Teapot Agnosticism (General)

by dhw, Thursday, February 07, 2008, 19:18 (6132 days ago) @ Mark

You're quite right that science does not rule out God or give reasons to believe in him/her/it. Science itself is or should be an objective method of acquiring knowledge. However, if I'm trying to find out how we got here, and must choose between chance and design, then abiogenesis certainly has a bearing on the issue of God's existence. Therefore the two fields of discussion are not "entirely separate". - They are also brought together by people who use science to promote their beliefs or disbeliefs. You can't separate science from scientists, and you can't stop scientists (or non-scientists) from drawing conclusions that go beyond science. There are professors of biology who claim that their study of science makes it impossible to believe that life originated other than by design. The claim itself is not scientific, but again it brings the two fields of discussion together. Perhaps you mean that they OUGHT to be separate, but even that is suspect when science comes into conflict with religious beliefs. - Naturally I agree with you totally that the existence of God is ultimately an issue of belief and not knowledge. I don't, however, agree with some of the things you say about "popular agnosticism" in your reply to whitecraw. Firstly, perhaps you could look at the regrettably short thread on the subject of atheism. I would take theism and atheism as the absolutes ... the 100%, if you like (= belief or disbelief in a god). But most reasonable people will stop short of the 100%, so we can say that perhaps Mr X and Mrs Y are 90% one and 10% the other. When an agnostic argues against theists or atheists, he actually argues against their 90% and not their 10%, but I can't see any way round this problem. - You regard agnosticism as "intellectually impoverished", and go on to say "either you believe or you don't, there is no middle ground." I would question both statements. You say agnostics (type 2) "erroneously attribute absolute certainty to the positions of both atheism and theism." If this is erroneous (and I think it is with regard to most theists and atheists ... see above), then both positions are open to doubt. In which case you can't argue that either you believe or you don't. It's not absolute. Your belief takes on a percentage value, and the side you come down on will constitute a percentage proportionate to the degree of conviction and the degree of doubt. Your judgement is that you know enough to be, say, 90% certain (with 10% doubt). My judgement is that I don't know/believe enough yet actually to make a judgement (= middle ground). My doubt ratio is simply much larger than yours (and also fluctuates). Why is this "impoverished"? I am looking around, asking questions, expanding on the doubts you already have, speculating on all kinds of possible scenarios (which you might like to exclude, though they are still there in your niggling 10%), receptive to new ideas...I can't see why my open-mindedness is intellectually poorer than saying: "I believe/don't believe in a God."