Teapot Agnosticism (General)

by Mark, UK, Friday, February 01, 2008, 15:00 (6142 days ago)

A website espousing the virtues of agnosticism seems incomplete without a discussion of Russell's (in)famous 'teapot' analogy -- perhaps the most cogent (and popular) argument against the agnostic postition. I.e. to what extent is it reasonable to adopt a neutral position on beliefs for which there is no evidence? - Atheism is often portrayed, by both agnostics and theists alike, as having an unjustifiable certititude in the non-existance of God. This is a mischaracterisation. Of course, in the absence of convincing proof for God's existance, we are all agnostics in the literal sense of "not knowing". However, this does not mean that the arguments either way are equally reasonable. - An atheist is simply someone who has applied probabilistic reasoning to the question of God's existance and decided that, as LaPlace is famously quoted, "I have no need of that hypothesis".