All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 6, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
30:41
1201 Agnosticism Examined
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
How are you doing? I hope that you're doing very well.
This is going to be a lightly lengthy presentation, but one that I think is absolutely essential to go through, because agnosticism is one of these Thoughts or perspectives or, quote, philosophies that weaves its way through the human discourse, and I consider it to be not a very respectable position, and I'm hopefully going to make the case as to why.
So this is Agnosticism Examined, the incomprehensible halo.
Well, of course, we start with the tasty definitions.
Agnosticism. A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable.
Broadly, one who is not committed to believing.
In either the existence or the non-existence of God, capital, or a God, not so much with the caps.
A person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something, political agnostics, and so on.
We're going to focus on the God thing, because that's where it almost always seems to land.
Definition of God. Also helpful and important.
A being conceived as the perfect omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religion, because it's singular, not plural, that would be saints.
The force, effect or a manifestation or aspect of this being, a being of supernatural attributes or powers believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity, thought to control some part of nature or reality.
So this, of course, is what's not being believed in.
What is the agnostic argument, particularly with regards to God?
This is from Orki.
The philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims, particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, the afterlife, or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.
It's a kind of fog.
So, what is the basic agnostic argument in pictures?
Well, we have somebody, we have human beings, we have them in the universe.
Sorry for the audio.
Watch the video. So if human beings in the universe, and most agnostics I've ever talked to, will accept that science and logic and mathematics and empiricists are all valid within this universe, the universe that we know, the one that's, I don't know, tens of billions of light years across.
Ah, but in the agnostic view of things, there's this spooky other ethereal world, the world of static, the world beyond the world, the universe beyond the universe, to infinity, and beyond.
And in this realm, you see lots of things might exist, might not exist, could be, could not be, no way to know, no way to tell.
But what are they?
Well, of course we have, um, Gods might exist out here in the ether or the whatever.
Ghosts could also have existence.
We might see square circles blowing our mind completely.
We might have devils of a certain kind.
Two plus two might equal green out here beyond the universe.
There are elves with toys, but really, of course, it all comes down to the big fella, the guy with thunderbolts and a beard.
God himself. Nobody ever says this about Santa Claus.
I've never heard that argument, though it would be less unlikely for Santa Claus to exist.
So what do all these things have in common?
Square circle, 2 plus 2 equals green, self-contradictory entities, up is down, black is white.
Well, they're all error.
It's all error. It's all colossal here, universal fail.
2 plus 2 is 5.
Gods can exist. It's all synonymous with error, right?
And this is very, very important.
Within the universe, within the universe that's tangible that I speak to you from, these things cannot exist.
They're self-contradictory entities.
I've got a video called Proofs for God, which goes into this in more detail.
But what all of these have in common is epic fail, is error.
And that's really kind of important as we go forward.
So, self-contradictory entities.
So, square circles, Santa Clauses, who can fly to all of the children's houses in one night, all of these sorts of things.
Square circles, 2 plus 2 is green, or 5, or me.
What do they all have in common?
Well, These self-contradictory entities, they're either going to be part of reality, in other words, they have mass, energy, or some effect thereof that can be objectively detected according to the scientific method, Or they're not part of reality.
There is no mass, no energy, no effects of energy, no way of detecting them, which is exactly the same as non-existence.
That's what we define non-existence as.
As impossible to detect, has no matter, no energy, or no effects thereof, can never be detected, and that's what's called a doorway rather than a door.
So let's look at the universe and then this other realm of fantasy.
And we have our blue six-armed god out here.
Again, less self-contradictory than the Christian god.
But let's just say he's out there.
So he's either out there in this, quote, other universe and can never be detected, can never, ever be measured, will never, ever show up in our world or our universe or through science in any way, shape, or form.
Or he will.
So his knee is touching the universe.
Oh, we can measure his knee and maybe his fingers.
Oh, no, we can't.
So it's one of these two options.
He's either going to show up in this universe at some point, somehow, through some measurement, through some proof, or he's not.
So this is really important.
Either it's never going to happen, in which case it's exactly the same as non-existence, or he's going to show up in the universe, in which case, well, we'll see.
So, gods do not exist.
Well, in agnosticism, any statement of certainty is considered irrational or premature because truth could equal error.
2 plus 2 is 4. You can't really say for sure because in another universe it might equal spam.
So you can never say anything that is, quote, true because truth might be the same as error.
A might be the opposite of A. Well, but see, this is why you know that agnostics are amateurs, right?
I hope not fools, because most of them are very intelligent.
But this is how you know that agnostics are amateurs.
Nothing is certain is one of the oldest problems that philosophy has solved.
This is not a mystery.
When you say nothing is certain, well, it's the statement that nothing is certain, certain.
If the statement is, Certain that nothing is certain, then you can't say nothing is certain.
You've just contradicted you. I'm certain that nothing is certain, right?
This is the UPB argument.
So it's a logical contradiction.
It's an invalid statement.
Now, agnostics high debate would say, ah, but you see, this is a failure of logic.
It's like, nope, just a failure of what you're saying.
It's not logic that's failing.
If you say 2 plus 2 is 5, it's not math that is failing.
It is you. So you can't say that nothing is certain.
I mean, you can say it, but it's nonsense.
This is the fundamental problem with agnosticism.
So you can't say, well, you can't state a truth because error might equal truth.
Falsehood might equal truth.
But you can't say that because it's a truth statement that contradicts itself.
Agnosticism is like this beautiful, glistening Kenyan runner.
Who trips over his laces and face plants the moment that he bursts out of the starting block, right?
I mean, there's nothing as certain as crap, right?
It just doesn't work even remotely philosophically.
It doesn't work even remotely as far as a truth statement goes.
And you try getting an agnostic to admit this basic fact.
Oh, what a trip and what a ride you will be in for.
See, agnosticism is not a philosophy.
It's like nihilism. It's like determinism.
It's a rejection. It's just a rejection.
It's a complete negation.
It's a rejection of reality and truth.
It is a rejection of rational and empirical standards.
And it is fundamentally cannot be comprehended.
Because it's all it is is a negation.
2 plus 2 is 4. Maybe not.
Gods don't exist. Maybe not.
That's all it is. It doesn't mean anything.
And we'll get into more of that.
Everything equals static, right?
So in the agnostic conception of the universe, we have the universe that we know and then maybe out there somewhere in some bong-laced quantum planet, there is this other universe which is all static.
We can't say anything about it.
There's no evidence for it. We don't know anything about it.
So if you're going to go the agnostic route, everything becomes this static because you're comparing this universe to static.
So we got this thing called truth, which of course is the purpose of philosophy, is to determine truth.
And through truth, reason equals virtue equals happiness.
Reason discovers the truth.
The truth allows us to be virtuous and consistent in our behavior, which equals happiness, and that is really the goal.
But you see, if you're going to compare that which is said in this universe to the static of some unknown universe, everything becomes static.
The universe, all the truth statements that you make in this universe, simply cease to be.
Because you're comparing everything to an incomprehensible static.
So if you say, well, we can't make any truth statements because of this static outside the universe, you can't even say that because you're making a truth statement within this universe which is compared to the static outside.
So agnosticism takes reality, takes truth, and dissolves it into this static.
The moment you compare anything to this static, everything becomes static.
Everything becomes meaningless.
Everybody wants to make a truth statement and then accept their own truth statement.
So, nothing is certain.
Well, that applies to...
If you're going to say nothing, then it's a universal statement.
It applies to the statement that you're making.
So if you're going to reject everything and say there's no such thing as truth because of the static outside the universe, then even that statement is subject to its own claims and dissolves into that static.
So I know this is tough, but hang on, it's so important.
So what is in static?
Here's where we're going to start to get to the strong atheist claim that gods cannot exist and how this is logically proven.
So, what is in this static?
We have a window, my friends, to the outside of the universe, and there's all this static.
What's in it? Do we see gods?
Let's have a look. I can't see a god in there.
Oh, I can see. No, that's just my reflection off the computer screen.
Can you see any ghosts in there?
No, I can't see any ghosts.
What about unicorns?
No. No, no unicorns.
Elves. Legolas?
No, no. Leprechauns.
Ooh, I'm hungry. No.
Santa! No, no Santa.
Right, so nothing's in static. What is in static?
The only thing that's in static is, of course, Static.
Can't say anything. You can't define any characteristics of static other than to say it's static.
I know this sounds weird. Let's, you know, just keep, bear with me, my friends.
I worked hard on this and I think it's got some real utility.
So the moment you say that you see something in static, it is no longer static, right?
It's not static anymore. You can't, we can't, no one can say Anything about any possible universe outside or opposite to this universe.
We can't say anything about it.
You cannot put a face into static.
The moment that you see a face coming out of the static, then it's no longer static.
So you can't define anything about this other universe.
You can't even speak in terms of existence and non-existence because those are concepts from this universe.
So if we say, well, elves can't exist, or if we say square circles can't exist, and we say, well, maybe they exist in another universe, but you can't use the word existence for this other universe, because that's from this universe!
And even existence versus non-existence is subject to this static comparison, which dissolves truth.
When these concepts are derived from our universe.
I mean, if I say, speak the opposite of language, go!
What are you gonna say? You're just gonna look at me like, dude, just a little more lithium might help out with that.
You can't, because the moment you speak, you're using language, so it's not the opposite of language.
Speak the opposite of language is exactly the foundational premise of agnosticism.
So, unknowable, let's have a look at this.
If we say X something.
X is completely unknowable.
We can say nothing about it.
We can't use language to describe it.
We can't even negate it.
We simply can't say anything about it.
And then I say, so I say, X is completely unknowable.
Oh, and by the way, do you know that it's green and furry and omniscient and all-knowing, all-powerful, it's short, it's magical, it's mundane, it doesn't like to get up for work on Mondays, it's really addicted to YouTube, and it has an itch on its nose that it's not going to scratch because it's doing a video.
If I say that, Then I contradict myself.
If I say X is completely unknowable, but it has these specific characteristics, or doesn't, then I'm saying it's not unknowable.
I can't say X is completely unknowable and green and furry, because then I'm saying it's unknowable, but I know that it's green and furry, or not green and furry.
Language has no applicability in this other universe.
Language is derived from this universe.
We cannot put a face in static and still call it static.
Then it becomes, I don't know, a pointillism portrait.
Now, gods, or anything that you talk about as maybe existing in this other universe, gods have specific characteristics.
They're not X. So, let's go back to our definition.
God has properties. A being is conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.
The false effect or manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes believed and worshipped by a people, especially a male deity, thought to control some part or nature or a part of nature or reality, right?
So, God has specific properties.
It's not static.
It's not the opposite of language.
It's not the opposite of truth, but not error, right?
I mean, gods have specific properties.
They're not a synonym for the unknown, right?
They're not a synonym for I don't know, right?
I mean, if I'm lost and my wife turns to me and says, are you sure you know where you're going?
Do you know where you're going?
If I don't know, I don't turn to her and say, God.
Because we already have the word unknown, right?
So, God has specific qualities.
Now, once you're going to ascribe specific qualities to something that's out there in the static, we can say that gods do not exist because gods have specific characteristics.
Once you have specific characteristics, you have proof or disproof.
So, I know nothing about X versus X is green.
Once I say X is green, then we can shoot a spectrometer at it and see what the wavelength is coming off and see if it's green.
I'm going to ask you how you know.
So the moment you start ascribing specific qualities to the big static fog out there, you bring yourself, my friend, into the realm of proof.
The moment I say X is green, I am claiming knowledge about X. The moment I say, gods might exist in the static outside the universe, I'm claiming knowledge of specific characteristics of the utterly unknowable, which is a contradiction.
It is a false statement to say gods might exist in the static outside the universe.
It's saying there is a static outside the universe that might look like Dom DeLuise.
Well, if it looks like Dom DeLuise, it's not static anymore.
So, proof versus incomprehensibility.
So the agnostic statement, X might exist outside this universe.
Well, let's look at this language.
Might, in this context, is a description of probability.
And probability, of course, is derived from this.
You can't take words from this universe and put them out there.
You can't put a face in the static.
What about exist? Well, that's empirical evidence.
That's measurability, reproducibility, the scientific method.
Well, that's derived from this universe.
So you can't use the word exist with regards to this other universe.
While you say this universe, well, you're comparing it to something else.
So you're using this universe as a comparative.
Can't do that either. So outside this universe, or beyond this universe, or, I don't know, within, between, and among this universe, taking the quantum tunnels through time, Well, outside this universe is simply a negation of this universe which is derived from this universe.
You can't use that word to describe outside the universe either.
You can't use words from this universe to describe the opposite of this universe.
That's like saying use language to describe the opposite of language.
You can't!
So basically when an agnostic says anything, what they're saying is a string of X's.
X 3 - True or False.
It's nonsense.
And you can't even use the word true or false because that's derived from the comparator of concepts to things in this universe.
If I say it's a red room that I'm in, that's a true or false statement that's about this universe.
You can't say true or false about anything to do with this other universe.
It's pure static. It's putting a face in static.
It's taking things from this universe and applying them to its opposite.
This doesn't work. Knowable versus unknowable.
Right. So as we saw with our six-armed blue bouncy Godfellow, either this other universe will have an effect on this universe or it won't.
There's only the only two possibilities.
If it has an effect on this universe, it can be empirically measured and examined scientifically.
Contradictions will not be possible since you don't get contradictions in this universe and no square circles in this universe.
Thus, gods cannot exist.
Gods are square circles.
They are contradictory concepts, right?
Consciousness without any form of material form, right?
So, consciousness is an effect of the mind.
Sorry, the mind is an effect of the brain in the same way that gravity is an effect of matter.
Saying that consciousness can exist without the brain is like saying that we can have gravity without matter whatsoever, and we can have the effect called gravity, which is an effect of matter without any matter.
Not possible. Now, if this other universe, quote, other universe, never has an effect on this universe, it is functionally identical to non-existence, right?
It is functionally identical to non-existence.
Then the invisible friend thing. Oh, I have an invisible friend.
Can I see him? No.
Can I touch him? No. Can I measure his heat?
No. Can I smell him?
No. Can I taste him? No.
Well, that's functionally the same.
It's exactly, absolutely synonymous to non-existence.
Thus, gods do not exist.
It's only two possibilities.
Agnostic contradictions.
So agnosticism follows the same pattern, more like a skid mark, as nihilism and determinism.
If any and all positive knowledge statements are invalid, agnostics cannot say that strong atheists are wrong.
So if I say gods do not exist, And you say all positive knowledge statements are invalid, you can't contradict me because that would be making a positive knowledge statement.
Steph, you are incorrect about God's existence relative to what?
Static? No, you can't make anything relative to static.
Right, so if I say Gods don't exist and you think I'm wrong, then you're not an agnostic because you're saying that truth statements can be rejected empirically, which is another way of saying that there are positive perpetual universal truth statements.
It no work ye, my friends.
Of course, this is a null comparison comparing this to the universe.
It's like saying, does a tree equal x?
Well, that's not even a question you can answer.
It's not even a real question.
There's no way to know. So, it's not anything.
It's just, you know... So, about this other universe.
You can't use language to define it except as a negative.
And even that is really sketchy.
If you say, well, it's just not this universe.
I'm still using this universe to define something else.
I'm putting a face in the static.
You can't apply logic to it except as a negative where you say, well, square circles and impossibilities, A equals non-A, might exist in this other universe.
So basically you're just saying it might be the opposite of logic, but even might is a probability term.
So again, you just, you can't use anything about it.
You can't talk about it. You can't make anything about it.
You cannot make any certain truth statements about this other universe or anything in this universe, right?
The moment that you say this other universe is where error might equal truth and therefore we can't say anything true in this universe, you can't make any statements.
Even that one might equal fail or error in this other universe.
All you can do is stare, you know, and frankly quite stupidly.
Truth and certainty both become impossible, thus no arguments can ever be made about truth and falsehood.
It is an assault upon the mind.
It is a destruction of our cognitive and rational capacities, agnosticism.
So let's look. The agnostic proposition, square circles might exist in this other universe, man!
Well, let's have a look.
It's invalid. It's completely invalid.
If we never have any evidence of this other universe or square circles within it, then it's completely equivalent to non-existence.
If we do have evidence, then square circles will somehow come into this universe where they can't exist, so they can never be.
Probability, existence, other universe, truth, they're all derived from this universe and you can't put a face in the static.
All you can say is xxxxxxxx, yes or no, right?
Which is, you know, nothing.
So, what about gods might exist in this other universe?
Well, as we said before, it's invalid, because you can't ascribe characteristics that are specific to a complete unknown.
You can't say X is completely unknowable and green.
You can't have uncorporeal mind, you can't have supreme ruler, you can't have consciousness, you can't have anything that's putting a face in the static.
You can't compare truth statements to a complete unknown.
There is no such thing as truth if everything in this universe is compared to its opposite, which is error and invalidity.
There's no truth statements that can be made, so you can't deny the statement that gods might exist in this universe.
If you believe, as agnostics do fundamentally according to their principles, that truth is impossible, you can't correct it.
Anyone. If I say there's no such thing as truth, and someone says gods exist or don't exist, I can't correct them because there's no such thing as truth.
Everything's opinion. And, of course, most fundamentally, there is zero evidence for this other universe.
And the moment that that evidence comes into existence, it's no longer another universe, but it's detectable as part of this one, and thus will follow non-contradiction and identity and all the other laws of reality, logic, and science.
Now, I just wanted to end up with this thing.
Oh, if I had a dime for every time strong atheists were called arrogant.
Oh my god, how many times have you heard this?
You say, gods do not exist, and it's like, oh yeah?
Well, people once knew that the world was flat, man.
People never would have thought that we could have talked to each other over wires from one continent.
Who are you to say what we're going to know or not know in the future?
It's totally arrogant to say it.
Anyway, we know all of this, right?
But that is not the atheist position.
It's not even close to the atheist position.
It's not even a bad parody of the atheist position.
The atheist position, and frankly it was atheists who actually figured out that the world was round, or at least those who weren't strong religious people.
So This idea that we are fixing our knowledge and denying future knowledge in the way that primitive people did in the past is complete nonsense.
The atheist position is not that the world is flat or the world is round.
The atheist position is that the world cannot be both flat and round at the same time.
That's all we're saying. All we're saying is that, hey, I don't know if gases expand or contract when heated, we'd say in the Middle Ages, but I know that they will not both expand and contract when heated.
All the atheist position is saying that, hey, I don't know what's going to be valid knowledge in the future, but I sure know it's not going to be a square circle equals a unicorn.
I know that, for sure, because otherwise we don't have any knowledge that works.
So existence cannot be simultaneous with non-existence, right?
So that's how we know that gods don't exist.
Consistency. Agnostics quote, correct atheists, because they say that the proposition gods do not exist is inconsistent with the other universe possibility.
Sorry about the phone. In other words, consistency is valued over inconsistencies.
So the agnostics say to the atheists, well, you should be consistent with the other universe hypothesis, and therefore you should not say that gods do not exist.
But consistency and truth are properties of this universe, not another universe.
They can't be used to attack consistency and truth with reference to this other universe.
You can't take stuff from this universe and then use it to attack this universe by reference to its opposite.
You just can't. That's putting a face in the static, which is completely invalid.
Now, let's end up with the practicality of agnosticism.
Look, I mean, come on, friends.
Philosophies which can never be used.
It's not philosophy. It's nonsense.
I mean, you might...
Create a huge science of nutrition about fantasy food, you know?
Will Pegasus burgers cause you to put on weight?
And working it all out?
It's all nonsense, right?
It's all nonsense.
You're just making stuff up.
You can't use it. So the way it works is that agnostics will say, 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Gods might exist. Which is a false statement.
The atheist says, no, no, no, no.
2 plus 2 is 4. Gods cannot exist.
The agnostic says, oh, yeah, well, that only proves the limits of logic and math.
And besides, 2 plus 2 might equal 5 in another universe.
Yeah, right. Ah, swearing.
Go on, try that on your next math test or your visa payment.
Just give it a shot. Say, when you have this math test, say this to your teacher and say, oh, well, you know, but teacher, I might be right in another universe, so you should give me a mark.
It's like, yeah, okay. I'll give you a mark in another universe, but you get total fail in this one.
So that's an important thing to look at as well.
Agnostic integrity, a.k.a.
utter impossibility.
So if you're an agnostic, go to some conference and say, some science, physics conference, and say, you know, I just have a comment to make here from the idiot back corner.
You know, we can't really know anything about gravity because, you know, perhaps gravity is the opposite of gravity.
Fortune cookie bullshit.
Go to some oncology conference and say, you know, we should take no steps to cure cancer because perhaps cancer is health.
Yeah, you know, just see what kind of reaction you get.
Or at a funeral say, "No, no, no, no, stop the ceremony because in another universe he could be alive!" Agnosticism is just an insult on the mind.
It seems smart, but it's completely retarded.
Because you're trying to put a face in the static, you're trying to compare things to stuff which has never been proven.
It's just a shell game. It's a con game.
It's a way of making people who are susceptible, and I understand why people are susceptible.
As you can see, the argument against it is not the simplest thing in the world.
It just seems smart. It just seems intelligent.
It just seems reasonable. But all it is is a direct assault upon truth, upon falsehood, upon knowledge, upon any of these kinds of things.
It's a con game. So don't fall for it.
Don't fall for it, please. You know, fundamentally, if you're not willing to live your values, just shut up about them.
If you're not willing to live your values, then don't talk about them, right?
You can't make truth statements if you've got this static comparison.
You can't do any of these kinds of things.
Just don't talk about values that you can't live.
It's so revolting to a philosopher who actually sees this stuff in action.
Oh, nothing is true, man. Is that true?
Well, this is where logic breaks down.
No, this is just where your argument fails.
Thank you so much. I appreciate this.
I know it was a long chat.
I really do appreciate it.
For more, you can do the search at Freedomain Radio.
We have a freedomainradio.com forward slash search.
You can just type in agnosticism.
I've got a bunch more podcasts on this issue if you want to know more about it.
This really is a vile thing that we need to sort out, and I hope that you will take time to do so.
▲
Export Selection