|
|
Agnosticism
By Bruce Barbour - December 2023 (Version 1.1)
Introduction
Wikipedia
attributes the original definition of Agnosticism to Thomas
Henry Huxley in 1869. Earlier thinkers had promoted
agnostic points of view however it was Huxley that coined the
word "agnostic". It was formed by the combination of the ancient
Greek words "ag" meaning without and "gnosis" meaning knowledge.
Huxley also provided a series of excellent definitions and
explanations (also from Wikipedia):
- "It simply means that a man shall
not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe."
- [The agnostic] "principle may be
stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it
is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the
objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This
is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all
that is essential to Agnosticism."
- "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a
creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous
application of a single principle ... Positively the principle
may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your
reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other
consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect
do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable." (My emphasis.)
A common definition of the word today
(again according to Wikipedia) is "human reason is incapable of providing
sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that
God exists or the belief that God does not exist".
The main difference to note is that the Huxley definition gives
the word Agnostic a much wider scope than simply not supporting a
belief in a specific God or any god. It defines an agnostic as a
person who does not say
he knows or believes that which the person has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe. I largely support
this wider definition with minor exceptions.
What agnosticism is not is philosophical scepticism
(not to be confused with the everyday use of the word). Neither
is it denialism. Philosophical sceptics doubt whether any
Knowledge is possible. Agnostics believe Knowledge is possible
but make the bar for achieving that status relatively high.
Scientific justification is the main route to reliable
Knowledge, though as discussed in other articles on this site
some science is only justified to the 95% level. A hypothesis
proven by repeatable scientific experimentation is still classed
as a "theory" which is an acknowledgement that subsequent
testing and other experimentation may disprove the theory.
Science requires an open mind at all times. Though over time
theory may become more and more certain. (Until someone like
Einstein comes along!)
 |
Bertrand
Russell
|
Huxley rejects human reason as a reliable source of Knowledge by
itself. I think in some circumstances solely using reason is
sufficient. Such as in denying Bertrand Russell's orbiting
china teapot. However solely using reason without
scientific backup to justify knowledge is in many cases not
justified and is used far too often without sufficient
justification.
I am agnostic about the belief in
free will. While I think it is likely that humans have
free will, I admit this is not sufficiently proven to be
certain. If convincing repeatable scientific proof is provided
at some stage in the future this may change my view to more
certain. Until then free will is the working hypothesis that I
accept. I am agnostic about humans being hard determined - but I
am more sceptical about it than I am for free will. However
again I am willing to accept proof if that is offered in the
future. Knowledge and science is not the same as religious
belief. There should be no leaps
of faith in science. Although leaps of speculation are
allowed, so long as they are acknowledged as such.
I am agnostic about atheism and theism. It is really about what
is defined as god. Based on reason alone the gods described in
the books of the major Abrahamic religions
seem unlikely. However this does not eliminate all possible
concepts of god.(e.g.)
Reasoned arguments are not sufficient however definitive
scientific proof is currently impossible.
I am agnostic about meaning but tend to err on the side that
meaning is possible, even if that meaning ends up being solely a
personal meaning. The alternative is to say there is no meaning
therefore why bother looking, or investigating, or broadening
the mind. Perhaps part of the meaning of life is to investigate,
to search for knowledge and understanding of the Universe and
our part in it. To look to the skies, to look at nature, with
awe and wonder. Perhaps that in itself is sufficient meaning. A
necessary part of this process is to admit there is information
and facts that are not known and other information that you are
agnostic about. If everything is certain in your mind then there
is no point in searching and questioning.
One of the issues that sometimes worries me about the agnostic
position is that it can make a person seem indecisive or even
wishy-washy. So be it. It is a criticism I am willing to bear.
For me I believe agnosticism allows a person to be most open to
changes in knowledge. It allows a person to say this is what I
presently think is true while leaving open the willingness to
accept that the truth is something else in the future. It allows
a person to investigate a whole range of issues with a mind that
is open and to go wherever the investigation leads, willing to
change, willing to embrace possibilities. It is the position
that allows the most potential for growth, to not be stuck in
the one mindset.
* * * * * * *
This is an aside about science. I hope that you can see from my
writings that I love science. It is the most reliable path to
Knowledge. However some of the approaches of people who profess
to be scientists, and renowned scientists at that, is the
reliance they may place on mathematical models. A mathematical
model is developed and may have been shown to work in some
instances. That is the numerical outcomes of the models may
align with what is observed in the Universe. This is fine.
Sometimes these models can be interpreted to suggest something
that has not presently been observed. This is fine too. It
points to a possible direction of future research. My issue is
that it seems that sometimes some scientists may promote the
unverified mathematical predictions as already accepted science.
Perhaps it is just a laziness on their part in not stating when
they are talking that the mathematical prediction is not
confirmed science. Perhaps they just assume people will know
this.
With novel mathematical models there is always two
possibilities: the model may be correct or it could be wrong -
it might be missing a variable or two. This is not known so
correctness can't be assumed even if it seems to provide an
answer to some questions.
An example of this is the Multiverse.
This possibility apparently falls out of some of the quantum
equations and if true it would solve some of the unanswered
questions that scientists have about the Universe. However this
possibility has not been verified by any experimental science.
No Universe outside our current one has been observed - and it
is difficult to see how one could ever be observed. This make
the status of the Multiverse simply an interesting possibility -
no matter how good the math seems to be.
The only way to scientific Knowledge is through the scientific
method and observation of physical systems. Scientific Knowledge
is not from the predictions of mathematical equations.
Mathematical models are useful in that they may point the way to
formulating an hypothesis which can then be tested, or to
physical proof to be searched for. Anything more than that
requires a leap of faith which, as I have said before, should
not be part of science.
Oversite Home Page.
|
|
|
