QUOTE: "But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."

dhw: A fair summary of the agnostic position, though I don’t know why Rosenbaum would say it “proudly” though the agnostic says it “ever so humbly”. I’ll opt for “humbly”.

QUOTES: "It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.
"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.”

dhw: The author spends most of the time quite rightly analysing the faith of the atheist, but the quotes above make for one gigantic non sequitur. Agnostics, like everyone else, accept countless everyday “facts” based on experience, and yes, we even have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow! That has nothing whatsoever to do with the list of highly specialized questions! There is no faith involved in the statement that we do not know the answers!

QUOTE: “What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain.”

dhw: I can only speak for myself. I do not know the answers. I believe that the only way I will ever know the answers is if God does exist and manifests himself to us – probably in a life after death. If I die before any manifestation, and if there is no life after death, I will never know the answers. I do not say this with pride. I humbly acknowledge that either the theist or the atheist is right, so my lack of faith means that one way or another I am wrong. I have no idea why the author thinks this puts me in the same bracket as theists and atheists with their respective faiths.

QUOTE: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"

dhw: Atheism is not “functional” – it is simply disbelief in God. “Revealed truth” is an extraordinary expression if we bear in mind that belief in God requires faith and has no more objectivity than the atheist’s faith in materialism. But uncertainty does not mean rejection. Rejection is atheism. It is true that the agnostic is unlikely to go to church or mosque or synagogue, and does not “order his life” around religion, but why is this classed as a “benefit”? Is he saying that faith in God is a handicap? I hope he’s not implying that atheists and agnostics are not subject to the same social and humanitarian principles as religious people. But it’s not clear what he’s trying to say here. “Weak tea”? I have no problem at all with people who think they know the answers, so long as their faith (in God or in materialism) does not cause harm to others, but I don’t see a confession of ignorance concerning questions to which there are no known objective answers as being a weakness or a strength. Why does the author want to pass such a judgement?

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is exactly as I expected. Hopefully it will help support other agnostics, or explain your position to others who are interested.

A fair summary of the agnostic position, though I don’t know why Rosenbaum would say it “proudly” though the agnostic says it “ever so humbly”. I’ll opt for “humbly”.

QUOTES: "It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.
"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.”

The author spends most of the time quite rightly analysing the faith of the atheist, but the quotes above make for one gigantic non sequitur. Agnostics, like everyone else, accept countless everyday “facts” based on experience, and yes, we even have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow! That has nothing whatsoever to do with the list of highly specialized questions! There is no faith involved in the statement that we do not know the answers!

QUOTE: “What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain.”

I can only speak for myself. I do not know the answers. I believe that the only way I will ever know the answers is if God does exist and manifests himself to us – probably in a life after death. If I die before any manifestation, and if there is no life after death, I will never know the answers. I do not say this with pride. I humbly acknowledge that either the theist or the atheist is right, so my lack of faith means that one way or another I am wrong. I have no idea why the author thinks this puts me in the same bracket as theists and atheists with their respective faiths.

QUOTE: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"

Atheism is not “functional” – it is simply disbelief in God. “Revealed truth” is an extraordinary expression if we bear in mind that belief in God requires faith and has no more objectivity than the atheist’s faith in materialism. But uncertainty does not mean rejection. Rejection is atheism. It is true that the agnostic is unlikely to go to church or mosque or synagogue, and does not “order his life” around religion, but why is this classed as a “benefit”? Is he saying that faith in God is a handicap? I hope he’s not implying that atheists and agnostics are not subject to the same social and humanitarian principles as religious people. But it’s not clear what he’s trying to say here. “Weak tea”? I have no problem at all with people who think they know the answers, so long as their faith (in God or in materialism) does not cause harm to others, but I don’t see a confession of ignorance concerning questions to which there are no known objective answers as being a weakness or a strength. Why does the author want to pass such a judgement?

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo15/functional-unbelief

"In "An Agnostic Manifesto" published on June 28, 2010, at Slate, Rosenbaum takes great pains to explain that God-deniers, like God-believers, have childlike faith: faith that reality is nothing but the sum-total of the physical world; faith that science is the sole source of knowledge; faith that the materialistic quest will unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, including the ultimate questions about human existence; and faith that their beliefs are not based on faith, but are settled beyond rational argument.

***

"God-deniers dismiss God-believers for their dogmatic claims, yet fail themselves, as Rosenbaum rightly notes, "to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing." Not to mention the impossibility of nothing creating everything!

"But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."

"It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.

"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.

***

"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.

"One such source is intellectual predisposition. This was best expressed by the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who once said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"Note that Lewontin's faith in science as the ultimate source of knowledge is based on his intellectual preference for a particular worldview, not on science's proven explanatory power in answering ultimate questions.

"...astrobiologist Paul Davies believes that a yet-to-be-discovered principle has been woven into the cosmos so as to make the emergence of biological life inevitable. He believes this, not because he has any evidence to substantiate this notion, but because, as he says, he is "more comfortable" with it than with the alternatives, which presumably include a necessary, non-contingent Being.

***

"Despite mathematical relationships that describe the effects of gravity with astounding precision, there is no consensus about the nature of the thing. Is it a distortion of space-time? An attractive force of tiny, mediating, and (as of yet) hypothetical particles (gravitons?) that act like a gigantic rubber band? A mysterious "action-at-a distance" between bodies having mass? All of the above? None? Take your pick. The lack of consensus indicates that we know neither the what nor the why of gravity.

"Without such knowledge, belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is nothing more than belief that the future will be like the past. But if the universe is the fluke product of random collisions, as atheists contend, then that simple belief requires faith of a high order—faith not only in the unwavering regularity of nature but, more fundamentally, faith that our sensory experiences correspond to reality, and that our minds and intellects have the ability to discern the true nature of things.

***

"The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.

***

"...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"

Comment: I await dhw's view.

David writes about God and the nature of the universe, "This may be the only way He could do it and create a universe (dangerous as it is) that would evolve to allow intelligent life".
> The implication that the ultimate objective of God was intelligent life and , presumably, humans seems unlikely. 13.7 billion years since the universe was created, 4.5 billion years since the earth was created and 160 million years of dinosaur dominance just to arrive at a few thousand years of humanity seems like the long way around. I would say that if we are special in the eyes of God, we must be just one of many projects.> - 
I am just catching up with the discussions, sorry to be so far behind. Just throwing some thoughts on what I've read so far. For me, I have yet to personally conceive of a really good "purpose" for creation, but, I do like some theories I've come across thru the years that seem just as possible as anything else I've thought of! First of all, for the purpose for life on Earth to be God's way to evolve intelligent life seems a remote possibility to me. Something about it just doesn't click. Although, the time problem doesn't get in the way of that possibility, because it could easily be, what may seem a billion years to Earth folks (the human mind) may only be a few thousand years, or even a blink to God (or the minds of a higher being/s). That could easily solve why it seemed to take so long to finally bring about a thinking (or better said) questioning human mind. But, other theories seem more probable to me personally. Like: Earth could simply be a created school (for lack of a better word) of sorts for beings to come and gain certain experience's or to grow certain qualities they could not other wise grow in their own environment/dimension (That seems like a great idea!). Or, Earth could simply be a project for more advanced yet imperfect beings (I personally find myself drawn to this one because the evidence (written word/pictures) of higher beings (gods) visiting down thru the ages). The choice's of possibilities, in my opinion, for why we find ourselves here on Earth, are endless, and limited only by allowing our imagination. Why peruse only two choices: Is there, or is there not, a God. Or, is there, or is there not, an afterlife? What about, is there, or is there not, higher life forms that observe us just like we observe lower life forms, making sure we do not become extinct, just like we do not want the wolf to become extinct. Why? Because we feel responsible for them. Maybe there are higher life forms that feel responsible for us...and we just can't really understand that, yet....just like the wolves cannot understand why we would want to help them. Again, the possibilities are endless.


> In reply to David Turell's latest comment. Professor Behe's views have been disowned by his own University:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
> 
> The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University 
> has published an official position statement which says 
> "It is our collective position that intelligent design 
> has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, 
> and should not be regarded as scientific."
> 
> Another well-known creationist, Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds, has also had his views disowned by his institution:
> 
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm
> 
> "As an academic institution, the University wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design which cannot be verified by evidence."
> 
> I have seen Prof. McIntosh speak at one of the creation conferences held in Leicester. He is a passionate speaker, and believes in a literal interpretaion of Genesis. - I am aware of all the Lehigh comments. That does not change the fact that Behe's scientific thinking in his books are valid starting points for considering differing sides of scientific questions regarding Darwin's theory. Unless all opinions are considered, and I've read Kenneth Miller, for example, there is no point in reaching a conclusion. Reading only one side leads to robotic thought, not opinion. Current scientific opinion regarding Darwin is a current consensus, without current proof. Natural Selection may lead to speciation, but there is no current proof. The Altenberg Conference, when published, will give new insights, and I eagerly await it. And one should know to beware of Wikipedia, which may be edited or slanted by almost anyone, although what is quoted about Lehigh is correct. - As I have pointed out before, in the medical community it was accepted gospel that stomach acid caused ulcers until two nutty downunderers wondered about the funny bugs in surgical specimens, grew out H. Pylori, and changed the entire treatment of ulcers, although the acceptance took 20 years! Beware of Kuhn!

But David has made clear in other threads that he is prepared to accept anecdotal evidence (such as of near death experiences), and also to rely upon evidence presented by people like the Discovery Institute who have a clear creationist agenda and are pariahs of the peer-reviewed scientific community. Thus despite his claims, his standards of "objectivity" are not scientifically adequate. - I need to make one further reply to George. I have met and talked with Michael Behe of "Darwin's Black Box" fame or infamy as you view him. He is a full professor of biochemistry at Lehigh U. in Philadelphia, and as such is fully peer-reviewed in his scientific papers. It is his considered scientific opinion that is Darwin is wrong, after judging the evidence he weighed. Scientific knowledge is not a majority wins situation. Read Kuhn.

David agrees with George's definition of abiogenesis ("first appearance of life in a lifeless universe").
> 
.
> 
> If you take abiogenesis to mean simply the origin of life ... whether created or not ... then of course, as George says, it happened. We're here to prove it. The dispute is over whether living organisms can arise spontaneously from non-living substances (a theory crucial to atheism),> 
> Not only is the hypothesis unproven, but according to David, "the odds against spontaneous formation of living organisms wherever it happens are impossibly enormous" (July 23 at 02.44 under Knowledge, belief & agnosticism). - I still think George is correct strictly speaking. Abiogenesis may imply in some atheistic minds spontaneous living cells from non-living inorganic material, occurring by chance. But it also could have been caused by a creative source religions call God. that is what my first entry implied.

How would the discovery of fossils of primitive life on Mars affect this discussion? - My answer is simple: This is a universe whose structural design allows for life to appear on a planet whose attributes are friendly to life. We know those atttributes, described well in two books: "Privileged Planet" and "Rare Earth". If at one time Mars had the right climate, water and temperature there might well have been life there. This upsets the religious conceit that God made only the Earth for his human subjects. The universe, to repeat myself, is designed to allow for life somewhere or anywhere the conditions are right.

But David has made clear in other threads that he is prepared to accept anecdotal evidence (such as of near death experiences), and also to rely upon evidence presented by people like the Discovery Institute who have a clear creationist agenda and are pariahs of the peer-reviewed scientific community. Thus despite his claims, his standards of "objectivity" are not scientifically adequate. - I wish George had reviewed what I have written here in other threads. I have made it quite clear that 12 of my patients described NDE or OOB (out of body)experiences, which piqued my interest. I then read several books and articles on the phenomenon to come to some conclusions. First of all these are not hallucinations. As a physician for many years,I know an hallucination when I hear one. Most of the the NDE folks see and communicate with dead people, not living. The patterns of the stories are all very similar and coherent. Some of the stories from the literature that I quoted in my book have third party corroboration: when the person with the NDE is told that someone has died during the episode and that it is true, and the NDE'r had no way of knowing it beforehand, is corroboration.Further in the Lancet article, introduced by me, by van Lommel (spelling?) it shows that there is a level of consciousness that appears and can work at memory even though the EEG is flat, that is, no cerebral activity. - Further George uses the Discovery Institute in a perjorative way, like Dawkins, the polemicist. I am Jewish, not Christian, and I have carefully reviewed their science. I don't care about their Christian endevours. Their science is of great interest. - Like most atheists I've met George looks at only his side of a question.