Here's my take on it.
Agnosticism is illogical and refutes itself. Agnosticism and agnostics characterize God as unknowable, ineffable, incomprehensible to all attempts to understand him. This doctrine is self-refuting. The agnostic is making a knowledge claim about what he/she claims is unknowable. How do agnostics know that God is unknowable if he is unknowable ? How do they even know that God's existence cannot be disproved if God is unknowable, or that God even exists if he is unknowable ? To claim any attribute for God is knowledge and claims to know this unknowable God possesses certain attributes. That's a logical contradiction, and any being containing two incompatible attributes cannot possibly exist. So one need not resort to agnosticism. He/she would be justified in not believing in that God if the concept of it contradicts itself in any way. One is justified in accepting and adopting the atheist position.
In my opinion, based on the reading, research, and understanding (perhaps my position is wrong after all) of everything I've studied about the different branches of physics and cosmology is that science has sufficiently advanced to safely (with the condition that the science could be empirically disproved by further observation and testing) rule out the existence of any god or God. From what I know to understand I feel fine strongly having no god beliefs to the point of personal satisfaction and certainty for myself.
The word God must have a definite meaning before we can assert the possibilty of the existence of (a) God. If one does not define exactly what they mean by their idea of God then it just remains a blank. If they assert God has any qualities or capacities that are self-contradictory, that conception of God is ruled out by the law of non-contradiction. Everything about a God must be scientifically compatible with all other existing human knowledge, understandable by human reason, and possess no logically contradictory attributes or personality characteristics. Some physicists and cosmologists go so far as to say that if a God of any kind exists it should be empirically detectable. My position is that agnosticism is untenable in light of these things, not impossible, just untenable, in my opinion.
I've read and researched Dawkins, Stenger, Harris, Hitchens, Krauss, and others, and it is my strong position that there is no God. Like I said, new evidence may come to light that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that some kind of being exists outside of spacetime. Physicists and cosmologists who are atheists would not stubbornly hold onto their nonbelief if a God can be scientifically and empirically proven to exist and be the necessary cause of the universe. Strong theists, however, will not relinquish their faith for any reason or any amount of empirical evidence or logical argument. I posted a link in the past to an article from Psychology Today that said that a negative can, indeed be proven, and that the idea that a negative cannot be proven is based in folk logic, and not the kind of logic that expert professional logicians use. Here is a link to another site explaining how you can prove a negative.
my belief,(not faith, which is "trust in things not seen or proven and without evidence) is in things that are evident and have proofs and are repeatable and, if new evidence comes along I am allowed to change my view based on the new verifiable evidence. Some others believe in "faith" that offers no such thing. It demands an adherence to dogma regardless of the evidence and proofs. I will stay with reality, not the dangerous role play game that others have chosen to engage in. Agnostics seem to think, according to your description that the "metaphysical" might actually be a reality. sorry, I dont think so myself. I am a pure "anti-metaphysics" kind of person. So as I see it, agnosticism is just a fancy "pascals wager" and equally , realistically and philosophically useless.
you either live in reality or you believe, even passively in metaphysics.
you either live in reality, or you dont.
to believe in metaphysics, you might as well be living in a fuckn monastery, or washington D.C.
booth equally out of touch with reality.
One of the core beliefs of religion is that the physical world isn't all that there is.
I don't see how anyone can be positive that this is false.
It might be actually wrong, in the sense of parallel universes, etc. Even dark matter is a kind of reality that' outside our usual physical world in the sense that it interacts only gravitationally. It becomes a matter of definition - what is meant by the "physical world" vs. metaphysical.
Even the idea of some kind of overarching consciousness that has power over the world, is a possibility. If you are positive this is wrong, like any other idea I would say prove it!
Since there is already a good psychological explanation that someone would think such a thing, that is my explanation for the human God-perception, and it would take a lot to persuade me otherwise.
If there is an unseen world that never impinges on the seen world in any way, then its existence or non-existence is of no interest or concern to us—we are perfectly justified in ignoring the idea altogether. That we cannot disprove its existence doesn't matter.
true, the question then becomes whether it impinges on our world in a scientifically measurable way or not. The methods of science aren't good at detecting something that is sporadic or actively avoids rigorous detection.
I keep wondering in these kinds of discussions, what one means by existence of something, if the existence wouldn't have different effects from non-existence.
There certainly is a metaphysical reality - mathematics.
From Goedel's theorem, perhaps we can deduce the existence of something mysterious. If humans are Turing machines, then there are truths that we can't prove. If we aren't Turing machines, then humans have mystery.
The guarantee of true, but unprovable statements in certain kinds of axiomatic systems does not provide a guarantee that those statements are interesting or valuable. Gödel's constructions depend on a trick of self-reference. In any logical system self-reference seems to be the easiest, if not the only path to paradox.
If it proves true that there are parallel universes, and if cosmology and physics finally determine the nature of dark energy and dark matter, these phenomena will be completely unguided natural things, and not supernatural or paranormal manifestations of a supernatural intelligence. Two main candidates for the cause of the universe from nothing without God are the nothingness of empty space, through which quantum effects turn nothing into something. The other candidate is actual and literal nothingness void of even space itself, which can cause through quantum effects the appearance of space from out of literally nothing. Neither theory is 100 % certain, but neither theory violates any of our observations of the way nature works that we have formulated into the laws of physics.
Insisting that the existence of God cannot be disproved is the last refuge of the theist. Atheists and agnostics don't disbelieve because they have absolute proofs, but because their understanding of how the world works has advanced beyond the need for supernatural explanations—they simply no longer give them the credence they enjoyed throughout much of history.
Religious beliefs never die, but like MacArthur's old soldiers, just fade away.
Not at all. Agnosticism is not the withholding of judgment in all cases where absolute and definitive evidence is lacking, it is rather withholding the claim of knowledge where it is not warranted and apportioning the degree of belief to the amount of evidence.
Conjectures are often a useful tool in science, outlining fruitful paths for research, but even with conjectures, a degree of plausibility is required so that time and effort are not wasted.
.but no scientist puts the conjecture out there as something that must then be disproved.
Nor does he claim he knows it to be true. It is honestly labeled a conjecture and remains so until evidence supports it or shows it false. (Unfortunately popular articles on science gain popularity through speculations that tickle the fancy of readers, who are often ill equipped to distinguish them from established science.)
The fundamentalist with little or no objective evidence makes assertions designed to be irrefutable and challenges the unbeliever to show he is wrong, which does nothing to establish the truth of his claims.
I think agnostics simply want to hedge their bets...have it both ways, just in case. I once was there no matter how illogical the position is.
That's an old and familiar criticism of agnosticism based on a misunderstanding of what it is.