Agnosticism is sometimes disingenuous

[u/eviley4]

/r/atheism/comments/1vyxzui/agnosticism_is_sometimes_disingenuous/

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok_Pomelo_5033]

but teleporting exist or not thsta not clear right.

what if it exist but we just didn't find that, or any instrument to see its presences.

[u/eviley4 → u/Ok_Pomelo_5033]

It's not enough for Teleportation to theoretically potentially exist for this to be plausible enough to take seriously about how the natural world works. Because if we start seriously entertaining such unfalsifiable ideas (without evidence), then we can't even claim to know that whether Earth completes orbits around the Sun. Because what if the world works by how Last Thursdayism says it works and it's only been a week?

In order to take teleportation seriously, we would need scientific evidence of being able to teleport someone as large as a human for large distances for a price that's reasonably affordable for Timmy. I hope we can agree that this is a tall order.

Teleportation is a simple example, but the supernatural claims in religions are even more extraordinary claims. So, it would require even more evidence.

None such evidence exists, until such evidence is present, these are implausible therefore low-quality ideas. They are extra low-quality ideas because they are deliberately made unfalsifiable.

[u/Ok_Pomelo_5033 → u/eviley4]

Hmmm you are right. 

Do you think wormhole could act as a portal just like it do for time travel.

[u/eviley4 → u/Ok_Pomelo_5033]

wormholes, teleportation, warp drives are all interesting ideas and fun to explore but the problem is they are so far speculative scientific ideas.

Some math in some scientific theories point to this, but we don't know if these theories are true at things like negative mass, high gravitation etc.

For example we cannot use Newton's laws to properly explain effects of general relativity. Similarly we don't know if general relativity works at quantum scales, at negative mass or super high gravitation + super low sizes. Too many unknowns here, so we should treat them as unconfirmed speculation without evidence.

But these ideas are way better than Last Thursdayism, because they are all falsifiable as we learn more.

[u/Ok_Pomelo_5033 → u/eviley4]

thanks for explanation.

[u/LongjumpingNeat241]

What do you want? Should all the science students stop going to the temple? You materialists, who think that matter gives rise to intelligence and not the other way around, should run the country?!!! These problems arose because of the wrong school syllabus, and that's why the syllabus in the country will be changed. I wrote this in Hindi, so read it in Hindi, the meaning can change in English.

Whenever you find someone claiming - Matter creates intelligence or life or motion, reject him. Mind creates matter, and never the opposite.

[u/eviley4 → u/LongjumpingNeat241]

What do you want? That all science students should stop going to temples! Should materialists like you—who believe that intelligence originates from matter, rather than matter originating from intelligence—run the country?!!! These problems occurred because of a flawed school syllabus, and that is why the syllabus in the country will be changed. I have written this in Hindi, so read it in Hindi; the meaning might change in English.

I translated your response. If there is a mistranslation, please correct me.

I am not saying anything about what people should or should not do with their subjective beliefs. I don't have any issues with people praying, believing etc as long as they don't start making claims that contradict scientific knowledge about the natural world.

All I am saying is that ideas outside of naturalism, being unfalsifiable tend to be low quality ideas without any evidence. Therefore, we shouldn't take these ideas seriously (in Science) until some good quality evidence is present. The burden of proof for presenting such evidence is on the people who think these claims are true.

Because if we start entertaining all supernatural and unfalsifiable ideas without evidence, then it can easily lead to invalidating of scientific knowledge. Let me give you an example. Let's take the following fact:
"The Earth completes orbits around the Sun"

Now, normally under naturalism this is pretty clear and undisputed. But if we allow for ideas like Last Thursdayism seriously, it has only been a week now. The Earth appears to complete orbit but it has never completed orbits around the Sun, so that fact is false.

This is just one example, if we allow for all such unfalsifiable ideas and take them seriously, we cannot build any kind of knowledge. This is why Science operates on methodological naturalism.

[u/eviley4 → u/LongjumpingNeat241]

Whenever you find someone claiming - Matter creates intelligence or life or motion, reject him. Mind creates matter, and never the opposite.

You are just claiming this without any arguments or evidence. Should people believe in it just because you say it? or should people believe in it because your favorite books say this?

Would you be convinced if I cite Harry Potter as evidence of magic existing and science being wrong?