02-08-2022, 06:39 AM
Agnosticism is NOT a “safe” and “more intellectually-honest” middle-ground between the two positions as most agnostics claim (as you are doing).
Theism and atheism are statements about BELIEF. Agnosticism is a statement about KNOWLEDGE. Those are two different things.
One can describe themselves as an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist, and that is perfectly fine. Theism and atheism are statements of belief regarding the following assertion/proposition: “A god (or gods) exist(s).” Theists have the belief that the statement is true. Atheists do not have the belief that it is true. Neither one is claiming to KNOW whether the claim is true.
Note two things: 1) You do not need knowledge in order to have belief or not have belief. 2) The atheist position is NOT making the claim that “No gods exist”. The atheist position is that they *lack the belief* in god. There is a big difference.
Take Bigfoot for an example for all of this. If someone claims Bigfoot exists, people can either believe the claim or not, with or without direct knowledge of whether it is a fact or not. The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim. In order to not believe the claim, I simply do not have to be convinced of the evidence or arguments presented by those who do.
If I don’t believe, it is not up to me to look behind every tree, look under every rock, search through every cave, in every forest and every mountain on earth so I can conclude that I have knowledge that Bigfoot does not exist (or make a positive claim that Bigfoot does not exist). Who knows, he could have been somewhere else while I was looking. I simply have to remain unconvinced by the arguments presented by those claiming he exists and withhold my belief in his existence. It does not make any difference that I do not have direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
Christians love to point out that Newton and other prominent scientists from a long time ago were either Christian or theists. But this is a very weak argument for theism. This does not make Christianity or theism the least bit true. It doesn’t even make it reasonable. It is a logical fallacy.
There are a few problems with this way of thinking. The main problem is that it refers to people from CENTURIES ago. Why is that a problem? Because scientists like Newton were not aware of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that we have gained after his lifetime, and knowledge we have learned since then, namely: Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Dinosaurs, Edwin Hubble’s discoveries with the Hooker Telescope, spectrometry, the Hubble Telescope, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc., etc., etc.
We cannot jump to any conclusions to how the giants of the past would have reacted to this, but it is comparing apples to oranges to assert they were devout believers when they lived in a completely different time and not even close to having the same knowledge as we have today. It’s like assuming that I would be an atheist if I had lived centuries ago. Would I have been? Eh, probably not.
The second problem is that many of these giants had really silly beliefs back then. Like Newton believed in the powers of alchemy (turning lead into gold). He spent years trying to do it and even wrote about it.
In any event, according to this famous 2009 survey (13 years ago), only 33% of scientists believed in a personal god (additional 18% only believed in some sort of “higher power”), while 41% did not believe in any god of any kind (as compared to only 4% of the general population).
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie...nd-belief/
Theism and atheism are statements about BELIEF. Agnosticism is a statement about KNOWLEDGE. Those are two different things.
One can describe themselves as an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist, and that is perfectly fine. Theism and atheism are statements of belief regarding the following assertion/proposition: “A god (or gods) exist(s).” Theists have the belief that the statement is true. Atheists do not have the belief that it is true. Neither one is claiming to KNOW whether the claim is true.
Note two things: 1) You do not need knowledge in order to have belief or not have belief. 2) The atheist position is NOT making the claim that “No gods exist”. The atheist position is that they *lack the belief* in god. There is a big difference.
Take Bigfoot for an example for all of this. If someone claims Bigfoot exists, people can either believe the claim or not, with or without direct knowledge of whether it is a fact or not. The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim. In order to not believe the claim, I simply do not have to be convinced of the evidence or arguments presented by those who do.
If I don’t believe, it is not up to me to look behind every tree, look under every rock, search through every cave, in every forest and every mountain on earth so I can conclude that I have knowledge that Bigfoot does not exist (or make a positive claim that Bigfoot does not exist). Who knows, he could have been somewhere else while I was looking. I simply have to remain unconvinced by the arguments presented by those claiming he exists and withhold my belief in his existence. It does not make any difference that I do not have direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
Christians love to point out that Newton and other prominent scientists from a long time ago were either Christian or theists. But this is a very weak argument for theism. This does not make Christianity or theism the least bit true. It doesn’t even make it reasonable. It is a logical fallacy.
There are a few problems with this way of thinking. The main problem is that it refers to people from CENTURIES ago. Why is that a problem? Because scientists like Newton were not aware of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that we have gained after his lifetime, and knowledge we have learned since then, namely: Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Dinosaurs, Edwin Hubble’s discoveries with the Hooker Telescope, spectrometry, the Hubble Telescope, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc., etc., etc.
We cannot jump to any conclusions to how the giants of the past would have reacted to this, but it is comparing apples to oranges to assert they were devout believers when they lived in a completely different time and not even close to having the same knowledge as we have today. It’s like assuming that I would be an atheist if I had lived centuries ago. Would I have been? Eh, probably not.
The second problem is that many of these giants had really silly beliefs back then. Like Newton believed in the powers of alchemy (turning lead into gold). He spent years trying to do it and even wrote about it.
In any event, according to this famous 2009 survey (13 years ago), only 33% of scientists believed in a personal god (additional 18% only believed in some sort of “higher power”), while 41% did not believe in any god of any kind (as compared to only 4% of the general population).
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie...nd-belief/