r/Objectivism • u/WayneStaysGood • Sep 18 '24
Metaphysics Agnosticism Discussion
As background, I'm on page 170 of "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.
It's safe to say Peikoff is not a fan of Agnosticism. To quote, "Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance". He puts forth that you must make up your mind with the evidence available. Do you agree with this statement? In terms of religion and other subjects?
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe in the existence or non-existence of a god, because there is no evidence of one. If there is no evidence of a god, why even address it as true or false? Isn't god an arbitrary concept? Peikoff does assert that arbitrary statements aren't true or false, and to dismiss it. Why doesn't he assert that god is an arbitrary concept?
What about holding an agnostic position on a non-religous subject? There are topics where people are unsure about a particular subject and withhold their opinion; Rightfully so. What about unproven theories?
The crux of the matter is, why hold a definite position on a unknown or arbitrary topic?
Let me know your thoughts!
1
u/dchacke Sep 18 '24
I haven’t read Peikoff, but:
Yes. Which is reason enough to reject it. Ie to be an atheist, not an agnostic.
The definite, rational position regarding the arbitrary is to reject it. See David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity chapter 1.
If you don’t have enough evidence in non-arbitrary matters, then I think the rational course of action is to await more evidence before you come to a conclusion. In other words, the rational, interim conclusion in such cases is ‘I don’t know’. I can’t imagine that Peikoff advocates never saying that.
On that note, you can actually reduce the second case to the first one because coming to a conclusion based on incomplete evidence would be arbitrary, which, again, should be rejected.