h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You said that the Agnostic view is that there is no evidence of god, but that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (THats a paraphrase of Carl Sagan).

True, but don't forget Occam's Razor. If there is no evidence for gods, then they are an unnecesarry part of an understanding of the universe. Therefor, they should be left out of any explanation. THere is no evidence that there isn't an invisable, immaterial dragon in my garage, but unless you can find some evidence that there is, it is pointless to consider the possibility. (Another paraphrase from Carl Sagan ,this one from THe Deamon Haunted World")

Any responces?

I figure that 4 billion people thought that there was an invisable, immaterial dragon in your garage, it not be wise to rule out the possibility immediately.

That'd make such a great quote ...

True, but you might want to consider why they think it. I wouldn't go t=so far as to say I rule out the claims of any religion as true. I just say that I need further evidence before taking them very sertiouly. That doesn't mean I don't make an effort to understand them so that I will recognize evidence supporting them if it exists.

But, what if a billion peeople say there's an invisable dragon in my garge, another billion want to kill them bewcause the KNOW its an invisable chimera, and a few hundred million are sure its a invisable basilisk, and there are millions with other ideas. Doesn't that damage their credibility?

To compare a dustbin to the whole universe and even beyond, seems a bit naive. It is fair to say that we can know everything there is to know about the inside of the dustbin, therefore it would be rational to conclude there is no dragon contained within. But our knowledge about the universe and beyond is so infinitesimally small that it would not be rational to completely dismiss the existence of a God in one way or another.

Perhaps. I may say more later. Busy now.

why should occam's razor be right in a metaphysical place?

the fact is, the agnostic position is the only tenable position: atheism is a statement of belief as much as theism. there is do definate evidence as to whether god exists or not.

Yes, Occam's razor is not really about truth, it is about what constitutes the best explanation for the available facts.

Explanations are not true today and false tomorrow when new facts are discovered, they are true or false all along, and Occam's razor may indeed point us to a false explanation.

And sure, agnostics can point to this and say the existence of God is not the best explanation for what we see but it is a possible one. I wouldn't do that, and perhaps I can explain why.

The hypothesis we're concerned with here is that of a god who doesn't have any observable impact on the universe. I think the question has to be: What does it mean to "exist" without having any effect on the universe? If we use "exist" in this way, it is a metaphysical use, not a use connected with what I might call "real" existence.

So let's strengthen the hypothesis. Say there is a god who does have an impact on the universe, that we don't happen to observe for whatever reason. There are plenty of unobserved entities impacting the universe that are not gods, so this hypothesis seems difficult to throw out. Except of course unless something else is said about the god, it is meaningless - or I could say that a lump of rock somewhere on Pluto is god.

So really the minimum meaningful theist hypothesis has to make some claim for the proposed god to distinguish it from things we know about already in a divine sort of way.

We can imagine infinitely many such hypotheses, equally plausible and mutually contradictory. I can see no basis for assigning a positive probability to any particular one.

"Yes, Occam's razor is not really about truth, it is about what constitutes the best explanation for the available facts."

Yes, but truth about the existance of gods is hard to come by.

"Explanations are not true today and false tomorrow when new facts are discovered, they are true or false all along, and Occam's razor may indeed point us to a false explanation."

Yes, and I am willing to change my views, given more evidence or a better understanding on the evidence.

"The hypothesis we're concerned with here is that of a god who doesn't have any observable impact on the universe. I think the question has to be: What does it mean to "exist" without having any effect on the universe? If we use "exist" in this way, it is a metaphysical use, not a use connected with what I might call "real" existence."

I agree that we can ignore a god that has no effect on thwe observable universe, if that's what you're saying.

"So let's strengthen the hypothesis. Say there is a god who does have an impact on the universe, that we don't happen to observe for whatever reason. There are plenty of unobserved entities impacting the universe that are not gods, so this hypothesis seems difficult to throw out. Except of course unless something else is said about the god, it is meaningless - or I could say that a lump of rock somewhere on Pluto is god."

I think I agree.

"So really the minimum meaningful theist hypothesis has to make some claim for the proposed god to distinguish it from things we know about already in a divine sort of way."

I agree.

"We can imagine infinitely many such hypotheses, equally plausible and mutually contradictory. I can see no basis for assigning a positive probability to any particular one."

True. My point is that, unless there is observed evidence of a god, there is no point in considering it. Once you have evidence, then you can start considering posibilities, even if they are all equally unlikely.

lots of people claim that there is observed evidence of a god. just because you choose nto to agree with this evidence doesnt make it so.

OK, but I would guess that generally people who accept this evidence are neither atheists nor agnostics - the two positions contrasted in this discussion. But I suppose an agnostic might consider that while no proposed evidence was good enough to accept, some was good enough to give us something to think about.


OK, there is an interesting question here... What are the appropriate rules of evidence for theological questions?

Such things as religious texts would be informative (but not final) under historical rules of evidence, but inadmissable under legal (due to hearsay) or scientific (due to non-repeatability) rules.

Faith healing seems a good candidate for scientific analysis. Speaking in tongues likewise. I've not seen any evidence of this form. Also it has to be asked precisely what "faith healing" would be evidence for considering that contradictory belief systems have similar faith healing experiences.

Perhaps there should be new and different rules of evidence for theological questions. Any proposed rules of evidence have to be subject to rational criticism, or we might end up with "evidence is valid if it originates from the Koran and not otherwise" sort of rule, which kind of suggests that the conclusion has been reached before the evidence is considered.

It would seem to me that the scientific rules are about right.

speaking in tongues and ecstatic experiences are highly dubious...they can be induced by cunning charlatans, indeed, on unknowing subjects

I think that the atheist view is a terribly arrogant one myself. To say "there is no God" supposes that we have all the answers to the universe and beyond, which we quite evidently don't, and most of what science does claim to know are merely theories to fill gaps in knowledge. For me the only tenable position is the agnostic one.

"To say "there is no God" supposes that we have all the answers to the universe and beyond, which we quite evidently don't, and most of what science does claim to know are merely theories to fill gaps in knowledge."

That's whyu I don't say that. I say, "Based on my understanding of the evidence in my possesion, there does not appear to be a god.".

"I think that the atheist view is a terribly arrogant one myself. To say "there is no God" supposes that we have all the answers to the universe and beyond, which we quite evidently don't, ..."

It doesn't suppose any such thing. Many atheists believe that any knowledge that is not attainable by scientific methods is not worthy of the name "knowledge". And many don't.

"and most of what science does claim to know are merely theories to fill gaps in knowledge"

This doesn't make much sense either. All knowledge is theory. Scientific knowledge is of course not certain, it is subject to possible falsification. The fact that it is subject to falsification tests makes it more reliable than systems of knowledge that claim certainty.

more reliable. not ultimately reliable. this is why agnosticism is right: you can enver be certain. if you *choose* to iterpret what evidence you have, one way or anther, you are making a statement of belief, one which is legitimatelky overturned by evidence from the other point of view. nothing is certain, you say it yourself.

In response to Jowat's criticsim, you seem to giving evidence to support an agnostic point of view anyway,you say that all knowledge is theory and this would suggest that we cannot possibly say there is no God if all knowledge is based on theory. To say "there is no God" and basing this statement around knowledge which is only theory seems quite presupposing to me. The best you can say is "in my OPINION, from the extremely limited information available to humanity about the nature of the universe and beyond i do not think there is God, but i also undersatnd that it is a possibilty".

I think the main problem i have with atheism is exactly that, excluding the possiblity of God. To say i don't believe in God but accept the possibility is surely recognising that we do not have all the answers and God could therefore exist, which would seem an agnostic point of view. There is no way we can exclude the possibility of God's existence with the limited knowledge we have, and especially if this knowledge is only theory.

I didn't say that knowledge is based on theory, I said it IS theory.

"There is a God" is theory. "There is no God" is theory. All the ideas in each of our heads regarding aspects of the physical universe are not those aspects themselves, but theories about those aspects. That's all I was getting at.

Of course we cannot empirically determine that we are not in a Matrix-like simulation of reality, so perhaps we should admit the possibility that we are inside such a simulation, and outside in the real world there is a God who openly interacts with the universe. My problem with doing that is that I don't think such an admission is meaningful.

If a statement has no consequences at all for the universe that we experience, then it can be held to be certainly true or certainly false by anyone with no fear of contradiction. I regard that sort of statement as meaningless.

Of course many claim that a god does interact openly with the universe, and this can be seen by anybody who wants to. These claims seem to be meaningful on the surface, but lose meaning as you look at the detail.


But as I said, no knowledge is certain and all beliefs should therefore be tentative. If this makes me an agnostic, then I am also agnostic about the existence of my parents.

The reason I say atheist rather than agnostic is that I have yet to find a meaningful hypothesis of the existence of God that merits some doubt.

you got it. you cant know anything. isnt that beautiful? that doesnt change the fact that you are agnostic. we win

Not being certain about anything is not the same as knowing nothing. Degrees of confidence in hypotheses are a kind of knowledge. (In fact as far as the real world is concerned, they are the only kind of knowledge.)

But, I don't see how one can be agnostic about statements that are meaningless.