http://360skeptic.com/2010/07/on-applying-skepticism-consistently/ Asking Questions Without Limits Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:53:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= http://360skeptic.com/2010/07/on-applying-skepticism-consistently/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Andrew Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:46:35 +0000 http://360skeptic.com/2010/07/on-applying-skepticism-consistently/#comment-246 Hmm. Scratch "inserting 'strongly.'" For as I mentioned in the previous post, "The default position [for claims] is 'don’t know.' And it stays 'don’t know' until tests are performed. From there we go to degrees of certainty in our conclusion of 'works' or 'doesn’t.' So the default position on the god question should either be "don't know" (agnostic) if the particular idea of a god has yet to be put to any type of test. Or, if an honest inquiry has been made and generated negative results again and again, the "null" (atheist) conclusion would be warranted. The works/confirmed conclusion (a god exists) would be justified to some degree if any type of reliable evidence had been found/generated. That isn't the case, so the atheist/agnostic positions remain the most rational. I think. Hmm. Scratch “inserting ‘strongly.’” For as I mentioned in the previous post, “The default position [for claims] is ‘don’t know.’ And it stays ‘don’t know’ until tests are performed. From there we go to degrees of certainty in our conclusion of ‘works’ or ‘doesn’t.’
So the default position on the god question should either be “don’t know” (agnostic) if the particular idea of a god has yet to be put to any type of test. Or, if an honest inquiry has been made and generated negative results again and again, the “null” (atheist) conclusion would be warranted.
The works/confirmed conclusion (a god exists) would be justified to some degree if any type of reliable evidence had been found/generated. That isn’t the case, so the atheist/agnostic positions remain the most rational.
I think.

]]>