Epistemology

This is a rant blog that has nothing to do with ponies; feel free to ignore.

So I was reading "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer. Have you ever gotten to a part of a book where the author says something so wrong that you just have to stop reading and rant about it? In a chapter on religion, the author in question identifies himself as a "radical agnostic" and makes the claim that both atheism and, by implication, theism, are untenable positions. Why? Two reasons are given: For atheism in particular, that you "can't prove a negative", and for both, that you can't be certain. The problem is that these are both utter bull.

The notion that you can't prove a negative is folk wisdom with no basis in actual logic. There are various ways to prove negative claims, including by evidence (Abraham Lincoln is not in this room because we have examined the room and have not found him despite the fact that we would have if he were here), by contradiction (Abraham Lincoln is not in this room because there is only one of him and he is buried in Springfield Illinois; he cannot be here as well), or any number of other methods. To find a self-proclaimed "skeptic" mindlessly repeating this bit of nonsense is insulting.

The second reason is even worse. In general, the strong agnostic takes the position that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable. Not unknown as in something not currently known, but actually unknowable, as in something which can never be known. This claim comes from a basic misrepresentation of epistemology. Very nearly to no atheist (nor theist) claims to know for 100% absolute certain whether there is or is not a god. No reasonable person claims to know anything for 100% absolute certainty, because as imperfect humans we can make errors in observation, reason, and judgement. But certainty isn't a binary switch. When I say I know chairs exist, I am not claiming perfect knowledge beyond all possible error... I am only claiming that I am reasonably certain. Quite reasonably certain. The same thing applies to the existence or nonexistence of a god. When I say a god does not exist, I am saying I am quite reasonably certain, not that I am absolutely, perfectly, preternaturally certain as a hard agnostic would falsely insinuate my position to be.

If a strong agnostic such as Michael Shermer were being honest, they would have to apply their absurd standard to everything; is Abraham Lincoln in this room? "Well, I can't know with perfect, epistemic certitude, so I'm agnostic on the presence of Abraham Lincoln in this room." No serious person would take that stance. They don't apply it to everything. They claim that the epistemological rules for the question of "is there a god?" are different from the rules for any and every other question. They need to get off their high horse and stop pretending that hard solipsism applies to this one question and nothing else.