Assuage

\uh-SWAYJ\, verb:
1. To make milder or less severe; to reduce the intensity of; to ease; to relieve.
2. To appease; to satisfy.
3. To soothe or calm; to pacify.

~~~~~~~

“In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence. Even if it is less certainly false than propositions which are actually contradicted by evidence (although even that does not amount to a complete certainty), it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've done some checking, and don't ignore new evidence that we come across.”

The discussion in class today had me rolling around a couple of conclusions, some of which I mentioned and some of which I didn’t, but to try and come to a final conclusion I’ll list most of them here.

Firstly, atheism, theism, and many other ‘ism’s are groups that help satisfy social needs regarding personal beliefs. What benefits they offer in unity are matched and sometimes overcome by the penalties they exact in autonomy and the ability to change one’s mind. Thus, ‘ism’s often group together large amounts of people who share a few of the same beliefs, and are otherwise wildly diverse. This is the first problem in discerning why people prefer agnosticism, I think—obviously, it’s an ‘ism’ (so one can be easily identified, or included) but it’s also colloquially a group of people that seem more tolerant because they’re still unsure (in Skeptic language, they have suspended judgment). Thus, by joining a group that avoids beliefs rather than summons it, one might be at least more humble by comfortably accepting the tentative nature of their beliefs.

Now, as we also mentioned, this draws many parallels with skepticism—enough that I would not hesitate to claim they are nearly the same. Skeptics often claim themselves more reasonable and humble than their credulous counterparts, because they reject the dogmatism of belief, often in several places rather than few. As well, just like agnosticism, skepticism is another ‘ism’ that lumps together people under a banner of withheld belief rather than credulity.

Here I argue, however, that ‘withheld belief’, more often that not, in both cases (skepticism and agnosticism) means ‘disbelief’, largely because both have insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about the object of inquiry. Where there is insufficient evidence, particularly in claims of existence, it is almost always (I won’t say always—I’m still working out that one) more rational to disbelieve the object exists.

However, this is not to say I believe in all cases persons undecided (and thus likely labeling themselves agnostic) are atheists. Though on stronger reflection they might incline in the direction of atheism, I don’t believe all people accept the notion that it is always irrational to believe something on insufficient grounds. Many people are drawn by more than evidence to the notion of god, and might be swaying as a matter of sensibly accumulated lacking or contradictory evidence, and other factors (such as emotional security, an inclination to believe the universe has meaning, absolute morality), between believing in a god and not.

I personally do believe that it is unreasonable to believe something with insufficient evidence in most cases, deity included. But I suppose I still believe agnostic is a tenable position for someone struggling between camps. Similarly, I think it likely someone calling themselves agnostic (in the sense that we literally cannot know whether or not god exists) is a skeptic, and should apply their logic appropriately—it is arbitrary to say we cannot know whether or not god exists and not question the external reality and whether or not humans can have any truth at all—as these are questions running parallel to the claim god cannot be known, and should be addressed.

I’ll have more to say on this later, I think.