Is Agnosticism a Justifiable Cop-Out for the Non-Existent Santa Claus?

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm currently Agnostic Atheist, or, more technically, Agnostic and Weak Atheist. In summary, I don't believe in God, but I don’t deny the possibility of God's existence; however, I put the probability of God existing at about 1%, an extremely unlikely occurrence. I have tolerance for Pantheism, but I believe it's a cope out form of Agnosticism and/or Atheism. Overall, I'm searching for the most logical faith, from the biased perspectives of secular humanists, or, in my opinion, the “thinking men” Hemingway spoke of.

Is the accepting of human ignorance and fallibility a justification for Agnosticism? – Perhaps. However, what about the existence of Santa Claus - most people deny his existence. Does Agnosticism give unjustified, interpretable laudation towards religious institutions? Should I keep Agnosticism to maintain a philosophical argument, to support the acceptance of uncertainties, or should I switch to Strong Atheism as an antireligious individual; furthermore, should one deny a possibility unless a logical explanation for the possibility is given, for I have found none for the existence of God.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You have put your finger on a central issue. If one calls oneself an agnostic, what is one's attitude toward existing religions? Does any tradition seeem less false or more attractive than another? Can you think of yourself as, possibly, between engagements? Or do they all seem like amusing stories where they aren't rank superstition? Agnostic is kind of an unstable balance between "unchurched searcher" and weak atheist.

 

[Lucretius]

I am myself a strong atheist. At first, I really didn't know what my reasons were for denial of existence of Gods. However, after a few years of it, I do now know, and I consider it very logical.

My favorite logical construction is Ockham's Razor. "Do not posit pluralities beyond necessity." In science, I'm sure all of us are well aware that the issue of God is not touched. You can interpret the evidence the way you like, but then you leave the realm of strictly science and enter philosophy.

Because science does not touch God, I choose to leave the idea out of the equation. I see God as nothing more than a plurality, and so I choose to get rid of him with Ockham's Razor.

So, to answer your question about denial of God: I would say yes. Unless you wish to rely on faith. Religious groups always stress "faith". I am skeptical of something until it is objectively proven, either indirectly or directly. I don't posit something that is by nature unprovable.

 

[Janitor]

I am a strong atheist with regard to personal deities who are eager to reliably communicate their thoughts to humans. I am agnostic with regard to all other deities.

 

[Crosson]

Lucretious, perhaps you would appreciate this one from the great P.S. Laplace:

"Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse"

"I have no need for that hypothesis"

(A reply to Napoleon , who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his Méchanique céleste)

It's a strange universe, and it is so big. There are all manner of fantastic secrets that we could never imagine (Advanced Intelligent life? What makes you think life is as good as it gets?)

Humans sit here and talk about an omnipotent being, how uncreatively pathetic.

 

[Chronos]

Perhaps 'God' does not yet exist, but does that preclude a future God? And if 'God' has/does/will exist... would her/him/it be required to submit to our interpretation of causality? If science has taught us anything, it is best to avoid smug certainty.

 

[Icebreaker]

If God is omnipotent, then God is subject to some intrinsic paradox of omnipotence. Therefore it is not logical that God is omnipotent.

If God is not omnipotent, then it makes him nothing more than some guy with superpowers (possibly in tights), not so different from Superman or Spiderman.

If God is not omnipotent and has no superpowers, then that makes him nothing more than some... dude. In which case I doubt we should be spending so much time debating on whether he exists.

 

[arildno]

I find it less illogical to believe in deities like Frey and Odin than to believe in the omnipotent Judeo-Christian variety.
Of existing religions, I dislike Buddhism the least, since it is basically without a god entity.

 

[Barbie]

It is illogical to claim that one knows for 100%, so I suppose it is illogical to think that possibility of any diety is 0% such as what traditional Atheism suggests. It is wise to go with what one believes to be most likely while staying open to the other possibilities, and accept simply not knowing for sure.

On a more personal side, I am an Atheist who was Agnostic and Theist in the past (respectively). I do not think that its likely that any diety or "supernatural" being exists, but I am always open to the possibility of being wrong. The key is to not become too devout in anything, and always keep learning and rethinking.

I recently started to explore a new way to think about "God". It seems pretty clear to me that there is no living being outside of the universe, which the Judeo-Christian-Islaamic tradition assumes. There can, however, be an energy or a consciousness that goes throughout the universe...maybe...

 

[Barbie]

I find it less illogical to believe in deities like Frey and Odin than to believe in the omnipotent Judeo-Christian variety.
Of existing religions, I dislike Buddhism the least, since it is basically without a god entity.

I also have the greatest respect for Buddhism out of all major world religions. Its much more reality and humanity based. Plus, the philosophy of life behind it is pure goodness. ie One doesn't hear about wars, genocides, take overs, and terracts over Buddhism for a reason.

Although I was born into Orthodox Christianity and appreciate the culture/tradition of it, if I HAD to choose an existing world religion to actually believe in - I would be Buddhist.

 

[loseyourname]

It is illogical to claim that one knows for 100%, so I suppose it is illogical to think that possibility of any diety is 0% such as what traditional Atheism suggests. It is wise to go with what one believes to be most likely while staying open to the other possibilities, and accept simply not knowing for sure.

Whether or not it's illogical to be a theist, atheist, or agnostic depends on the rational justification one uses. The best arguments put forth by each of the three camps are generally logically impeccable. The validity of the arguments is rarely in question. (Given that they are usually put forth by professional philosophers or theologians, you would hope they could construct a valid argument). The further question of whether the arguments are sound, however, rests upon the truth of the premises that they argue from. These are generally a matter for empirical investigation, although there do exist purely rational arguments put forth to support the premises from first principles in some of the God proofs.

It should be obvious that my answer to the question the author of the thread asks is yes, it is logical to be a strong atheist. It is also logical to be a weak atheist (agnostic), and it is even logical to be a theist. Whether or not any of these positions is correct is another matter (okay, obviously one of them must be correct). Neither the arguments of atheists or theists seem to be of any value in determining the truth of their claims - at least that's the conclusion I've come to after studying them. Furthermore, the question of whether or not God exists does not seem to matter to me all that much. Admittedly, I am biased against metaphysical questions in general, as I prefer to ask questions that can be definitively answered. Furthermore, however, it seems very highly unlikely to me that if a perfect being with the power to create a universe did exist, that he would care whether or not I believed he did, especially given that he has left no persuasive evidence. I live an ethical life, and I would hope that if there does exist some universal arbitrator of justice that decides my fate upon my death, he would consider that fact and not be concerned with whether or not I was a man of faith. To be honest, if God values faith over ethical behavior, I disagree with him and consider him to be rather petty and not the kind of person I would want to spend eternity with anyway.

 

[Barbie]

We are talking about complete devout belief = closed mind. I never claimed that Atheism itself is an illogical position (I obviously don't find it to be such...)

 

[Rasine]

did anyone ever wonder why there is no concreate/tangiable proof of the existnace of God?

i think it is partly becuase we need to not know in Him, but to have faith in him. maybe we are not ment to know for sure, and we are called to believe with a "leap of faith", in which would prove our devotion. all I'm saying is maybe there is a reason why we don't know for sure and that is where we are a people are seperated. it is not sinful to question God, on the contrary, true faith comes from believing when we do have questions. as was stated in the bible, "we walk by faith, not by sight."

 

[olde drunk]

Personally, I think it is much better to be an atheist than to believe in a traditional definition of god.

Perhaps a working definition of god would make for better discussion.

All, options (theist, atheist, agnostic, etc) are valid and have value based on what you choose to believe and what you want to experience. Your beliefs will lead you to you religion and that religion will influence your decisions that ultimately make your experience.

ergo, change your beliefs and you will change your experience.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[K.J.Healey]

I like to define God solely as "the reason the universe exists". No fancy bible-stories, nothing of that sort. But there must be some reason for this universe to have existed/been created. Or maybe not a reason, but an action for it to exist. It would seem the best and simplest universe would be none at all.

 

[olde drunk]

Hey, the eastern philosophies say that we are just 'here'; so enjoy it.

What's wrong with that? Does there have to be a reason? Why do we need a reason?

Boy, our need for a reason sure gives the people that want to organize a religion and make money all the power. Better to believe in self than any profit (lol) or philosopher.

love&peace,
olde drunk

"heaven was invented so that your clergy could charge for admission"

 

[Dayle Record]

Strong atheism is a logical stance, if one is negotiating for the freedom of one's children, to be educated in a secular fashion. Though I think that any absolute stance is not logical, given the universe we live in. We may be absolute in word, but even behind the word, we are fluid, organic chemical reactions, and neurochemically we are even less stable than muscle or bone, or the diaphragm and larynx that made the sounds. The hardware, the sound system, has an appearance of rigidity, the software drivers for perception and interface are highly unstable programs, whose driving logic is based on insubstantiable data, that shifts with perceptual shifts. We are the house built on sand.

 

[The Rev]

To say, "God does not exist" is as unprovable as "God DOES exist." Both forms of fundamentalism require a degree of faith, in other words.



The Rev

 

[Icebreaker]

Depends on how we define "God". All signs point to the non-existence of a Christian God.

 

[Photongod]

>>To say, "God does not exist" is as unprovable as "God DOES exist." Both forms of fundamentalism require a degree of faith, in other words.

The Rev<<<

I agree. Theism and Atheism are faith based and belief systems. The agnostic is not using faith or belief ( and I use the word belief as it's root meaning"wishing to be so or true") The agnostic knows that he does not know. It is, in my opinion, the most logical of stances.

Photongod

 

[Icebreaker]

That's because agnostics aren't saying anything.

 

[phoenixthoth]

If God is omnipotent, then God is subject to some intrinsic paradox of omnipotence. Therefore it is not logical that God is omnipotent.

If God is not omnipotent, then it makes him nothing more than some guy with superpowers (possibly in tights), not so different from Superman or Spiderman.

If God is not omnipotent and has no superpowers, then that makes him nothing more than some... dude. In which case I doubt we should be spending so much time debating on whether he exists.

God both exists and does not exist. That's not a paradox, it's just (perhaps) difficult to understand.

Ternary logic (or fuzzier logic) is the key.

Of course, those who have never witnessed God believe God (probably) does not exist while those who have witnessed God believe God (probably) does exist.

 

[pattarkutty]

Regarding the existence of god. God itself i believe is not the same in all religions. It all began starting to worship the fears of man. Earlier forms of worship r natural forces. Some parts of indian communities worship snakes/wind/water etc. They have just given them life by attributing human forms. So from time to time god has been modified to fit into the tailoring of man.Well he cannot exist in direct contradiction with science. But until all the misteries r solved, which is not possible, god will continue to exist. And for atheists, remember god is a strong belief in something, a belief that it has all the answers, and for atheists, it might be science. Is science completely proven - no. So believers in god have as many reasons not to believe in the SCIENCE GOD of urs as much as u have in theirs. But both do the same thing - BELIEVE...its just that the names and justifications r different. Some r more convinced by logic...others go by heart each suiting their situaion to bring the maximum satisfaction. Maybe the whole notion of existence of objects is an illution.
But all theses take u to this: fundamental human perception and a conviction followed by personal justification makes each person create his personal god. God in many forms , yet same effect. Do this, imagine nothingness. Most of them think of space...but that's not nothingness. So that's the restriction of human mind. U can only make permutations out of things u have already perceived when u imagine. So all religions From the ones worshipping stone to the ones worshipping empty space/blue sky (they don't believe in worshipping idols...still hold pictures in mind) r justified.

REality...god will exist as long as human beings exist.

 

[infidel]

I am an atheist. That doesn't mean I 'know' any more than a theist 'knows.' No one seems to say theists can't exist since they can't know. So is it just 'faith' that there is no god? To me, it's more like science than faith. I 'believe' in quantum mechanics, too, but if a reliable experiment came along to prove it wrong (or incomplete) I'd have to accept it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. I believe there is lots of evidence the universe could become what it is without a god. I do not have 'proof' he doesn't or can't.

Ultimately, this is an argument that produces a lot of heat but no light. Saying there are no atheists is really splitting hairs. If I can't be an atheist without proof god doesn't exist, I'm sunk, since you can't prove a negative. I still refer to myself as an atheist and I think it describes my personal belief much more accurately than agnostic. People know what I mean. If you want to split hairs, go for it, but I don't have to pay attention to you. (You here being the rhetorical 'you', BTW, not anyone in particular.)

 

[Evo]

I'm agnostic. I don't believe there is a "god", everything I've ever read related to religious texts convinces me that it is just something made up by people. But since I can't prove it, I will say I'm agnostic.

I think what people that are religious can't grasp is that the majority of atheists and agnostics just don't care. I can't speak for others, so I will speak for myself. I just don't buy into it (god and religion) and it is as simple as that. I don't think about it. I am not a "joiner", I don't need or seek the approval of others. I am emotionally secure and am not overwhelmed by the universe or the unexplained. I don't need the emotional or psychological support of other people that think the way I do.

That's it.

 

[infidel]

Well put, Evo.

 

[whozum]

The biggest problem for me in religion is that there is no need for it to exist. Religion is a guideline to life, but irrelevant to existence. Religion assumes that everything revolves around our being, whereas we know through science that we are pretty insignificant.

 

[Picklehead]

Sure, I think it's logical to believe in god. It's just that you can't go anywhere from there. Just because there is a god, it does not follow that god likes green shoes and dislikes over-cooked pasta.

It could be said that belief in god(s) is the scaffolding necessary to begin seeing reality as a single thing that can be explained, regardless if that explanation is at first flawed.

 

[Enos]

I think there is a need for it to exist because of that fact that it does exist. :P
The truth is some people couldn't care less, others want to know more any spend a lot of their time trying to seek meaning and better understanding whether through religion, science or some other way. Some rather just believe and get on with "normal" life and not let such questions or lack of questions bug them because they know enough to move on.

I spend a lot of time trying to figure it out myself. "It" meaning God and that kind of poop.

 

[pattarkutty]

Ya it really hurts when ur beliefs r questioned. But all i wanted to say was whatever that separates a theist and an atheist is thinner than what separates a theist and an agnostic. Sure u can go on arguing on this without end. But if science can't answer to the existence of god, why not try religion? Religion is supposed to be a search of finding god. Maybe science works well in proving things that fit into the sphere of reasoning. What if god can't be found by reason...maybe its something u end up realising after the quest. Maybe at that point it looks above reason. Maybe there is a sphere of inspiration after instinct and reason. This does not ask u to shun science.
All men mohammed/ jesus/ buddha have expressed the realisation of god. Once somebody asked to Ramakrishana if he had seen god...and his reply was that he saw him more magnified than anything around. All these people were not completely irrational or superstitious. But unlike some of us here who sit around and talk their time out, they actually practiced some religon or all religions to see if god can be realized. If u dream of becoming a chemist and pray all night to become so...u'll end up nowhere...sure u have to go get ur hands burned in the lab. I guess u'd have to do the same about realising god. Talking volumes won't help. Either sit there and say to urself and make believe that there's no god or go find out.

 

[Icebreaker]

If u dream of becoming a chemist and pray all night to become so...u'll end up nowhere...sure u have to go get ur hands burned in the lab. I guess u'd have to do the same about realising god. Talking volumes won't help. Either sit there and say to urself and make believe that there's no god or go find out.

You just contradicted yourself. Like you said, praying doesn't get you anywhere, not even near god(s). If you want to be a chemist, then you have to study chemistry, discuss the reasons behind everything, and see for yourself experimentally; you can't simply sit there and pray to become a chemist. However, you cannot apply what you did above in the search for god; all you have left is that prayer, and that leads to nowhere.

 

[Picklehead]

I always figured that religion took god for granted and created stories around that, and that it is science that is doing the actual 'searching' (whether it thinks so or not).

 

[pattarkutty]

You just contradicted yourself. Like you said, praying doesn't get you anywhere, not even near god(s). If you want to be a chemist, then you have to study chemistry, discuss the reasons behind everything, and see for yourself experimentally; you can't simply sit there and pray to become a chemist. However, you cannot apply what you did above in the search for god; all you have left is that prayer, and that leads to nowhere.

just what makes u think that its all prayer that's left in the search of god. Do u know that there r scriptures in some of these religions that says "do this and this (physically) and u will realize god. And moreover it will depend on ur obsession with the idea. its good to be born in church not to die in one. Religion over centuries has passed the stages of prayers, heaven and hell concepts. its always for u to choose the right kind of religion that will take u to realisation faster. i never said that prayer will take u to god.

 

[Icebreaker]

NOTHING will take you to god except your death. There's no difference between "do this and this" and "prayer".

 

[Uno Lee]

If I pray (real hard) for two dice to both role on three, in one throw, will this increase my odds, even if I know they are only 1 in 36?