Snow White vs. Heyo: Agnosticism is the Most Logical Position

[Heyo]

Hello Snow White, dear audience,

sometime in the past I made the above statement (or something similar) and recently @Snow White decided to take me up on that. I appreciate the challenge and am glad to have it in this formal setting.
I didn't make an OP with the same title until now since it smacks of proselytising. And I guess that is basically what I will do here, I'll defend my philosophy. I don't intend to proselytise, just to explain my position but I'd understand if someone would see that as against the rules. If so, please contact me and Snow White so that we can arrange for a slightly different topic that is in line with the rules. Thank you.

The only condition for this debate is that I have to start as I am the one with the positive claim which I'll have to defend. There are no other specific rules, nor is there a timeline, post size constraint or anything else. The usual rules for debate on RF still apply. Snow White will start a discussion thread about this debate when she sees fit.
With the house keeping out of the way lets start with

Definitions:
I'll use Agnosticism, Atheism, agnosticism and atheism here (notice the capitalisation) for the philosophical and colloquial definitions which can be compressed as follows:

• Agnosticism, the philosophy that one should hold judgement when knowledge about a topic is scarce in general; that the existence and nature of god(s) is unknown in the religious context particular.
• Atheism, the philosophy that god(s) don't exist.
• agnosticism, withholding judgement about the god question because of personal lack of information.
• atheism, personal state of mind of not believing in any gods.

Why is Agnosticism the most logical position?
When I made that statement, it was in a context of Agnosticism vs atheism (and other positions and states of disbelief). And as I know that Snow White will take the position against Agnosticism from a non believers point of view, I'll argue that Agnosticism is more rational (and more effective) than any other non belief.

1. Atheism is a position, atheism is not. The most simple and most wide spread definition of atheism is a description of a state of mind. It makes no claim except about the internal state and there is no position to defend. One may see it as a positive to be invulnerable, I see it as weak and coward. Believers who complain about atheists having nothing to defend are right.
2. The atheist community (of which I see myself a member by definition) can be as big as it is because of that single common state and as a minority it is useful to have a big tent. For myself I see that as no excuse to not think deeper and find more than just a state, having a position. And having a position in addition to the state of mind, doesn't exclude one from the big tent.
3. Agnosticism goes one step further. When I reached my conclusion of Agnosticism, I had to reject none of my atheist thoughts. And if my Agnosticism gets rejected, it doesn't affect my atheism.
4. You may be an Agnostic without knowing it. I know I was before adopting that label. I called myself agnostic atheist and fancied to switch to igtheist. Someone on a different forum, with much more knowledge of philosophy, convinced me that Agnosticism, as thought of by Thomas Huxley, was exactly what fit my position.
5. The specific Agnostic critique of god belief, that no consensus about the list of godly attributes exists, is also in the catalogue of atheists as the "problem of divine hidden-ness". And as definitions are usually the first thing to debate, why not make it the first and central argument against theism instead of just another problem? It is only logical to put it first.

Conclusion
Agnosticism is a position while atheism is not.
Agnosticism puts the central problem of theism first.
Agnosticism has powerful evidence (multitude of religions).


Thank you all for your attention and patience, I hope I wasn't too verbose in my opening statement. Feel free to attack any or all position as you see fit. In anticipation of your response,

Heyo

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And thanks to @Heyo for inviting me to this thread.

Let me begin with my first argument. Agnosticism is sometimes defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena". This definition has two major flaws. One, it is based on a negative claim that cannot be proven or disproven. How can one know that nothing can be known? That is a self-defeating statement that undermines its own validity. Two, it is too broad and vague to be meaningful. What does it mean by "God" or "anything beyond material phenomena"? There are many different conceptions of God and metaphysical realities in various religions and philosophies. Does agnosticism apply to all of them equally? If so, how can one be consistent and coherent in holding such a position?

This leads me to my second argument. The Abrahamic God, which is the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is the most widely believed in god in the world. This God is described as omnipotent, omniscient, personal, and the creator of everything, and much more. The Abrahamic religions also claim to have revealed scriptures, historical events, miracles, and prophets that testify to the existence and nature of this God. However, agnosticism contradicts all these claims by saying that nothing is known or can be known of the Abrahamic God. This is illogical and disrespectful to the billions of people who follow these religions and base their lives on their faith. In addition, agnosticism does not offer any counter-evidence or alternative explanation for the phenomena that these religions attribute to God. For example, how does agnosticism account for the talking donkey in Numbers 22:28 of the Bible? Is it a myth, a metaphor, a hallucination, or something else? Agnosticism does not answer these questions; it only avoids them.

My third and final argument is that science is a better way to approach the question of 'God'. Science is based on empirical observation, logical reasoning, testable hypotheses, and falsifiable theories. Science does not claim to have absolute certainty or final answers. It is always open to new data and revision. Science does not accept anything on blind faith. It requires evidence and verification. Science does not limit itself to material phenomena. It explores the physical, biological, psychological, social, and even spiritual aspects of reality. Science does not rule out the possibility of God. But which leads to my point - if science ever discovers a God, it will not be the Abrahamic God or any other human-made conception considered by agnosticism; it will be a God that transcends our imagination and understanding.

In conclusion, I have shown why agnosticism is not a logical position to hold. It is based on a flawed definition, it contradicts the Abrahamic God, and it is inferior to simply trusting science.

Part 2:

In my previous statements, I used a broad definition of agnosticism as the position that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknown or unknowable. However, this definition is vague and does not capture the diversity of agnostic views. Next up, I will break down the different definitions of agnosticism and show why they are all faulty but in different ways.

- Weak agnosticism: This is the view that one does not know whether God exists or not, but does not rule out the possibility of knowing in the future. This view is faulty because it assumes that there is no sufficient reason or evidence to believe or disbelieve in God, and that withholding judgment is rational or justified. However, this is not the case. There are many arguments and evidences for and against the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the problem of evil, the argument from design, etc. These arguments and evidences may not be conclusive or decisive, but they are certainly relevant and persuasive. Therefore, weak agnosticism is not a reasonable position to hold.

- Strong agnosticism: This is the view that no one can know whether God exists or not, and that the question is meaningless or beyond human comprehension. This view is faulty because it makes a self-defeating claim. To say that no one can know whether God exists or not is to make a knowledge claim about God's existence. But how can one make such a claim if the question is meaningless or beyond human comprehension? Also, this view implies that the question of God's existence is irrelevant or unimportant for human life, which is clearly false. The question of God's existence has profound implications. So, strong agnosticism is not a coherent position to hold.

- Empirical agnosticism: This is the view that the existence or nonexistence of God is a matter of empirical evidence, and that there is currently no conclusive evidence either way. This view is faulty because it relies on a narrow and unrealistic standard of knowledge. Empirical evidence is not the only source of knowledge, nor is it always reliable or sufficient. There are other sources of knowledge, such as intuition, revelation, metaphysics, etc, that may provide insights or answers to the question of God's existence. Also, empirical evidence may be ambiguous, incomplete, or conflicting, and may require interpretation or evaluation by rational arguments or criteria. To demand conclusive empirical evidence for God's existence is to set an impossible standard that no other belief or claim can meet. Therefore, empirical agnosticism is not a fair position to hold.

- Apathetic agnosticism: This is the view that the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant or unimportant for human life, and that one does not care about the answer. But the existence or nonexistence of God has a significant impact on our worldview and values, such as our understanding of reality, truth, morality, meaning, etc. To believe or disbelieve in God is to make a commitment or choice that affects our actions and attitudes in life. To say that one does not care about this question is to be indifferent or irresponsible to one's own existence and destiny. Therefore, apathetic agnosticism is not a respectable position to hold.

In conclusion, it seems that all definitions of agnosticism are flawed and unsatisfactory. Agnosticism is not a viable option for anyone who seeks to know the truth about God and reality.

Part 3:

@Heyo defines Agnosticism as:

"Agnosticism, the philosophy that one should hold judgement when knowledge about a topic is scarce in general; that the existence and nature of god(s) is unknown in the religious context particular."

I think I've already covered my thoughts of knowledge not being scarce on the topic, and more, including about the existence and nature of God being unknown, and how that's simply not true that it is. One would have to read parts 1 and 2 of my post and decide.

I also argue that to talk about all gods is beyond the scope of this thread, and may not really be what the position of Agnosticism is really, truly about. Though I'm still open-minded to a god from another religion being introduced for purpose of question and debate.

Heyo said:

"Atheism is a position, atheism is not. The most simple and most wide spread definition of atheism is a description of a state of mind. It makes no claim except about the internal state and there is no position to defend. One may see it as a positive to be invulnerable, I see it as weak and coward. Believers who complain about atheists having nothing to defend are right."

I say, I admit only that it's true that in religious debates, atheists tend to mainly have to take the negative position.

Also, atheism is a position on whether or not God exists.

Heyo said:

"The atheist community (of which I see myself a member by definition) can be as big as it is because of that single common state and as a minority it is useful to have a big tent. For myself I see that as no excuse to not think deeper and find more than just a state, having a position. And having a position in addition to the state of mind, doesn't exclude one from the big tent."

I'd say Straw Man. And I briefly explained why just above. Atheism is a position on whether or not God exists.

Heyo said:

"Agnosticism goes one step further. When I reached my conclusion of Agnosticism, I had to reject none of my atheist thoughts. And if my Agnosticism gets rejected, it doesn't affect my atheism. You may be an Agnostic without knowing it. I know I was before adopting that label. I called myself agnostic atheist and fancied to switch to igtheist. Someone on a different forum, with much more knowledge of philosophy, convinced me that Agnosticism, as thought of by Thomas Huxley, was exactly what fit my position."

I'd say it's good that agnosticism is working out for you. But it leaves the question why others should try to have the same experience, or if they should. Though, I'm not sure it's a question we can explore much in this thread, for sake of the rules.

Heyo said:

"The specific Agnostic critique of god belief, that no consensus about the list of godly attributes exists, is also in the catalogue of atheists as the "problem of divine hidden-ness". And as definitions are usually the first thing to debate, why not make it the first and central argument against theism instead of just another problem? It is only logical to put it first."

Care to explain a bit more about this?

 

[Heyo]

Let me begin with my first argument. Agnosticism is sometimes defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena". This definition has two major flaws. One, it is based on a negative claim that cannot be proven or disproven. How can one know that nothing can be known? That is a self-defeating statement that undermines its own validity.

That's why I don't subscribe to this definition of Agnosticism.

Two, it is too broad and vague to be meaningful. What does it mean by "God" or "anything beyond material phenomena"? There are many different conceptions of God and metaphysical realities in various religions and philosophies. Does agnosticism apply to all of them equally? If so, how can one be consistent and coherent in holding such a position?

The "anything beyond material phenomena" part is philosophical naturalism - which is compatible with Agnosticism but is not part of my definition. I'm just a methodological naturalist.

The Abrahamic religions also claim to have revealed scriptures, historical events, miracles, and prophets that testify to the existence and nature of this God. However, agnosticism contradicts all these claims by saying that nothing is known or can be known of the Abrahamic God. This is illogical and disrespectful to the billions of people who follow these religions and base their lives on their faith.

Religions sure make a lot of claims about their gods and their attributes but these claims are just that, claims. There is no knowledge involved. There is no empirical evidence for them, many are self-contradictory or contradictory. And most important, even members of the same religion can't agree on the attributes or the meaning of them.
Knowledge is objective and compelling when explained. After thousands of years I expect there to be a consensus about the list of attributes if they were real and explainable. There is no such thing, there isn't even the beginning of an attempt to find a consensus. That all brings me to the conclusion that the theists don't know what they are talking about.

In addition, agnosticism does not offer any counter-evidence or alternative explanation for the phenomena that these religions attribute to God. For example, how does agnosticism account for the talking donkey in Numbers 22:28 of the Bible? Is it a myth, a metaphor, a hallucination, or something else? Agnosticism does not answer these questions; it only avoids them.

It doesn't need to. Why should an Agnostic care about the details when the believers don't even agree on the basics (and the details)?

My third and final argument is that science is a better way to approach the question of 'God'. Science is based on empirical observation, logical reasoning, testable hypotheses, and falsifiable theories. Science does not claim to have absolute certainty or final answers. It is always open to new data and revision. Science does not accept anything on blind faith. It requires evidence and verification.

Yep.

Science does not limit itself to material phenomena. It explores the physical, biological, psychological, social, and even spiritual aspects of reality.

Nope. Science does limit itself. It is about the material (i.e. observable phenomena). Science itself does not care about ideas, including the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science is philosophy, not science. Agnosticism values science highly (at least Huxley did) as it deals with the accumulation of knowledge about the real world. But questions about ideas (and believes are ideas) are handled by philosophy.

In conclusion, it seems that all definitions of agnosticism are flawed and unsatisfactory. Agnosticism is not a viable option for anyone who seeks to know the truth about God and reality.

Again, I'm not arguing for agnosticism (in any form) but Agnosticism (specifically weak Agnosticism as I have as yet not found a compelling way to conclude that knowledge about god(s) must be impossible. I only see that currently is no consensus and thus no knowledge.

Part 3:

@Heyo defines Agnosticism as:

"Agnosticism, the philosophy that one should hold judgement when knowledge about a topic is scarce in general; that the existence and nature of god(s) is unknown in the religious context particular."

I think I've already covered my thoughts of knowledge not being scarce on the topic, and more, including about the existence and nature of God being unknown, and how that's simply not true that it is. One would have to read parts 1 and 2 of my post and decide.

I also argue that to talk about all gods is beyond the scope of this thread, and may not really be what the position of Agnosticism is really, truly about. Though I'm still open-minded to a god from another religion being introduced for purpose of question and debate.

Heyo said:

"Atheism is a position, atheism is not. The most simple and most wide spread definition of atheism is a description of a state of mind. It makes no claim except about the internal state and there is no position to defend. One may see it as a positive to be invulnerable, I see it as weak and coward. Believers who complain about atheists having nothing to defend are right."

I say, I admit only that it's true that in religious debates, atheists tend to mainly have to take the negative position.

Also, atheism is a position on whether or not God exists.

And what is that "position"? Atheism (capital A) is the position that gods don't exist, yes, atheism doesn't hold such a position.
The problem with Atheists is the same as with theists, they don't know what they are talking about. And by pretending to know they give the theists the impression that they could also know. And the Atheist is stumped when the theists argues that the Atheist has defeated a straw man as their god isn't what the Atheist has declared as non existend.

Heyo said:

"The atheist community (of which I see myself a member by definition) can be as big as it is because of that single common state and as a minority it is useful to have a big tent. For myself I see that as no excuse to not think deeper and find more than just a state, having a position. And having a position in addition to the state of mind, doesn't exclude one from the big tent."

I'd say Straw Man. And I briefly explained why just above. Atheism is a position on whether or not God exists.

Heyo said:

"Agnosticism goes one step further. When I reached my conclusion of Agnosticism, I had to reject none of my atheist thoughts. And if my Agnosticism gets rejected, it doesn't affect my atheism. You may be an Agnostic without knowing it. I know I was before adopting that label. I called myself agnostic atheist and fancied to switch to igtheist. Someone on a different forum, with much more knowledge of philosophy, convinced me that Agnosticism, as thought of by Thomas Huxley, was exactly what fit my position."

I'd say it's good that agnosticism is working out for you. But it leaves the question why others should try to have the same experience, or if they should. Though, I'm not sure it's a question we can explore much in this thread, for sake of the rules.

It has served me well as theists are usually not prepared for Agnostic arguments. Make them think about how they know about the attributes of their god and ask them why they think different from their neighbours and they vanish in a puff of logic.

Heyo said:

"The specific Agnostic critique of god belief, that no consensus about the list of godly attributes exists, is also in the catalogue of atheists as the "problem of divine hidden-ness". And as definitions are usually the first thing to debate, why not make it the first and central argument against theism instead of just another problem? It is only logical to put it first."

Care to explain a bit more about this?

An important piece of evidence against believers is their diversity. As I said above, if there was something objective about the gods, that knowledge would spread and lead to unification of denominations.
Agnosticism uses this evidence as basis and would therefore be a scientific hypothesis if it only dealt with this phenomenon.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

@Heyo wrote:

"Religions sure make a lot of claims about their gods and their attributes but these claims are just that, claims. There is no knowledge involved. There is no empirical evidence for them, many are self-contradictory or contradictory."

My response: Yet, the logical thing to do in such a case is to reject the Abrahamic God, which leads to Atheism. To be agnostic is to be in limbo, in my opinion.

Heyo wrote: "That all brings me to the conclusion that the theists don't know what they are talking about."

My response: Which leads to the rejection of what theists claim as the Abrahamic God, yes.

Heyo wrote: "Why should an Agnostic care about the details when the believers don't even agree on the basics (and the details)?"

My response:

However, this raises a question for me. The Abrahamic God is either real or not. If I look at the Bible, I see a lot of descriptions and attributes of the Abrahamic God that seem contradictory or implausible. I would not accept the Bible as a reliable source of knowledge. So, even if I were to admit that there might be an Abrahamic God, I doubt that he is exactly as the Bible portrays him. But then, how can I define the Abrahamic God without those characteristics? How can I say that he is unknowable if I don't know what he is?

That's why I wonder why one should be agnostic about the Abrahamic God in the first place. Why should one say "I don't believe in what the Bible says or it as having any authority, but I can't rule out the Abrahamic God or it's unknowable"?

Same goes with other gods and other religious texts, in general.

Heyo wrote:

"The problem with Atheists is the same as with theists, they don't know what they are talking about. And by pretending to know they give the theists the impression that they could also know. And the Atheist is stumped when the theists argues that the Atheist has defeated a straw man as their god isn't what the Atheist has declared as non existend."

My response: Atheists don't usually pretend to know regarding religious matters, they simply often don't assert when it comes to religious matters, unless pressed to. There may be a certain smugness which comes with debating religion on the atheist side, but it's because it's like some debates aren't even a challenge. All you have to do in some debates, if you are on the negative side - is dismantle a flawed argument.

That's not to say that every position an atheist can take in a debate is the negative one either, though.

As for whether atheists create Straw Men about God, it's possible, but it's kind of hard to create a clear definition of God when the theists they're arguing with can't collectively agree, either. Can you create a Straw Man where there's not a clear definition of something? To what lengths should we go to understand each theist's individual concept of God?

Heyo wrote:

"As I said above, if there was something objective about the gods, that knowledge would spread and lead to unification of denominations."

My response: And there isn't, and we both agree. Which leads to the current rejection of 'God' concepts, in my opinion. But in such a case, it may be more logical to reject not just the Bible (as not being knowledge of God), but the gods and/or God, too. At some point, it goes beyond things being unknowable.

 

[Heyo]

Snow White wrote:
However, this raises a question for me. The Abrahamic God is either real or not. If I look at the Bible, I see a lot of descriptions and attributes of the Abrahamic God that seem contradictory or implausible. I would not accept the Bible as a reliable source of knowledge. So, even if I were to admit that there might be an Abrahamic God, I doubt that he is exactly as the Bible portrays him. But then, how can I define the Abrahamic God without those characteristics? How can I say that he is unknowable if I don't know what he is?

1. I don't care much about the "Abrahamic God". I discuss theism, not details like monotheism. Arguing against a specific god is equivalent to conceding the question whether gods in general do exist and are known. Theists like to circumvent these questions and save at least half of their work.
2. Who is that "Abrahamic God" anyway? No two believers agree on that question. Even the bible authors don't. That's why the bible is so inconsistent and contradictory. Even the authors didn't know what they were writing about.

Snow White wrote:
That's why I wonder why one should be agnostic about the Abrahamic God in the first place. Why should one say "I don't believe in the Bible, but I can't rule out the Abrahamic God or it's unknowable"?

Same goes with other gods and other religious texts, in general.

Being an Agnostic in general doesn't prevent me from rejecting some god concepts specifically. But being an Atheist in general seems intellectually dishonest to me. I can't dismiss all gods because I don't know about all possible gods. I can, however, always question the knowledge about all god concepts - and the personal interpretations thereof.

Snow White wrote:
Atheists don't usually pretend to know regarding religious matters, they simply often don't assert when it comes to religious matters, unless pressed to. There may be a certain smugness which comes with debating religion on the atheist side, but it's because it's like some debates aren't even a challenge. All you have to do in some debates is, if you are on the negative side - is dismantle a flawed argument.

That's not to say that every position an atheist can take in a debate is the negative one either, though.

Atheists are too quick to engage believers and often act like it is clear what kind of god is in question.

Snow White wrote:
As for whether atheists create Straw Men about God, it's possible, but it's kind of hard to create a clear definition of God when the theists they're arguing with can't collectively agree, either. Can you create a Straw Man where there's not a clear definition of something? To what lengths should we go to understand each theist's individual concept of God?

Exactly. Usually you don't know the god concept your interlocutor has. Chances are they don't know either. It might be a vague mishmash of contradictory beliefs and feelings they'd have difficulty to define. And it might change mid debate. You play whack-a-mole and try to hit an ever shifting goal.
I grew vary from that game you can't win. By asking the Agnostic's question "who is your god and how do you know?", I prevent being dragged into specifics, which aren't relevant.


Snow White wrote:
And there isn't, and we both agree. Which leads to the current rejection of 'God' concepts, in my opinion. But in such a case, it may be more logical to reject not just the Bible (as not being knowledge of God), but the gods and/or God, too. At some point, it goes beyond things being unknowable.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
Just ask for the evidence first. I don't know if someone has evidence, so I can't honestly reject all religions.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

2. Who is that "Abrahamic God" anyway? No two believers agree on that question. Even the bible authors don't. That's why the bible is so inconsistent and contradictory. Even the authors didn't know what they were writing about.

Which is good reason to reject the Abrahamic God, in my personal opinion.

Being an Agnostic in general doesn't prevent me from rejecting some god concepts specifically. But being an Atheist in general seems intellectually dishonest to me. I can't dismiss all gods because I don't know about all possible gods.

We actually run into the same problem. I can't dismiss 100 gods I don't know, due to personal reasons that have to do with my stance and how I view it. And you can't dismiss 100 gods you don't know, by nature of your agnosticism.

Which means we really need concrete examples of a God or gods. We need one to focus on.

And I consider the Abrahamic God a great choice for that, as a primary focus.

So when I say that I'm a non-theist, I assert that I currently reject the Abrahamic God, and that I don't currently have another god.

In that way, our positions are somewhat similar.

However, I feel your position takes on a more complicated nature. I feel it actually implies the possibility of the Abrahamic God, as a potential possibility.

This is a more complex position, and more complex doesn't necessarily mean less logical, but I'd find it a harder position to justify than Atheism. In which case, if one is going to say that the harder position to justify is more logical, I feel it needs some pretty extraordinary form of proof.

Which comes down to... Whether Agnosticism is a more logical position than Atheism depends on that proof, whatever it is. Because as I pointed out, it actually seems the harder position to justify than Atheism - in my view.

Atheists are too quick to engage believers and often act like it is clear what kind of god is in question.

This seems to be a limitation on debate of abstract concepts. It can happen to anyone in theory, but it's a pitfall and difficulty in regards to the atheist side.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
Just ask for the evidence first. I don't know if someone has evidence, so I can't honestly reject all religions.

What would you consider evidence in the context of religious scriptures? I recall some beliefs in Hinduism, for example, being correct when it comes to science and the cosmos. This doesn't necessarily mean that the other assertions are correct or even inspired by the divine, per se.

 

[Heyo]

We actually run into the same problem. I can't dismiss 100 gods I don't know, due to personal reasons that have to do with my stance and how I view it. And you can't dismiss 100 gods you don't know, by nature of your agnosticism.

Which means we really need concrete examples of a God or gods. We need one to focus on.

Or we find the commonality of all religions/god concepts - and there is none except that they all can't agree on anything.

And I consider the Abrahamic God a great choice for that, as a primary focus.

So when I say that I'm a non-theist, I assert that I currently reject the Abrahamic God, and that I don't currently have another god.

In that way, our positions are somewhat similar.

However, I feel your position takes on a more complicated nature. I feel it actually implies the possibility of the Abrahamic God, as a potential possibility.

It doesn't even ask that question as the theists already fail to answer the first two questions consistently: "what is a god?" and "how do you know?".

This is a more complex position, and more complex doesn't necessarily mean less logical, but I'd find it a harder position to justify than Atheism. In which case, if one is going to say that the harder position to justify is more logical, I feel it needs some pretty extraordinary form of proof.

It is both a more general and a more powerful position. It is expected to be harder to justify.

Which comes down to... Whether Agnosticism is a more logical position than Atheism depends on that proof, whatever it is. Because as I pointed out, it actually seems the harder position to justify than Atheism - in my view.

Agnosticism and Atheism work on different levels. Atheism asks if god(s) are factual, Agnosticism asks if theism/Atheism is asking the right question. At least my Agnosticism is a result of atheism not working for me. My analyses lead me to correct the flaw in atheism, i.e. realising that I didn't know what I was talking about - and neither did my interlocutors. The logical step was to make that lack of knowledge the central question. That step is what makes Agnosticism more logical, it is atheism/Atheism analysed and going beyond it.

What would you consider evidence in the context of religious scriptures? I recall some beliefs in Hinduism, for example, being correct when it comes to science and the cosmos. This doesn't necessarily mean that the other assertions are correct or even inspired by the divine, per se.

Does the scripture explain how it came to the conclusion? The observations, forming of a hypothesis and experiments conducted?
That would be a sign of knowledge, everything else is just a lucky guess. (And probably also involves some creative text interpretation.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Or we find the commonality of all religions/god concepts - and there is none except that they all can't agree on anything.

In my view, what you expressed here is a broad and absolution statement in which you might have well said, "I dismiss 100 gods I don't know." Meaning, how does one dismiss all religious people as not agreeing on religious/god concepts if some of these religious people, they've never talked to before?

It doesn't even ask that question as the theists already fail to answer the first two questions consistently: "what is a god?" and "how do you know?".

Right. But keep in mind that in saying this, you [may] prove my point that agnostics are in limbo.

Even if that limbo is just someone sitting there, pondering philosophy regarding the matter and waiting for more information, or information they'll accept.

Agnosticism and Atheism work on different levels. Atheism asks if god(s) are factual, Agnosticism asks if theism/Atheism is asking the right question. At least my Agnosticism is a result of atheism not working for me. My analyses lead me to correct the flaw in atheism, i.e. realising that I didn't know what I was talking about - and neither did my interlocutors. The logical step was to make that lack of knowledge the central question. That step is what makes Agnosticism more logical, it is atheism/Atheism analysed and going beyond it.

What would the right questions look like in regards to theism/atheism?

Does the scripture explain how it came to the conclusion? The observations, forming of a hypothesis and experiments conducted?
That would be a sign of knowledge, everything else is just a lucky guess. (And probably also involves some creative text interpretation.)

So your standards of proof for religious texts are very high. I can understand and relate to that, if so.

 

[Heyo]

In my view, what you expressed here is a broad and absolution statement in which you might have well said, "I dismiss 100 gods I don't know." Meaning, how does one dismiss all religious people as not agreeing on religious/god concepts if some of these religious people, they've never talked to before?

Simple. I know that there are 2.382 billion Christians, 1.907 billion Muslims and 1.161 billion Hindus (numbers from 2020 via Wikipedia). Any other religion is a tiny minority and their views can't form a consent opposing the dissent of the big 3.

Does that have to be so? I don't know. I'm not a hard Agnostic who believes that the nature of god(s) can't be known. I just go with the evidence that it is obviously not known today.
In science, the body of knowledge is that what a vast majority of scientists in a given field agree upon. That knowledge fills libraries. The attributes of god(s) that the vast majority of religious scholars agrees upon fits on a post-it note.

Right. But keep in mind that in saying this, you [may] prove my point that agnostics are in limbo.

Even if that limbo is just someone sitting there, pondering philosophy regarding the matter and waiting for more information, or information they'll accept.

Yes, we are in kind of a limbo regarding the existence of gods and we are waiting for more information. Information that the religious can't and won't provide. The logical thing to do in this situation is to withhold judgement on the existence question and demand a definition from the religious.
I may be in limbo but so are the believers. I can't prove that theism is wrong but with what theists let me know I can say that they aren't even wrong. I'm content with that.

What would the right questions look like in regards to theism/atheism?

What is a god?

Without a clear definition there can't be a clear answer.

So your standards of proof for religious texts are very high. I can understand and relate to that, if so.

Those are the standards the scientific method puts on scientific texts. The scientific method is the best we have that is known to produce knowledge. If religion claims to produce knowledge, it has to accept those standards.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Yes, we are in kind of a limbo regarding the existence of gods and we are waiting for more information. Information that the religious can't and won't provide. The logical thing to do in this situation is to withhold judgement on the existence question and demand a definition from the religious.

I'd dispute that.

You said the logical thing to do is to withhold judgement. However, I feel that is only one option.

There is actually the odd possibility that Creationism is true. And there are a lot of things we don't know that are possible. That we live in a simulation. And that Satan is hiding evidence. And every time we sneeze, an elf on some distant planet writes to a Santa Clause in a parallel dimension.

But, much like with Creationism, we have to abandon some ideas and alternatives at some point when given too many improper or insufficient answers. Sometimes, it's noble to make up one's mind, even in the face of possibilities.

What is a god?

Without a clear definition there can't be a clear answer.

You're right that there might not be good answers to the question.

But, I'd say there are still some clear answers. I presented one of them just above in this post in which I say that at some point, it can be noble to make up one's mind. And that's why I do it.

Those are the standards the scientific method puts on scientific texts. The scientific method is the best we have that is known to produce knowledge. If religion claims to produce knowledge, it has to accept those standards.

We can demand and wait for better submissions, as you said.

Or, like myself, we can get tired of waiting, and call a bluff.

 

[Heyo]

I'd dispute that.

You said the logical thing to do is to withhold judgement. However, I feel that is only one option.

There is actually the odd possibility that Creationism is true. And there are a lot of things we don't know that are possible. That we live in a simulation. And that Satan is hiding evidence. And every time we sneeze, an elf on some distant planet writes to a Santa Clause in a parallel dimension.

But, much like with Creationism, we have to abandon some ideas and alternatives at some point when given too many improper or insufficient answers. Sometimes, it's noble to make up one's mind, even in the face of possibilities.

It is the cautious and proper way for a proof to ponder all possibilities. If we want to dismiss theism, we don't want to attack a straw man and have a god we didn't think about jump out of the bushes.
Sure, you can be more specific if you limit the scope. Epicurus proved that no omnipotent and omni benevolent god can exist (and dismissed all gods which aren't as not worthy of being called god) but that is just that, a straw man. When you have to make up your own definition of god, you can only slay those gods fitting that definition. And if challenged, on what authority did you rest you definition?

It is a general rule that you can make more specific statements about a specific class while the statements about a wider class have to be more broad.
It is also a question of the intent you have. With the Agnostic approach I can prove to any believer who accepts logic that he can't proclaim his believes to be true. Good enough for me.
With the Atheistic approach you can prove to some believers that their belief is false.
Pick your weapon.

You're right that there might not be good answers to the question.

I guess that is the reason nobody wanted to challenge me in the past.

We can demand and wait for better submissions, as you said.

Or, like myself, we can get tired of waiting, and call a bluff.

I got tired of playing whack-a-mole. Every time I dismissed a class of gods, another popped up that wasn't covered by my arguments. So I found a way to dismiss their premise that they know what a god is.

And that necessarily includes Atheists and atheists. By acting as if you know what you are talking about, you give the believers the impression that they know also. You both don't.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If we want to dismiss theism, we don't want to attack a straw man and have a god we didn't think about jump out of the bushes.

Even if you are open to a God or gods, and have a clear concept, a god you didn't think about could jump out of the bushes. What if that god, for example, is a talking spider which grants wishes?

When you have to make up your own definition of god, you can only slay those gods fitting that definition.

Not making a definition could still miss out on what a god actually is, should it exist. Some things are impossible to visualize or foresee even with the right precautions. Perhaps that god, for example, is a doorknob in a room, which is all-powerful but never moving and can think for itself.

With the Agnostic approach I can prove to any believer who accepts logic that he can't proclaim his believes to be true. Good enough for me.

But what if, by some luck, their beliefs are true? Atheists and Agnostics alike would be getting it equally wrong.

With the Atheistic approach you can prove to some believers that their belief is false.

Which is a powerful tool. One that to wield, takes respect of that tool. I'm learning that.

I got tired of playing whack-a-mole. Every time I dismissed a class of gods, another popped up that wasn't covered by my arguments. So I found a way to dismiss their premise that they know what a god is.

I'd say you're still playing whack-a-mole, as you haven't dismissed anything entirely.

True dismissal is saying "If you're going to talk in absolutes without proof, and keep going on... I'm going to stop listening entirely."

By acting as if you know what you are talking about, you give the believers the impression that they know also.

By acting as if you aren't sure, I feel you give believers the impression that they can have their way, and outside of a mild objection, they can run theocracies and do whatever they want. It's like you're implying there's merit to their ideas.

 

[Heyo]

Even if you are open to a God or gods, and have a clear concept, a god you didn't think about could jump out of the bushes. What if that god, for example, is a talking spider which grants wishes?

I'm intellectually open to reasonable proposals - emotionally gods haven't been on my list since I can think.
When you propose a wish granting spider god, I'd say, "now convince the vast majority of believers that that definition of god should be the consensus and then come back to me".

Not making a definition could still miss out on what a god actually is, should it exist. Some things are impossible to visualize or foresee even with the right precautions. Perhaps that god, for example, is a doorknob in a room, which is all-powerful but never moving and can think for itself.

And even if it actually existed, you wouldn't know that it is a god. Unless there is consensus about it, you'd not be justified in your belief that it is.

I've come up with an undeniable proof, resting on evidence, that god exists (and is real):

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists (and there is evidence of that).
C: God exists.

That is, of course, a trap and only one or two people ever fell into it. I think you can guess how the debate is going to go?

But what if, by some luck, their beliefs are true? Atheists and Agnostics alike would be getting it equally wrong.

Again, right or not, the belief would be unjustified.
Remember the science in the Vedas? If you can't explain it, it could be just dumb luck.

Which is a powerful tool. One that to wield, takes respect of that tool. I'm learning that.

Well, when you have mastered it, maybe you want to upgrade to Agnosticism later - I found that to be more powerful (though less fun).

By acting as if you aren't sure, I feel you give believers the impression that they can have their way, and outside of a mild objection, they can run theocracies and do whatever they want. It's like you're implying there's merit to their ideas.

I am sure and I don't act as if I weren't. They still can believe what they want (what is what most of them satisfies) but they can't do what they want - because they can't justify their belief.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm intellectually open to reasonable proposals - emotionally gods haven't been on my list since I can think.
When you propose a wish granting spider god, I'd say, "now convince the vast majority of believers that that definition of god should be the consensus and then come back to me".

There is sufficient evidence for or against the existence of God, depending on how we define God and what kind of evidence we accept. If we go by popular consensus, as you mentioned, we can simply say that the Abrahamic God is the position in question. This is the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, who is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and the creator of the universe - subjects I've already covered. However, this also makes this debate easier, because if I can prove that withholding judgment on the Abrahamic God is not the most logical choice, I can demonstrate how Agnosticism is not the most logical choice.

So there are two main ways to prove or disprove the existence of the Abrahamic God: empirical and logical.

Empirical evidence is based on observation and experience, such as scientific discoveries or historical facts.

Logical evidence is based on deductive reasoning, such as philosophical arguments or mathematical proofs.

Both types of evidence can be used to support or challenge the existence of the Abrahamic God.

For example, some empirical evidence against the existence of the Abrahamic God are:

- The problem of evil

- The inconsistency of divine attributes

- The contradictions in religious scriptures

Some logical evidence against the existence of the Abrahamic God are:

- The paradox of omnipotence

- The paradox of omniscience

You mentioned it, Heyo, like you could take some parts of Scripture as metaphor to solve that problem.

There are several reasons why it is not possible to know with certainty which parts of the Scriptures are literal and which parts are metaphorical. Some of these reasons are:

- The Scriptures are ancient texts that were written in different languages, cultures, and contexts than ours.

- The Scriptures are human texts that were allegedly inspired by God but also reflect the human authors' perspectives, personalities, and purposes.

- The Scriptures are supposed divine texts that reveal God's nature and will but also require human interpretation and application.

These reasons show that personally interpreting the Scriptures without guidance is not a simple or straightforward process, but rather a really complicated one, with huge consequences and huge possibilities. Also, one's interpretation of the Scriptures is influenced by various factors, such as:

- One's presuppositions

- One's traditions

- One's contexts

Or.... you can reject the Scriptures as not being knowledge, and rely on a.possibility of an Abrahamic God with no Scriptural basis popping up. Which again, isn't really the most logical position.

And with that, I would like to make my closing on this particular debate, after going on for 5 or 6 rounds, and thank Heyo for his participation, and invite him to explore other topics in the future with me should he feel called to, and invite him to make a closing argument or response or post to my concluding remarks or my post here as well. I feel that I've said my peace on this subject, and presented my points to the public.

I also wanted to express in concluding this debate, that if Heyo wants to continue the subject, that we should arrange a Part 2, or talk about it through Private Message.

In terms of where I stand, I feel Heyo made some beautiful points, and gave me a lot of clarification, and ways to define things.

However, I feel that the subject, of whether "Agnosticism is the most logical", is a crowd subject that's meant for the crowd. It neither proves nor disproves the nature of many things. In which case I feel I've made my points with the crowd. And I'm not a big fan of repeating points. So, I'd like to make my closing remarks here, in this post, with the door open for a more robust part 2 if necessary, where we ask other questions about the nature of Agnosticism, and maybe even form a whole picture (should we go that far). But as it is, I am dry on the subject now of what's most logical in that framing. I feel that I've shown that a statement like "Agnosticism is the most logical" is not the most simple in reality, and that was one of the things I aimed for. And I dare say that I feel that I have achieved some resemblance of that.

There is also a comments section found here:

Comments: Heyo vs. Snow White

I encourage people to go there and vote.

Thank you. Thank you Heyo for this great debate, and thanks to the readers.

 

[Heyo]

And with that, I would like to make my closing on this particular debate, after going on for 5 or 6 rounds, and thank Heyo for his participation, and invite him to explore other topics in the future with me should he feel called to, and invite him to make a closing argument or response or post to my concluding remarks or my post here as well. I feel that I've said my peace on this subject, and presented my points to the public.

Thank you also for the opportunity to explain Agnosticism more in depth to a wider audience. (Though I fear I was preaching to the quire.) I also think I said what I had to but I might need to find another way to say it. What really struck me about Agnosticism doesn't seem to resonate with everybody.

I also wanted to express in concluding this debate, that if Heyo wants to continue the subject, that we should arrange a Part 2, or talk about it through Private Message.

I'm open for a part two but I think I need some preparation - and some input. Let's see what the comments may bring.

I feel that I've shown that a statement like "Agnosticism is the most logical" is not the most simple in reality, and that was one of the things I aimed for. And I dare say that I feel that I have achieved some resemblance of that.

Yes, it isn't simple and what strikes me as logical isn't so obvious to others.

There is also a comments section found here:

Comments: Heyo vs. Snow White

I encourage people to go there and vote.

Thank you. Thank you Heyo for this great debate, and thanks to the readers.

I also thank you, Snow White, and the audience and hope for some more input in the comments.