Aren't Agnostics clearly more intelligent than Atheists?

Question

The vast majority of scientists and philosophers were/are Agnostics, not Atheists. Including Einstein.

They realize that, ultimately, the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable.

Every basic science student learns that there is a certain amount of uncertainty in every measurement. Even if you take a coin out of your pocket and measure it, you will never be able to attain a perfect measurement for it - at least not one that has no uncertainty.

Therefore, it is only logical, that if we assign uncertainties to something so seemingly simple as measuring a coin, there is a vast amount of uncertainty associated with the origins of life and matter as we know it, and that could include the possibility of a God or Creator-like being.

Atheists seem to be people who simply wish reject the mere possibility of a God or Gods, but there is no scientific basis for such a narrowed belief.

UnPope,

Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not necessary to explain the Universe. Supernatural forces & intelligence are a reasonable possibility, however.

UnPope,

lol, ok... so I guess with your pic and screen name, you're not trying to insinuate that you are better than religious folks or....umm, the pope?

BTW, the larger point - that obviously went over your head - was that reasonable people don't bite down on either extreme in opinion on a topic that they can not know the answer to.
Subsequently, that makes religious people more rational than the oppositely extreme atheists, since religious people choose their extreme opinions for the purpose of hopefully benefiting society, while your beliefs seem to be based on spitefulness. Or are you now going to try to argue that the Red Cross, for instance, had atheistic origins?

Answer 1

"Atheists seem to be people who simply wish reject the mere possibility of a God or Gods, but there is no scientific basis for such a narrowed belief."

Sorry, hon - you've got the wrong definition of "atheist", and so the rest of what you've written makes no sense.

I'm an atheist. I do not deny the possibility that there could be a god. I simply point out that since there is no evidence for the existence of a god, we're justified in saying that we know there isn't one. If new evidence comes in supporting the existence of a god, I'll consider it, and if it's good enough, I'll begin believing that there is a god.

It's obviously inaccurate to refer to that as "a narrowed belief".

I understand measurement, measurement error, and probability quite well - I've taught Prob and Stats for 20 years. I also understand the Burden of Evidence, something that agnostics seem to have a problem with, at least when applied to the question of god's existence.

I am opposed to the black-and-white thinking that leaves many agnostics and believers convinced that we cannot say that we know anything about god's existence unless we can 100% prove it. That's not how science works at all. Proof is irrelevant to our knowledge of the natural world - what matters is evidence. As far as I can see, it is the atheist, not the agnostic who understands that.
==================
Er, and the "Unpope"s argument is a good one. The evidence for a god's existence is in fact even less than the evidence for the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. When the agnostic treats claims of god's existence as superior to claims of the existence of Santa, the Easter Bunny, the FSM, or the orbiting teapot, that agnostic demonstrates closed-mindedness.

Answer 2

There is a difference between uncertainty in measurement and knowledge of the existence of that which is being measured; a coin flip couldn't be known in advance, but the existence of the coin could.

You correctly point out that the real issue that separates agnosticism from other positions is whether or not the existence of some divine being is knowable in principle. However, this neither counters nor excludes the Athiestic and Theistic stances. On the contrary, the titles still apply, albeit in the technical definitions alone.

Belief in a god(s) is a binary value. You either have such a belief, or you lack such a belief. There is no other ground on this issue. An Agnostic can readily say that we cannot possibly know which stance is correct, but, at the same time, he still either has that belief (a Theistic Agnostic), or he does not (an Atheistic Agnostic).

Finally, coming to your last sentence, Atheists do not simply wish to reject a possibility, this technically is not true. The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is that the Atheist accepts that the existence of a deity/deities could, in fact, be known, but that there is no evidence that such a being does, in fact exist. An Agnostic closes himself off to the possibility of such knowledge entirely.

Answer 3

I'd be fascinated to see the data in support of your statement that "The vast majority of scientists and philosophers were/are Agnostics..."

Absent that, let's just say many of them ARE agnostics. Even so, the popularity of a notion among a particular group of individuals is no measure of its veracity. Example: not so long ago very capable statesmen founded a free republic -and kept slaves.

Thus, that the existence (or not) of God is unknowable is neither validated nor demoted by that fact that anyone in particular subscribes to either possibility or neither possibility.

As a LOGICAL proposition, the idea that a factor of uncertainty assigned to measuring a small entity is NECESSARILY multiplied as the entity gets larger doesn't follow, either. There are plenty of examples in which the whole is easier to measure more accurately than any of the individual parts. I'll bet you can think of some yourself. Even if what you propose as logical WERE true in every instance, it would have no particular bearing on the BIG God/Creator questions.

I think you've captured the essence of a scientific approach to God by saying, in effect that an absolute denial (atheists) has no more going for it -scientifically- than absolute belief. "I don't know" sounds more intellectually honest, to me.

I do not understand -at all- how any of this would qualify an agnostic as "more intelligent" than an atheist -can you explain that? Near as I can tell, unless there is an oft-repeated study comparing the IQ (if that's the agreed measure) of thousands of atheists to thousands of agnostics, there's no evidence. Disabuse me, please, if I missed the studies.

Of course, there may even be degrees of atheism or agnosticism -your "Heisenberg Principal" at work, as it were. Judging from personal contact and what I've seen here on Yahoo, there are at least 2 kinds of atheists.

One kind simply doesn't even consider God as a possibility, and does not argue the proposition -it is a "non-starter" for such people. The other arrives at disbelief rationally, by looking at the data and the claims in favor and logically concluding that it just ain't so. This group includes those who were believers at one point. These are the poor folks who are always shouting, "Show me just ONE shred of evidence!" The folks in the first group don't even ask -to them, there just is no evidence; no point in looking for what isn't there. No one of age discusses Sanat Claus any more -and neither do we make it our business to get upset with kids who believe.

Likewise, on the believer's side of the question, there are at least 2 types. One has a highly articulated (if not articulate) set of beliefs and views which are played out in thought and action in many ways. The other just believes there is "something out there," and gives it little other thought. Perhaps these are the "spiritual but not religious" folks who often so classify themselves on dating sites.

I'm sure there are other types and sub-types for both atheist and believer -and probably agnostics, too. I'd be fascinated to know what you and what any other respondent thinks about this. Yahoo is pretty rich with the data when it comes to views on faith, God, etc., and I've been thinking about doing an analysis.

Answer 4

With enough if, maybe, and could, you can prove you can put the planet Earth in a bottle, too.
There's nothing logical in your assumption, and the way you twist an argument to fit another unrelated idea is called sophistry.

Atheists admit that there's plenty of things we do not know yet about the universe, that ignorance doesn't automatically imply the existence of Someone there, only that they don't know. Yet.

As for your so called claim that agnostics are clearly more intelligent than atheists, then if you follow that false logic atheists are clearly more intelligent than believers since the US scores in science are falling down due to overuse of religion beliefs instead of science as this article explains.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html

So if we followed that logic down to its non logical end, Agnostics are the brightest and should be at the top everywhere. Atheists should be middle management. Non educated believers should be at the bottom. Ridiculous, isn't it?

Answer 5

An athiest wouldn't be concerned by the fact that a higher power is unknowable. I don't think that qualifies them as less intelligent. A religious person understands by faith there is a god, just as an atheist would know by "faith" (meaning belief without proof) that there is not one. I suspect the difference between atheist and agnostic is very small. Perhaps a matter of experience. If you polled athiests, you'd probably find at least some that are truly agnostic but don't see much of a difference in the way it's expressed.

Answer 6

I think a lot of people get confused about there being a difference in Agnostics and Atheists.An Atheist just refuses to believe an an Agnostic's just isn't sure. I would say that the Agnostic is smarter because it shows that they think and therefor admit that there is a possibility, of there being a God. I do believe in God. I may not go to church but I do believe.

Answer 7

It's sort of like saying somewhere in the Milky Ways there's a planet made out of cheese. There is not enough evidence against it to convince a true believer, and there's not much evidence for it, either. Would you be a cheese-planet agnostic or an atheist? How much doubt do you need?

You can never prove anything for certain do to humans' limited ability to sense the world. Everything you say you "know for certain" really has a tiny level of doubt.

Answer 8

regular good judgment Fail: there is not any evidence that something does not exist. you may no longer pass by existence below the theory that each little thing purely might exist. in some unspecified time interior the destiny you have have been given to categorize issues into genuine/no longer-genuine. If evidence is on condition that strikes some thing from one class to the different then so be it. to maintain a place inspite of evidence to the different isn't atheism, this is dogmatism. surely, there is not any distinction between between agnosticism and atheism. The atheist does not have self assurance there's a god or gods. prepare me irrefutable evidence of a god and that i will have self assurance there's a god (do exactly no longer question me to worship it).

Answer 9

Being an atheist does not mean that you deny the possibility of there being a god. In fact, most agnostics are also atheists. The only agnostics who are not atheist are those who do believe that a god exists but that you simply can't know the nature of that god. An atheist does not believe that there is a god but typically does not deny the possibility.

Answer 10

I disagree with regards to your last line.

Science deals with understanding the natural phenomenal world we live in based on empirical observations and the scientific method.

Theist believe in a God who interferes with our natural world and performs miracles. This is opposed to Deist.
Atheist therefore dont believe in miracles and reject such a God. This is not to say they reject Spirituality all together. They reject the Theist God.

But perhaps your right, there is no scientific basis to totally rule out God's existence. Since science refuses to even engage with the notion of the supernatural (as it falls outside the scope of science), science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.