Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[otseng]

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

For debate:
Are agnostics more reasonable than atheists?

Generally speaking, I'd say, if not more reasonable, at least more honest. Does being more honest equate, somehow, to being more reasonable? Maybe. Maybe not (no concept that I've ever experienced through all my years of practice in Christianity equate to KNOWING anything - it's all a belief and convictions that cause actions based on that belief).
What we 'know' about life is exceptionally limited. No book or writing or teaching (or all combined) will be able to allow us to know everything.

A lot depends upon what we take 'agnostic' to mean. As the diagram above shows, it correctly means not knowing. as in not knowing whether a god exists or not. That is certainly a more reasonable position that claiming to know (by Faith) whether a God exists or not or indeed knowing (for certain) that a god doesn't exist. Of course, being convinced by evidence (or lack of it) that a god either does or does not exist, is a different matter. It's a question of how one sees the evidence and the arguments.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #281]

As the diagram above shows, it correctly means not knowing. as in not knowing whether a god exists or not.

To the point - the position acknowledges ignorance [the default position on this and any other subject] in the fact that lack of information determines that one honestly cannot establish any solid ground in which to occupy contrary positions. In that, Agnosticism is not only the more reasonable positions than Atheism, but also the more reasonable position than Theism.

It's a question of how one sees the evidence and the arguments.

How one sees the evidence and the arguments varies, depending upon ones position.

If ones position is Agnosticism, and this is the more reasonable position than Atheism or Theism, then how one sees the evidence and the arguments will also reflect that reasonableness and be seen to be the most reasonable position of the three, to assume.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. But agnosticism is a position on knowledge. We have no certain knowledge of whether a god exists. Fine, that's the reasonable position. But Theism and Atheism are belief -positions and logically, where one doesn't Know, one doesn't believe a claim until we do know. Therefore atheism is the logical position derived from agnosticism.

You may now say that's ok, but the evidence points to a god. Very well. I would agree that agnosticism as such is no basis for a position about the existence or not of a god, but it is the evidence that determines whether the belief or not in the god -claim is validated as probable.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #283]

Yes.

We agree then.

But...

Not yes then...

...agnosticism is a position on knowledge.

Knowledge is the outcome of the interaction between individual consciousnesses and their experiences in nature.
The default is noted as ignorance [Lack of information to begin with - as in the human baby] but nature forces knowledge through experience.
All 3 positions are related to The Question of GOD [as in - we either exist within a creation or we do not] so all positions are positions on knowledge of the question in relation to the experience of nature.

We have no certain knowledge of whether a god exists.

The diagram indicates this as "Lack of information to establish either way" = "no certain knowledge."
This is why the agnostic position exists. It can also be used in other disciplines outside of Atheism and Theism.

Fine, that's the reasonable position.

Agreed. Re the OPQ, noting that the question asked is a somewhat contentious one as it is asking about individuals rather than the positions individuals hold, bending the 'don't get personal' rule...

Giving the benefit of doubt, the question would have been better framed;
"Q: Is Agnosticism more reasonable than Atheism and Theism?"

But Theism and Atheism are belief -positions and logically, where one doesn't Know, one doesn't believe a claim until we do know.

This may well be a contentious idea from a bygone era which really needs an overhaul.
The main problem with it is the use of two words which mean separate things, yet have been allowed to be conflated, leading to accepting the less reasonable, [Atheism and Theism] as the better position, than the more reasonable position of Agnosticism.

Therefore atheism is the logical position derived from agnosticism.

The OPQ is not asking for an answer to that question. Both Atheism and Theism derive from Agnosticism.

You may now say that's ok, but the evidence points to a god.

You should know well that this is what I may now (for the time being) say, yes.

Very well.

(I see a message forming)

Betterment...
Lost beings...
Surrender...
Unnatural...
Look inward...
Naked truth...
Inner Critic...
Epitomized...
Very well...

I would agree that agnosticism as such is no basis for a position about the existence or not of a god,

I agree, as it relates to Agnostic Theists and Atheists...




other positions are fair game for critiquing... fair game...incoming...

Relax...
Desire...
Battle...
Active..
With...
"Fair game"...

Incidentally, fair game

is one of those sayings which can be conflated with "fare game"
and
and "fair game" [as in a gathering of people for a variety of entertainment]

but it is the evidence that determines whether the belief or not in the god -claim is validated as probable.

I see by your answer here, that you are trying to


Since neither Theism or Atheism has any more knowledge than Agnosticism re The Question of GOD - and Agnosticism remains without formalized [organized/established] beliefs either way, we have no choice [within the construct of honesty] but to acknowledge that Agnosticism is more reasonable than either Atheism or Theism.

[TRANSPONDER]

As far as I can tell, we agree that Theism and atheism are question about the god -claim, and agnosticism is a knowledge position that we either accept (we don't know) or reject (we do know).

Any claims you made above regarding the god -claim are merely hypothetical. They have no validity until you can validate them.

And that's what I mean by the evidence and debates are what matter, as they establish which hypothesis, based on logic and evidence, is more probable.

You will know that I reject special creation because the scientific case is either validated or much more probable. Even the Big Three (Cosmic origins, Life and consciousness) have low probabilities either on evidential or logical grounds. And of course it only gives us a creator, even if they were true, and validation of any particular god or religion would send us back tot he Holy Books.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #285]

Any claims you made above regarding the god -claim are merely hypothetical. They have no validity until you can validate them.

What claims do you think I have made regarding the god -claim?

My focus is on presenting evidence that Agnosticism is more reasonable that Atheism and Theism.

[William]

If we examine the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain - a fundamental argument of the atheist position, because it does away with the necessity of their being a Creator-being involved in the unfolding process of this universe, how does Agnosticism work with that idea?

Emergence theory has become a necessary part of the atheistic creed to maintain support for the argument deriving from lack o f belief in gods. The hard problem of consciousness is 'solved' for the atheist.

Why Agnosticism is more reasonable than Atheism, is because an agnostic can entertain other ideas which are not suppressed by the notion of emergence, and thus are free to explore as possibilities, re the same hard problem of consciousness.

For example, Agnosticism allows for the notion that the Planet Earth could act like a brain, as can the Milky Way Galaxy, and indeed, the whole universe.

So if someone were to pitch the idea that the whole universe might function as a brain, an agnostic can take that idea and compare it with the idea that consciousness is emergent of brains, and accept that it would therefore be possible that consciousness emerged from the activity of the universe-brain.

This idea can then embrace aspects of Theism as well, given Theism went the other way, and thought of the universe as being emergent of consciousness, generical referred to as "GOD"
[I am using capitals to distinguish between "God" as Christians refer to their idea of this universal consciousness and the more expansive idea of a Cosmic Mind.]

Agnosticism can therefore combine the two [supposedly] opposing concepts with relative ease, and from this accept as possible, the notion that the universal mind is a product of the universal brain.

Within this notion, it can be accepted through Agnosticism, that through the emergence of this Cosmic Mind - it may have developed self awareness, long since adapted to its predicament and proceeded to take over as it learned how to uses its existence to influence and shape matter at the fundamental Quantum level.

This in turn, also lends itself to the Theistic position, as there is plenty of time for such to take place whereby the Cosmic Mind could have worked out how to create biological life forms on this Planet.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #285]

Any claims you made above regarding the god -claim are merely hypothetical. They have no validity until you can validate them.

What claims do you think I have made regarding the god -claim?

My focus is on presenting evidence that Agnosticism is more reasonable that Atheism and Theism.

I don't know whether and what you made any claims about at all. Presenting your diagram implies a conclusion but you didn't make it clear what it was, other than something was a default -position,. To be clear, Theism and atheism is not a 'default' of agnosticism, but an implied question about it - we don't know - so do we believe or not?. The logical default is not to believe what we don't know. But then we get into evidence and logic- based probabilities. That is the validation I referred to without which beliefs are merely hypotheticals.

[TRANSPONDER]

If we examine the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain - a fundamental argument of the atheist position, because it does away with the necessity of their being a Creator-being involved in the unfolding process of this universe, how does Agnosticism work with that idea?

Emergence theory has become a necessary part of the atheistic creed to maintain support for the argument deriving from lack o f belief in gods. The hard problem of consciousness is 'solved' for the atheist.

Why Agnosticism is more reasonable than Atheism, is because an agnostic can entertain other ideas which are not suppressed by the notion of emergence, and thus are free to explore as possibilities, re the same hard problem of consciousness.

For example, Agnosticism allows for the notion that the Planet Earth could act like a brain, as can the Milky Way Galaxy, and indeed, the whole universe.

So if someone were to pitch the idea that the whole universe might function as a brain, an agnostic can take that idea and compare it with the idea that consciousness is emergent of brains, and accept that it would therefore be possible that consciousness emerged from the activity of the universe-brain.

This idea can then embrace aspects of Theism as well, given Theism went the other way, and thought of the universe as being emergent of consciousness, generical referred to as "GOD"
[I am using capitals to distinguish between "God" as Christians refer to their idea of this universal consciousness and the more expansive idea of a Cosmic Mind.]

Agnosticism can therefore combine the two [supposedly] opposing concepts with relative ease, and from this accept as possible, the notion that the universal mind is a product of the universal brain.

Within this notion, it can be accepted through Agnosticism, that through the emergence of this Cosmic Mind - it may have developed self awareness, long since adapted to its predicament and proceeded to take over as it learned how to uses its existence to influence and shape matter at the fundamental Quantum level.

This in turn, also lends itself to the Theistic position, as there is plenty of time for such to take place whereby the Cosmic Mind could have worked out how to create biological life forms on this Planet.

It appears that you are using agnosticism as a logical alternative to dogmatic certainly. That is not the position of atheism as a logical position (even if it seems to be for some atheists) and it may not be the logical position of many Christians, though it ought to be, based on religious dogma.

In essence 'agnosticism' tells us nothing at all and is unhelpful as any kind of logical or default -position.

You are right that 'emergence' (one might say evolution as a theoretical option) is the alternative to intelligent creation by some kind of cosmic being. The evidence is of Life (however it started) being a basic living cell group reacting rather than behaving. As the organism develops in an evolutionary way through sea bugs and slugs of the Cambrian through the fish of Devonian, Amphibians od the Permian, reptiles of the Triassic, dinosaurs and mammals, the animal reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes awareness and awareness becomes society, just in pack and tribe animals at first. Thus consciousness evolves just as life -forms evolve. The evidence is of emergence, not creation.

This seems the better theory as it is based on the evidence, and alternative possibilities such as cosmic minds remain far - fetched ideas without much of logical or evidential support. 'agnosticism' of course leaves the door open for any validation of such hypotheses and that is the logical position of atheism, and not the dogmatic Gnostic dismissal that it often gets accused of.

Your last few paras. are a 'may have' notion which is speculation about a hypothetical with little logical or evidential support. I am aware of the problem of cosmic origins, and the arguments from fine tuning and constants. They are the best argument for some kind of Cosmic Mind, no denial of that. But the other apologetics - Life and consciousness - are not as good as they were, as a mechanism and supportive evidence of evolved life and consciousness all but closes those particular gaps for any kind of god. That is as hypothetical default -theories go.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #288]

Presenting your diagram implies a conclusion but you didn't make it clear what it was, other than something was a default -position,.

I have adjusted the diagram. so it should be clear that the default position is Agnosticism.

Theism and atheism is not a 'default' of agnosticism, but an implied question about it - we don't know - so do we believe or not?.

Atheism and Theism are subsets of the default position of Agnosticism. As stated in prior posts in this thread, the question being addressed by all three positions is "Do we exist within a creation"?
Those who say that there is insufficient data to make the call either way, assume the most reasonable position of Agnosticism.
Those who say "No" are Atheists.
Those who say "Yes" are Theists.

The logical default is not to believe what we don't know.

That would be Agnosticism.

Those who say "No - we do not exist in a creation" are expressing belief, same as those who say "Yes - we do live in a creation".

The beliefs are opposing each other, but are beliefs nonetheless

Not only is it logical not to believe what we don't know, but it is reasonable.

Agnosticism does not believe what we do not know.

But then we get into evidence and logic- based probabilities.

These are wrought through the intent of supporting ones position of belief to do with The Question.
Evidence and logic- based probabilities are accepted as data which adds to the knowledge-base which Agnosticism works with, regardless of which side of the opposing positions present said knowledge.

That is the validation I referred to without which beliefs are merely hypotheticals.

The position of Agnosticism regards all belief - for or against - as based in the hypothetical.

The Scientific Process is fundamentally based maintaining the position of Agnosticism as the most reasonable to assume while doing the science.
This also means that Agnosticism is not restricted to only questions re GOD.