likely nonexistent. Another's interpretation of the same data may result in differing degrees of skeptometer deflection.

Perhaps we're not swayed from agnosticism by proof, but by the confidence we have in our non-agnostic beliefs.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

Regardless of any dictionary definition, agnostic is a state of belief. In this case, the lack of it. The problem with definition #a is the word know, because that can mean anything to anyone. Someone who says, "I know God exists, I just know it," does not have to adhere to a strict interpretation of what know means, because the definition applies in his/her own world-view, which is enough for this purpose. Dictionary definitions like these are always suspect because many key words are intentionally vague and rely on circuitous logic to make their points. ("knowledge: see power; power: see knowledge")

The only agnostics are those who are in a state of unbelief through a kind of apathy ("I don't know and I don't care"). In my opinion, everyone should be agnostic, and, as you correctly point out, this is the only logical position that can be taken, but in practice this doesn't work out.

[bernee51]

Regardless of any dictionary definition, agnostic is a state of belief. In this case, the lack of it.

Lack of belief = atheism. Lack of knowledge=agnosticism

Someone who says, "I know God exists, I just know it,"...

is expressing a 'belief', an 'opinion'. As has been pointed out, the existence of god is not possible to prove, ergo knowledge of the existence of such an entity is a logical impossibility.

[seventil]

I've always been sort of agnostic in the sense that I don't think man will ever know or be capable of understanding why or exactly how everything came to be.

I don't like the definition of "agnostic" - but I think every truly humble person is agnostic in a sense, because proclaiming to be all-knowing is prideful, and a sin. I'm not saying that religion claims to be all-knowing or infallable, but the attitudes of some creationists can be perceived this way.

[mrmufin]

I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly here:

The only agnostics are those who are in a state of unbelief through a kind of apathy ("I don't know and I don't care"). In my opinion, everyone should be agnostic, and, as you correctly point out, this is the only logical position that can be taken, but in practice this doesn't work out.

If everyone should be agnostic AND the only agnostics are of the "I don't know and I don't care" flavor... Does this mean that we shouldn't know nor care? Am I reading this right? I can see how uncertainty can be easily associated with agnosticism, but I really don't see apathy as a necessary component.

I do not believe that god(s) exist is a statement devoid of certainty, in my opinion. On the other hand, god does not exist packs a bit more certainty. So if the distinction between atheist and agnostic is certainty, than I'm not really sure how others may label me. Nor do I really care...

I refer to myself as atheist (one who does not believe that god exists) rather than agnostic, because I see it as the simplest way to express my disbelief without entirely ruling out the possibility (however miniscule) that one or more gods may exist. But if that makes me agnostic, well, then... adjust your local labels accordingly.

But I'm still not sure how apathy fits in here...

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly here:

The only agnostics are those who are in a state of unbelief through a kind of apathy ("I don't know and I don't care"). In my opinion, everyone should be agnostic, and, as you correctly point out, this is the only logical position that can be taken, but in practice this doesn't work out.

I refer to myself as atheist (one who does not believe that god exists) rather than agnostic, because I see it as the simplest way to express my disbelief without entirely ruling out the possibility (however miniscule) that one or more gods may exist. But if that makes me agnostic, well, then... adjust your local labels accordingly.

But I'm still not sure how apathy fits in here...

Apathy is the result of not being able to know. The question Is there a God? is meaningless, and therefore I do not need to worry about it, nor care. All arguments about whether there is a God or not and how he operates are academic &/or moot at best. The system is stacked against proof, so why bother trying to prove it (or disprove, for that matter)? Well, it's kind of fun: it's an enjoyable exercise and it produces a vast amount of interesting conversation. Plus, the conversation reveals something about the character of the human species.

What we are essentially debating by talking about Christianity is what we learned in Comp Lit way back in college. We are debating what the Book means. This is literature come alive -- Christians are characters in this grand novel, and they speak with voices straight out of the Book. Imagine if you could have a conversation with Daisy Buchanan or Rastignac or Raskolnikov.

We can also go about it as a sociological experiment. Christianity is the greatest experiment ever put upon the human species & we are studying its effects. How do people change when they realize that one or another world-view they once held no longer has a hold over them? I have not had the pleasure of having this happen to me, so I am not able to study myself.

Apathy is strictly reserved for the God question. Actively holding my interest is the effect of this God question & its implications.

[otseng]

Apathy is the result of not being able to know.

I would say apathy is rather is the desire of not wanting to know or not caring to know. Ignorance is the result of not being able to know.

The question Is there a God? is meaningless.

I disagree. It is possibly one of the most meaningful and important questions for mankind. If there is a God, then it would impact human's existence more than any other question presented to man.

The system is stacked against proof, so why bother trying to prove it (or disprove, for that matter)?

Who said anyone needs to prove God's existence? Rather, all that is needed is arguments and evidence for God's existence. As you have stated about science:

But this is exactly how science works. We know that there is no such thing as conclusive proof for a hypothesis, only supporting evidence. A hypothesis always covers a future action or effect. I hypothesize that a glass will break if I drop it onto a stone floor. Do I have conclusive proof that it will? Of course not. I only have supporting evidence. It will only be proved at the moment it breaks.

Why should religion be held to the level of a proof when science itself doesn't need proof to be believed in?

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

We have to differentiate between "know" and "prove". We can know something is true without having to prove it logically. It is certainly possible to know that God exists through evidence. So, I would not say that everyone should be an agnostic.

[ST88]

Apathy is the result of not being able to know.

I would say apathy is rather is the desire of not wanting to know or not caring to know. Ignorance is the result of not being able to know.

You're partially right. If someone makes an assertion about something that cannot be proven, I do not have to disprove it. If this person asks me if I agree with the assertion, I do not have to answer at all. This is the source of apathy. It's the result of not being able to know. The assertion and subsequent demand for a loyalty oath is simply absurd, and I do not have to care about it.

Ignorance is not exclusively the result of not being able to know. Ignorance is only not knowing. How that particular ignorance came about is not a part of the definition. You can still be ignorant about things that it is possible find out about.

The question Is there a God? is meaningless.

I disagree. It is possibly one of the most meaningful and important questions for mankind. If there is a God, then it would impact human's existence more than any other question presented to man.

I do not deny your right to believe this. I also happen to agree with you -- it would impact human existence markedly. But that's a big If. And the question itself does not have any meaning. What I mean by this is that there is no reason to answer. It is the same question as Is there a Don Quixote? There are many events which would change the existence of mankind, some more likely than others.

The system is stacked against proof, so why bother trying to prove it (or disprove, for that matter)?

Who said anyone needs to prove God's existence? Rather, all that is needed is arguments and evidence for God's existence. As you have stated about science:

But this is exactly how science works. We know that there is no such thing as conclusive proof for a hypothesis, only supporting evidence. A hypothesis always covers a future action or effect. I hypothesize that a glass will break if I drop it onto a stone floor. Do I have conclusive proof that it will? Of course not. I only have supporting evidence. It will only be proved at the moment it breaks.

Why should religion be held to the level of a proof when science itself doesn't need proof to be believed in?

Very clever, Mr. Bond. But you forget one thing, there is no God which can be dropped to the stone floor. For proof or disproof of God, there is only one stone floor: death is the only gateway to this kind of proof.

God is not a scientific phenomenon, so I would not expect Him to behave in a scientifically replicable way. There is nothing in this material world that can be exclusively attributed to God, so there will never be supporting evidence, only proof or disproof at the end of the line.

In the above example, I was trying to illustrate how proof can never be obtained before the hypothesized event. My supporting evidence is the many other times I had dropped a glass onto a stone floor and it had broken (too many). But God is not an event, nor are his works, so this type of hypothesis would not apply. Consider how such a study would work: Hypothesis 1 -- God exists; Hypothesis 2 -- This existing God is the Judeo-Christian God. You cannot write an experiment for this, there is no methodology available.