Agnosticism: The most logical choice

I agree with this paper. It illustrates how both sides of the "debate" commit a logical fallacy *ad ignorantiam* when committing to their arguments.

The Burden of Proof and the Presumption of Atheism

Scott M. Sullivan
Philosophy of Religion
Center for Thomistic Studies
Which of the following alternatives is most reasonable:

1. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is still more reasonable to hold that God exists (theism).
   
2. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist (atheism).
   
3. In the absence of evidence for God’s existence, it is more reasonable to conclude that we do not know if God exists (agnosticism).
   

To determine this we explore the nature of the ad ignorantiam fallacy and how it applies to the question of God’s existence.
The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy
It is of course a truism that just because a proposition has not been proven to be true does not mean the proposition is false and vice versa. The ad ignorantiam fallacy, in a nutshell, is to unreasonably force an opponent to bear the burden of proof when there is an absence of evidence. This fallacy can take two forms:

Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true

An example of a fallacy with each form would be:

1. “Since one cannot prove that their experience of the external world is true, therefore their experience of the external world is false.”
   
2. “Since one cannot prove that Mr. Jones has not committed acts of espionage, therefore it is true that he is a spy.”
   

Both 1 and 2 are fallacious. But even though both are an instances of the ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is not always the case that other propositions with the same form are such. Other arguments having these same forms are not always unreasonable. Consider:

3. “Since there is no proof that Mr. Jones has committed acts of espionage, therefore he is not a spy.”
4. “Since my experience of the external world has never been proven false, therefore it is true.”

Both 3 and 4 are reasonable inferences yet they have the same form as those that commit the ad ignorantiam fallacy. This tells us that appealing to ignorance and lack of evidence is not always fallacious. Context and subject matter make all the difference.
So when is it reasonable to appeal to ignorance and when is it not? It is not always easy to determine who should shoulder the burden of proof, but it seems to me there are at least four criteria:

1. All other factors being equal, the greater burden of proof rests with someone whose claim has the least initial plausibility. If someone wants to claim we do not experience the external world but instead are just brains in a vat under the control of an evil scientist, this is very implausible and such a person making the claim shoulders the burden of proof. It is fallacious to force a person to disprove a counterintuitive claim.
   
2. All other factors being equal, the greater burden of proof lies with the person making an affirmative claim, rather than with the person who is denying that claim.
   
3. Sometimes special situations may call for a shift in burden of proof. If say a human life is at stake, the burden of proof should fall on the claim that may cause harm.
   
4. All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for
   example:
   “No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.”
   “No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.”
   Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive
   unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here. *The same would go for other statements like “There is a needle in this haystack”.*
   

Given these criteria for the ad ignorantiam, we now apply them to the case of God’s existence.

Continued on next post.....

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Continued.....

The Burden of Proof and the Existence of God
It seems to me that criteria 1 and 3 are not applicable to the existence of God debate. The existence of God is not prima facie implausible, and 3 really does not apply here at all. I would also add that 2 is perhaps the least important of all the criteria. That is, implausibility, harm and reasonable expectations of evidence will always override whether or not a proposition is affirmative or not, so Flew’s exclusive emphasis on *I should also mention that Flew’s redefinition of “atheism” to mean simply “not a theist”, trivializes the claim of atheism as the default position. Instead of an atheist being someone who asserts the non-existence of God, under this new definition an “atheist” is simply “not a theist” which means newborns and the severely mentally handicapped are “atheists”.* is far too simplistic. 2 2 alone is insufficient in establishing the burden of proof. If that were the case, then anyone making an affirmative claim about obvious truths like “This is my arm” or “My experience of the external world is veridical” would be unreasonably forced to attempt to prove the obvious. So the affirmative
proposition criterion alone is insufficient.

So if I’m right about this then that leaves us with criterion 4. An absence of evidence indicating evidence of absence is only telling when the evidence we have is far less than what we would expect. In the case of God, the presumption of atheism presupposes a) we have adequately surveyed the area in which we would find such evidence and b) that the evidence we have for God is far less than what we would expect. But how can 1 and 2 be known as true? Now both of these are affirmative propositions, and so by Flew’s own criterion he should marshal support for them. Far from relieving himself with the burden of proof, now the atheist is burdened with showing both that a) we have adequately surveyed the area in which evidence would be found and b) what we come up with is far less than what we would expect if God existed, for if God exists he would have left more traces of his existence.

Suppose there are no successful proofs for God’s existence – what is the reasonable conclusion we should draw from this absence of evidence? Antony Flew wants to take the presumption of atheism as the reasonable default position, other theists like Plantinga take theism as “properly basic”, however it seems to me a third option is best, that in absence of an absolute proof of God’s existence, agnosticism is the most reasonable position. We should avoid dogmatic assertions on either side, and so in such a hypothetical scenario both of these statements are fallacious:

“No one has ever proved that God exists, so he must not exist.”
“No one has ever proved that God does not exist, so he must exist.”

And I would say the same goes for the theist, given an absolute absence of evidence it is fallacious to conclude that God exists. But what if the absence of evidence is not absolute? Any reasonable atheist should admit that the existence of God is not wholly unsupported – there are at least some arguments for it. Even if these arguments are not accepted as conclusive, they merit some degree of probability. Now it’s not clear how much evidence to expect from God given his existence, nor can one establish that all of the relevant areas where evidence may be found have been adequately covered. Yet it seems to me that the evidence for God’s existence is greater than the evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, and if we are rash in concluding with certitude that Bigfoot does not exist because of a lack of evidence, a fortiori this is the case with God.

So even if the theist fails to establish his case, at best that simply leaves the reasonable man with agnosticism, and to infer atheism from this would be to commit the ad ignorantiam fallacy. And this is significant, for that means reasonably speaking agnosticism is the theoretical starting point. The more plausible the arguments for God’s existence are, the more the reasonable man moves from agnosticism to theism.

The Burden of Proof and the Presumption of Atheism.pdf@ CommonsenseAtheism.com

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

You know...whenever I am asked what "religion" I am, I tell them agnostic. It is shocking how many people have no clue what that is. Not talking about the average idiot, but rather people in power that come from (one would think) a educated backround.

It confuses me why they are confused...I remember a convo I had where someone asked me what my religion was...said I was agnostic...they kept asking questions about it...asking if there was a sort of bible, etc. heh

They kept trying to label it as athiesm, then new age druidic, then back to athiest...poor guy, was thinking his head was going to explode. Some people simply need absolutes to function it appears. Either God most certainly does exist or most certainly doesn't...they cannot truely comprehend having a open mind without a preconcieved notion to begin with.

Ah got to posting it before me Eh watcher?


Either way i think this is one of the best arguments for agnosticism i have ever read. It lays it out in deadly logic. Only complaint i have is that it doesn't cover "weak" atheism but i think that is because weak atheism is similar to agnosticism.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I think that is the problem, absolutes. I would wager that most of us are raised dealing with absolutes so they never grow out of it. You know. You do this your _______. You blah blah blah you are ________.

reply to post by DeathShield


Well, you know what they say. He who hesitates. But yes, I think it was pretty much meant to cover the 3 key positions and not the inbetweens of the spectrum.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I do like a good lesson in logic. However, I disagree with the premise: There is no proof of God's existence.
First, you have to define "proof"
If you mean scientific proof, I think there most certainly is proof that a God must exist.
If you mean historical proof, I think alot of the Biblical accounts of History can be verified.
If you mean immaterial proof, I think the testimony of countless millions might count for something.
I think people don't see "proof" of God because they don't want to. It's easier to not think about.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by trueperspective]

After one has discarded fundamentalist Religion and Atheism, Agnosticism is the first step to Enlightenment because it admits a deep truth, which is "I just dont know". However, after extensive spiritual experience, one does know a thing or two and can no longer claim not knowing and can no longer remain in a non-commital stance. In a thirst for experiences of higher nature, the next steps are then taken, beyond the neutral into the path of commitment to the spiritual.

reply to post by trueperspective


It's a question of viewpoint and I am sorry but you are gloriously failing to take other viewpoints into account. I do respect your belief and do agree that from your point of view you are correct. But, we are not limited to just one point of view and to say that "just don't want to" is massively dismissive amongst other things.

I agree with the post 100%. I also am Agnostic and it humors me how many people think being Agnostic is like being Atheist. Followed with the Agnostic statement I usually get your typical phrase "you need jesus in your life or else your going to hell". I am sure everyone here has heard that line before. Very informative read though. You really lay out a detailed explanation of all forms of beliefs.

Originally posted by trueperspective
If you mean scientific proof, I think there most certainly is proof that a God must exist.

There is no proof of this nature, else it would be front page news once a week and athiests would be little more than some wacky fringe religion.

I assume your speaking about the curiousities of humanity in general, which could "prove" a god, or a advanced alien race, or simply a yet understood natural phenomona (aka, the transition from amino acid blob to advanced replication machine...the "spark" of life).

Everything else is a pretty mundane, yet fascinating, aspect of evolution...some progression seeming faster tan others, but all pretty normal.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by trueperspective

 

It's a question of viewpoint and I am sorry but you are gloriously failing to take other viewpoints into account. I do respect your belief and do agree that from your point of view you are correct. But, we are not limited to just one point of view and to say that "just don't want to" is massively dismissive amongst other things.

Well, I wouldn't say my piont of view is dismissive. One can say, and rightly so, that I don't want to see "proof" for athesim. This because I already believe the opposite. It is not about having "an open" mind. it is about the fact that after over 20 years I have made up my mind. I have looked at the evidence. I was an opened mind until I made up my mind about what is true. Staying in an "open mind" statis your whole life just seems like someone that refuses to deal with the big quesions of life. They just leave them hanging, suspended and ignored. You see what I'm saying right. I think we are all born with the ability to chose, and I think that we all kind of start not knowing, but eventually most make a decision about it. That's what I have done.

reply to post by trueperspective


Well he does say that there is a much greater evidence for god than most would admit. Just that it is not conclusive to answering the " is god real?" question.

From a logical point of view...I disagree with this article on these statements

3. “Since there is no proof that Mr. Jones has committed acts of espionage, therefore he is not a spy.”
4. “Since my experience of the external world has never been proven false, therefore it is true.”

Both 3 and 4 are reasonable inferences yet they have the same form as those that commit the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I do not agree that 3 and 4 are reasonable inferences. A reasonable inference for 3 would be that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Jones is not a spy...but not to flat out say "he is not a spy". Logic is about absolutes...so when you make a statement of "therefore he is not a spy", that is supposed to mean that 100% truth that he is not a spy.

I don't think that discredits any of his other arguments directly...but it just makes me question his grasp on logic.



From a theist point of view...I can freely admit that I have no logical argument or reasonable evidence that God exist. I do have FAITH that God exist, and that faith is for myself, I don't try to convince others that because of my faith that they should believe in God. I can also freely admit that I don't KNOW that God exists, I simply have faith that he does...and that won't waver.

I believe I am a very logical person and a very scientific person. But I really believe in Socrates famous quote "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.". Or the similar "the more I learn, the less I know.". So for me, having faith in God is an exercise in freeing my logical/scientific mind, and letting it in one subject just be free from constraint of rules and evidence. And you know what...for me it works and has helped me greatly in life. I don't claim I have the truth, I don't claim I can prove anything, I don't try to get others to believe in my way...I just do what I do. I still use logic to question religious stories and practices (this is why I'm not a good Christian...and an even worse Catholic...but that's another story)...but for my underlining faith in God...I leave "logic" out of it.

What I don't understand is why atheists demand I give proof for my own belief??? Why should this matter to them?


Do I know God exists? No I don't.
Do I believe God exists? Yes I do.
Do I love to argue with atheists? Yes...very much so (it's like a hobby)
Do I love to argue with theists? See above answer

I guess you could call me an agnostic theist



So is agnosticism the most "logical" choice? Sure, I guess someone could argue that. Does that mean it is the "right" choice? That should be left up to the individual, because I don't believe there is a universal "right" choice on this subject.

Remember...logical does not always mean it is the right, moral, or best thing to do.

reply to post by Skyfloating


My problem with that is how can you never be really sure you are not constructing personalized illusions of your own. It seems to me that it requires a level of certainity I am not sure I will allow myself to attain. If you get my meaning and meaning no disrespect.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Crmorris


It's even harder when you state that you are agnostic yet due to personal revelation and revealed truth you believe that jesus christ is the one true god.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well specifically I am talking about origin. I am no science master or anything, but I think the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. I also think life from non-life is a mute and dead concept. It can't be done.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
After one has discarded fundamentalist Religion and Atheism, Agnosticism is the first step to Enlightenment because it admits a deep truth, which is "I just dont know". However, after extensive spiritual experience, one does know a thing or two and can no longer claim not knowing and can no longer remain in a non-commital stance. In a thirst for experiences of higher nature, the next steps are then taken, beyond the neutral into the path of commitment to the spiritual.

Elegantly put horsepucky.

I personally have a few very profound "ghost stories"...what they were I have no clue...I choose to believe some aspects of what it was, but I can change that belief on a dime...and try to often.

Some would have the same experience and think because they are programmed a certain way, that the experience proves some religion or another, when if they step back, the experiences only puts more questions in than answers anything...

I would venture to say, short of God coming down from some cloud in a near pink floyd laser light show effect, grabbing you by the scruff of your neck, and showing you the kingdom of heaven and whatnot, then personal experiences only deepen the mystery of what is verses clear anything up.

I think that maybe this discussion is missing the mark. Being agnostic is the most logical choice, if what you have set out to do in your life as a human is to form a belief system which is as accurate - in the sense that it is in the most direct agreement with objective reality - as possible. I think that this is premis is erroneous.

Most don't set out just to aquire true beliefs. This is isn't what life is about. We as humans don't just go around making observations, and then using them as premises in logical arguments which are then used to form beliefs. Of course, we do do some of this(and some of us more than others), but it is not the end game for most people. Most people - consciously or not - spend a tremendous amount of time forming a worldview(or system of beliefs) which is tolerable to them. The most important beliefs in this worldview are one's beliefs about themselves, the world(meaning external reality), and their relationship to it.

Beliefs about God, and religious beliefs in general, often form a very fundamental part of an agreeable worldview. Religious beliefs - whether or not they are true - are a coping mechanism. They give people hope, happiness, and a sense of understanding in times when more realistic, logically justifiable beliefs are lacking in these respects. These things are important to people; they make people feel better about themselves, the world, and their relationship to it. I think that the need that most human beings have to hold a tolerable wordview trumps whatever allegiance they may have to the more abstract notion of logically justifiable beliefs.

The truth is that life often sucks, the world can be a very cruel and unfair place, and one which is very difficult to make sense of. Especially in terms of the human aspects, which are more important to humans than the material scientific aspects. Given that we as humans are not just logic based information gathering automatons, we cannot be expected to behave as though we are. We have to satisfy our human need for a tolerable belief system, especially with respect to ourselves, to world, and our relationship to it. Religion provides an outline for such a worldview. It may include some beliefs that are apparently in disagreement with reality, but those disagreements are not important enough - at least for many people - to abondon this satisfactory/tolerable way of understanding their place in the universe. Science and logically justifiable beliefs cannot provide what religion can, at least for many people.

From a scientific perspective, agnosticism is the most logically justifiable position. From the human perspective, religious beliefs are justifiable. Accuracy is secondary to tolerability when humans form beliefs. So, for humans, faith is often the most logical response to the world that we live in.

I am agnostic.

reply to post by trueperspective


Or someone that believes that the "big questions" in life are not so easily dismissed as solved. Which is why I said dismissive. Also there is the ability to still believe something yet take yourself with a grain of salt. I am not really an agnostic believe it or not. But I am intellectually sympathetic to agnosticism.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Well specifically I am talking about origin. I am no science master or anything, but I think the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. I also think life from non-life is a mute and dead concept. It can't be done.

2nd law of thermo does not violate principles of life...and the second thing you point out is also open for debate.

Here is the question, and your not allowed to use any biblical or spiritual references...ready:
What is life?

Life to me is a simple force of nature, like wind, or rain...it is a process of reactions that is as natural as tides...reforming rocks the same way wind reforms when it goes around a mountain.

This is a heavy concept to understand considering you really need to have a big picture mentality...everything is a reaction...absolutely everything, from a baby being born, to a planet being formed, to you eating corn chips off of a plate watching TV...Nothing is special, no spinning of a atom is unaccounted for since the dawning of time as its all following a very specific pattern based on physics (quantum)....this is the only possible answer to anything...not a single atom can be chaotic without the whole system being illogical.

With that being said, My theory is that life is just an illusion, but a pretty one anyhow...the 12 ball flying towards the side pocket thinking it is a chaotic movement...but its just part of a much larger design.

wow, this theory is hard to explain without 40 paragraphs...but hopefully you catch the jist of the concept anyhow.