Cassowaries Rant

Agnosticism, perhaps

This was originally a post made to Kuro5hin. I have not edited it other than a tiny little bit of reformatting for my site, so you probably want to go to the source for some context.

I think that by the article’s definition, I’m an agnostic (but then, I have no idea of the scale of the universe in multiverse terms—nor if a multiverse exists, except that to me its existence is probably irrelevant—so for all I know we the universe could be the size of a mushroom, and may be exactly that, so the creator was the mushroom’s parent).

I would think that the difference is that if there is a god, I’ve done less to offend him then someone else because I haven’t made a relative assessment on the worth of the god.

Not that that’s my main reason for being an agnostic. To get to that, we have to consider for a moment whether the ends justify the means. To consider an agnostic and an atheist as one in the same, you would (because their lives are much the same). But if we consider the reasons for a position, we see some divergence.

Consider for a moment the question of whether it matters if a god exists. Right now. Obviously I can’t satisfy all gods, and if a god exists, the chances of me worshiping it are zero because of all the possible gods that exist—the god may even have created a religion but may be waiting for us to spontaneously start worshiping them. As such, I might as well do what’s simplest, which is live in a way I deem appropriate and good; it’s simpler to sleep in on Sundays than to go to Mass, and if I was awake, it’d be better because when I go to Mass I get bored, but I can just stay home and entertain myself (which relies on a bordom-is-bad).

So, does it matter right now if a god exists?

Well, if a god exists, then the universe is as it is, and all is well in the world. I might be offending it, but it might judge my desire to live well good enough, or it might not give a damn about me and just require the worship of a dozen people to satisfy it. I certainly can’t prove the existence of this god. I can’t even say if it’s likely. Another form of life on a planet some distance away might be having a revolution right now.

On the other hand, if a god doesn’t exist, then the universe is as it is, and all is well in the world. No god exists: when I die, all that will happen is that a bunch of chemical and electrical process will stop or change; some other freaks of nature will (hopefully) suffer simple bereavement; my body will be buried and degrade or burnt. There’s no way in hell I could disprove the existence of a god. Another form of life on a planet some distance away might not exist.

So how does it matter which is right? Seeing as the definition of a god does not necessarily allow for the proof of its existence, or for it to exist in the same way that anything we know of to exist, there’s no way that I can see that I can say ’this god exists’ or ’it is unlikely that any god exists’ or ’no god exists’. If the definition of something expressly states that we cannot use any method known or unknown to determine it’s existence, how can I say whether or not it exists?

I hope this helps in your comprehension of agnosticism. Personally, I don’t see how one can use Occam’s razor to say god’s unlikely when so many believers say that god is outside our realm and hence nothing we know can work on god.