Teapot Agnosticism (General)

by whitecraw, Sunday, February 03, 2008, 20:40 (6136 days ago) @ Mark

'So are you saying that the teapot analogy doesn't apply to the agnostic position?' - No, the point I am making is that your interpretation of Russell's Teapot goes beyond the evidence of the text. The analogy illustrates a logical point about unfalsifiable claims and the burden of proof; that's as far as it goes. This is not to say anything about whether it is or isn't applicable to the claims that constitute the agnostic position in relation to the question of whether God exists or not. - '"I don't know whether [an orbital teapot] exists or not; therefore I remain agnostic in relation to the matter." - 'Is this a sensible position to take?' - Any other position would be absurd, since anyone who doesn't know whether the teapot exists or not is by definition an agnostic with regard to its existence or non-existence. That's just what the word 'agnostic' means. - Of course, without the benefit of omniscience, we are all de facto agnostics, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make a judgement either way. - This is true. But it takes us away from the matter of our knowledge-claims and into the realm of the ethics of belief, where Russell's Teapot does have immediate relevance. The outcome of Russell's argument from analogy is the logical point that the fact one may not be able to disprove the existence of the teapot (or any other unfalsifiable claim) does not provide one with good enough reason to give one's assent to ('believe') the claim that it does exist. Only positive proof or evidence of the existence of the teapot would do that. He then goes on to assert the ethical principle that one ought to give one's assent to only those claims that one finds reasonable in relation to one's own understanding and experience. - I find neither of these points objectionable. If a theist claims that God exists and an atheist claims that God doesn't exist, the onus lies upon each of them to make good their respective claim. The fact that I can disprove neither does not thereby make either claim any more 'believable'. A claim is believable, according to Russell's article, only to the extent that it appears reasonable in relation to ('fits') one's own understanding and experience; which fits my own current understanding of moral autonomy. - 'Despite your apparent disagreements, it seems as though we're largely on the same page. Whilst you declare yourself to be an agnostic about the concept of 'God' (whatever that might be), you are effectively an atheist when it comes to any specific examples of what God is -- at least as far as "traditional dogma" is concerned.' - Regarding my own personal position: I don't know if God exists or not; therefore I am by definition agnostic in relation to the existence or non-existence of God. However, I find the claim that God exists (at least, in the same sense that the table at which I am sitting exists) unreasonable in relation to my own understanding and experience (though I've no problem with the claim that God exists as an object of belief or as a fictional character or as a concept or as a symbol). So, with regard to the claim that God exists (at least, in certain modes), I am an atheist. But my understanding and experience is open to change. - Interestingly (or not!), I know several Christians who are agnostic. In a memorable passage in Graham Greene's novel, Monsignor Quixote, the hapless village priest remarks to the Communist mayor that of course he (the priest) doesn't know whether God exists or not; if he did know, he wouldn't have to have faith. He hopes and trusts and commits himself to the belief that God exists because, if He didn't exist, the shittiness of life would be too terrible to bear. (And it turns out that the mayor believes in the Revolution for the same reason.) - Monsignor Quixote exemplifies William James' pragmatic ethics of belief. But there are also Christian agnostics who exemplify Russell's rationalistic ethics; that is, who admit (like me) that they don't know whether God exists or not, but who (unlike me) give their assent to the claim that God exists because it is more reasonable in relation to their understanding and experience of the world than the claim that God doesn't exist. - Agnosticism can be atheistic or theistic. It isn't a 'third way'.