Agnosticism (Part Two) - Doubt

Busker Philosophical Shorts

René Descartes - mathematician and Philosopher - died 1650

Judging by some of the comments I have received (for which I am very grateful) I think I should clarify some things. Foremost, I am not using these pages to outline my own philosophy: I don’t have one. Neither am I trying to provide ‘rules for life’ (Jordan Peterson style). Rather, I am introducing people to a philosophical method which has been employed by philosophers and others for millennia. This may provide a way of looking at the world that some may find useful.

One could call this the method of doubt or doubting and it goes back to Ancient Greece even before Socrates when Protagoras became the first sceptic. Both scepticism and Socratic agnosticism are associated with the method of doubt, which, in the case of Descartes in the 17th century, is made explicit. Doubt everything, Descartes said, until you apprehend something you are unable to doubt. In Descartes’ case this was assumed to be the fact that he was thinking and therefore must exist in some sense: I think therefore I am. This formed the basis for Descartes’ epistemology (theory of knowledge).¹

In this chapter I am operating within this tradition by attempting to highlight the fact that knowledge is less certain than we appreciate: nothing more. Given this uncertainty, the appropriate philosophical response should be to doubt, to be sceptical and to be agnostic (though not necessarily in a religious sense). It may be helpful for people to read my Preface to Philosophising in a Phoney World - which I published here on 11th September 2023. If people reading this series of articles come to realise that knowledge is much less certain than they had originally thought, then I will be pleased. If people gain a better appreciation of those things that inhibit us in our search for knowledge, then I will be pleased.

I have found that there are benefits to be gained from taking this approach to examining our reality (as I will explain) but I cannot be sure if it will benefit everyone. I can live with uncertainty but not everyone can.

Last time, I tried to explain some of the principles involved in agnosticism but today I will attempt to show how I have tried to put these principles into practice following my birth as a sceptic and a re-examination of my belief systems.

In December 2018, I watched George’s Galloway’s interview of Astrophysicist and Climatologist, Piers Corbyn (Jeremy’s brother) who is a ‘climate sceptic’. I had always accepted the theory of global warming and even sang/wrote songs about it but I had never researched it and had never questioned it. As a Green Lefty it would have been disloyal to have done so. For various reasons this Corbyn interview prompted me to examine the theory and I found it wanting.

In this connection, I devoted many hundreds of hours of research which have led me to conclude that the earth is much more likely to be cooling than warming. I am strongly convinced that global warming and the assumed detrimental effects of carbon dioxide are false claims. In this case, I can point to certain scientific facts regarding the behaviour of carbon dioxide or the failure of predictive computer models based on the global warming theory. It was many weeks before I finally lost faith in the warming theory. It took so long because I had made a large emotional ‘investment’ in the theory and realised that if I rejected it, I would also need to reject the Labour Party and the left.

Nevertheless, I still hold an agnostic position in relation to the theory. It would be tempting to make a truth claim here – especially since it is obvious that much evidence in support of the global warming thesis is being misrepresented or even fabricated and that this is being done for political and ideological reasons.² However, I do accept that it is possible that the earth is warming, even if the evidence does not indicate this to me. I have to be consistent and not let my emotions lure me into falsity. So – with regard to the global warming theory, I must maintain an agnosticism accompanied by a very strong and justified scepticism.

If we experience a Grand Solar Minimum³ and a mini-ice age at the end of the current solar cycle, I will claim to know that the global warming thesis is false - but not until then.

Once I had broken the ice, as it were, and severed my connections with the Labour Party and the rest of the left, I engaged in an orgy of research in which I began to question much of what the establishment had told me was true and much of what it labeled as false. I realised that my loyalty to the left had impeded my thinking in that I had not explored many truth claims that I ought to have questioned (such as global warming). Now, I began to entertain truth claims that were positively taboo on the left - such as the possibility that Donald J is not a fascist. Some of this involved the investigation of so called ‘conspiracy theories’ which did not always involve a conspiracy but were backed up by observations in the same way that all credible theories are. Following these investigations, I have found that some of the things I believed to be true were false and that some of the things I thought to be false turned out to be true. In many, if not most, cases examined, I cannot really know whether the claims made are true or not.

I think I can best illustrate the agnostic thinking involved in these examinations with reference to the moon landings, which must count as one of the most disputed episodes discussed by conspiracy theorists. I am not going to provide an in depth analysis regarding the truth or falsity of claims that American astronauts landed on the moon: that is not the purpose of this work. I am seeking to examine the issues involved in our claiming to know things rather than seeking to establish the truth or falsity of those things we claim to know. As I said last time, people have a tendency to make unjustified claims to knowledge and this chapter is devoted to discouraging this. People also fail to explore some theories because they have been labelled conspiracies and I wish to encourage them to ignore this label.

It is important to state that Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts were in the best position to judge whether or not they landed on the moon; they can have knowledge of this in a manner that is impossible for us. In the same way, I can speak with greater erudition about the fact that it is raining if I am underneath a cloud burst than someone predicting this in the weather studio of a TV station. I know that it is raining; they can’t claim to know.

Others, who were involved in the technicalities of getting the astronauts to the moon or televising the event would also have had a strong claim to knowledge of the landings and people watching on television would have had a claim, but a weaker claim than these.

Of course, some claim it is possible that the landings were staged – so all but the astronauts themselves (and some others) could have been duped into believing that the staged landings were real. It is also possible that the astronauts were brainwashed in some way so they believed that they had landed on the moon. It is up to each individual to judge the merits of these claims and counter claims as they are presented through various media. We will not all agree - which is fine.

I have spent many hours poring over the arguments, but cannot claim to know whether the landings took place or not. If I were pressed to say whether or not I believed that the landings occurred, I would say that this claim is more likely to be true than false. However, I will keep an open mind, so that new information that may persuade me to change my view can be accepted without prejudice. But this is still an agnostic position; I am not sure (in other words) – so I will keep an open mind. I cannot accept the view of the vast majority that the moon landings are indubitable fact, because my investigations have revealed certain doubts that are shared by many others. I can’t go along with truth claims simply because the vast majority assume them to be true; that would be neither scientific nor philosophical. But I will not be seduced by claims, shared by many with almost religious conviction, that the landings did not in fact happen. Agnosticism, is the only approach to this that makes sense to me and it has the advantage of allowing me the flexibility that certainty cannot provide.

Another controversial theory which I have studied extensively is the claim that Paul McCartney of the Beatles died in the mid 1960s and was replaced in the band by someone else. In this case, I have sufficient doubts to adopt a position of scepticism about the theory. Again, I cannot claim to know one way or the other, but believe that this theory is more likely to be false than true. After many, many hours of study, the arguments and the evidence presented to me in favour of the ‘replacement Beatle’ thesis did not convince me entirely. I found that some of the ‘evidence’ was not solid enough for me yet others may have been convinced by it - that’s why there will always be differences of opinion on things like this. In this case, my judgment is most certainly influenced by intuition. The issues are so complicated and the evidence so ambiguous that my reason can’t possibly make accurate judgements - therefore I must be guided by my intuition even though I am very much aware that this is fallible.

The theory that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ has also occupied many, many hours of my time, but I can’t claim to know that this is true. But unlike many, I am willing to accept that some people who work for government in various capacities are capable of being involved in something like this. Because I don’t trust governments, I would not be inhibited from drawing such damning conclusions. Whereas I cannot claim to know what happened on 9/11 and though I can’t be certain that the Deep State set this up, I am fairly certain that many facts relating to the incidents that occurred that day are being withheld from us by those in authority, or by those behind those in authority. There are people in responsible positions out there who have something to hide: something to feel guilty about, if they are capable of that. Once again, taking an agnostic position allows me to change my mind more easily, not having emotionally invested in one position or another.

The theory that the earth is flat is the ‘straw man’ among ‘conspiracy theories’; the term ‘flat earthers’ has come to mean a very extreme version of our ‘conspiracy theorist’. Of course, this hypothesis has been advertised and highlighted intensively by people who realise that in order to successfully attack the position of your opponents, it is best to concentrate your forces on the weakest part of his defence. Nevertheless, I have studied the theory extensively and with respect. But I find it even less convincing than global warming; the evidence in favour of the earth being round appears to be so overwhelming that I am obliged to consider this theory to be unproven.

I have explored many more theories that the mainstream will not entertain – or will rarely entertain, but which should receive more attention and investigation. Investigation into the existence of the many ‘megalithic structures’, whose construction could not have been carried out with the technology available to stone age individuals, should be part of mainstream education. But most historians appear unwilling to accept the possibility that these things were built by anyone other than hunter gatherers. The implications of rejecting this latter claim are too uncomfortable for most because it then becomes possible that civilizations existed more than ten thousand years ago that were in some ways just as advanced as ours. It also raises the possibility that aliens have visited this planet in the past (though I am sceptical about that). Anyway, I believe that civilization is not best served by dismissing certain facts about the past that cause us discomfort.

I have also explored theories that speculate about a small group of people who, it is claimed, are hell bent on dominating the world through UN Agenda 2030 etc. You probably know about these. I believe that the Deep State exists and that it is tugging on the strings of Western politicians but I am sceptical about its unity and power in the face world developments that are frustrating its plans. For me, the evidence in support of the claim that such an enterprise could be successful is inadequate. It may be desired by some but in my view it can’t happen. Russia and BRICS have driven the final mail into the coffin that globalism has become. This is an occasion when my agnosticism (and my optimism?) inoculates me against the worry associated with believing such things - and I am acquainted with people who are very worried about this. My attitude towards the possibility of nuclear war is the same. Something equivalent to the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) - which I lived through - is not on the cards at the moment, in my view. All we are seeing is huffing, puffing and chest beating. It’s at times like these that I am thankful for my agnosticism, my scepticism and my optimism! I am sure that many of you will disagree - which is what we humans do. Those who discourage disagreement are the unconscious architects of Tyranny.

Next time, I will continue my exploration of agnosticism, skepticism and doubt in relation to values.

Best Rob

1. Descartes was the first philosopher I studied at University and he makes many philosophical errors, including the dreaded ‘circular argument’. - not a good introduction to philosophers. But Descartes is clearly a sceptic and his method has been labelled ‘Cartesian Doubt’.

2. https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller provides much debunking of the legacy media statistical claims of warmists along with some brilliant videos of the countryside around him.

3. https://www.youtube.com/@TheGrandSolarMinimum I have been following this channel on and off for five years. These are ordinary people who have no agenda and are not experts. However, the channel is full of resources provided by ‘guest’ experts such as astrophysicist Valentina Zharkova and John L Casey.