In the true spirit of the agnostic, I do not know if this will be an adequate point to address. From the tool-kit: "Atheism and Theism are (mostly) metaphysical claims, the one denying and the other affirming the existence of God. Agnosticism is the (mostly) epistemological claim that the question is undecidable on the basis of present evidence."
These characterizations of atheism and theism are essentially correct. Agnosticism is, yes, the mostly epistemological claim that the question is undecidable. I do not agree with the connotations of stating that the reason for the agnostic's assertion is on the basis of present evidence. The position of the agnostic is not begotten by a lack of evidence, but rather by the definition of god. An omnipotent being exceeds our ability to understand. The very logic of such a concept denotes an inability for us to understand and therefore, ever know. It is not that there is some seemingly mundane gap in evidence that may be bridged with a few more years of space exploration; it is that the very nature of god is not subject to any of our tools of knowledge. It is in this way that the agnostic and atheist are distinct.
I think you make an accurate distinction between the connotations of the toolkit's definition of agnosticism. It is not a belief that is anticipating a closing of the evidence gap you describe, it is a claim that the concept of a being like god transcends the limits of human comprehension. This limit is one of to what extent logic and reason can allow us to contemplate the attributes an nature of a metaphysical entity.Again I think your interpretation on this concept was accurate.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you may be conflating the idea of a god and the idea of omnipotence. While we typically attribute God with omnipotence, I do not think it is a necessary attribution. A god may still be a creator, or being of immense power, without being omnipotent. A god with a great amount of power is not, I believe, an idea that exceeds our ability to comprehend. If the discussion is no longer centered around the concept of an omnipotent god, does that refute the arguments of the agnostic, or does the agnostic then frame his argument around the basis of present evidence?
ReplyDeleteI am unsure whether I am conflating or merely contending that they coincide. You are, strictly speaking, correct that a God may not be omnipotent although the most popular, indeed the majority, of conceptualization characterize god thusly. I wonder if omnipotence is not necessary; I wonder if the power to create a universe is enough to render god unknowable.
ReplyDeleteI will say this though: God's immunity to logic on account of his or her omnipotence is the only reason the conversation gets this far. Without this quality, all sensitive individuals would be atheists as there is no evidence in support, only plausible alternatives granted unto us from the judicious exercises of reason.
Are you also agnostic about the pink, invisible unicorn? Following you logic about god, you would have to be.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I'm being brash, but it just seems to me that the only reason we're even considering the existence of an omnipotent(as in, self-contradictory) being, is because of cultural convention. I seriously think that people raised in this day and age of technology and science would never even dream up such an idea if they hadn't been exposed to it since birth.
Obviously we can never know anything to be absolute truth, but with most things that are 99.9% certain, I think we can safely just round it up and go on with our lives.
I am not agnostic about the unicorn. And following my logic I would not have to be. I am agnostic about god because the logic of omnipotence demands it. If the unicorn is omnipotent, then yes, I would deny knowing whether or not it exists.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, despite your suggestion, omnipotence is not self-contradictory, for, as I mentioned earlier, omnipotence would involve operating beyond any concept of logic that would conclude that it is contradictory.
I also disagree that people would never dream up the idea of god. I mean, in all humility, I have no idea whether they would or not; hypotheticals of alternative history don't interest me that much. God was a product of a lack of understanding our universe, and since there is still much we do not understand, I do not think it unlikely that it still would not arise as a possibility.
A pink, invisible unicorn also would supersede your understanding. You cannot possibly know if it exists. It's invisible, after all. Yet, somehow, also pink.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to say that if something doesn't fit logic, it probably isn't true. Something cannot be A and B at the same time. Anything we try to define as A and B simultaneously we understand as fallacious. Somehow we decide to forget these rules when invoking theological concepts. Saying something somehow doesn't fit into logic is just another way of saying it's simply wrong.
I think people know by now that even the things we don't understand yet, will be understood someday. A notion which didn't exist when we came up with all of our myths. Therefore, we don't need a deity anymore.