The Agnostic Position: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Agnostic Position » The Agnostic Position

The Agnostic Position
how can anyone believe differently? What proof?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Agnostic Position

4rch3nemy
Self-Synaptic Sloth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2005
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/18/06 - 12:21 AM: Subject: The Agnostic Position	#1
"...every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." -Thomas H. Huxley Now I ask, shouldn't every lover of knowledge question their own faith until it is met with the undeniable end of "I just can't know for sure"? To generalize: Aren't philosophers reasonable people (for the most part) who can follow the logical reasoning towards the agnostic position regarding religion? I just can't clearly reason out any other conclusion besides "I just don't know" and am wondering how anyone else can. Thanks for any and all answers/discussion.
It all starts with questions.. and ends in more questions.

Lodestone
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Sep 14, 2004
Location: St Andrews, Scotland
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 1362

Posted 05/18/06 - 01:39 AM:	#2
"I am not certain" is the proper answer to any question. In the English lexicon, at least, certainty carried the strongest connotations of "beyond all possible doubt"—and there is always room for doubt. Even in a mathematical argument from first principles it is still possible to doubt that one did not make a mistake. Personally I prefer not to make certainty a prerequisite for knowledge—I can know something without being certain of it.
Where once my wit, perchance, hath shone, In aid of others let me shine; And when, alas! our brains are gone, What nobler substitute than wine?

Crazy
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 10, 2005
Location: My own little world.
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 448

Posted 05/18/06 - 05:05 AM:	#3
Well quite simply, if you believe there is any possibility for a god, do you really want to run the risk of not following him? Is it worth the possibility of going to hell, or any other religious place away from said god? That's just simple logic for you there.
"He is useless atop the ground. He ought to be under it, inspiring the cabbages."-Mark Twain

PhilW
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 16, 2004
Location: New York City
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 393

Posted 05/18/06 - 05:31 AM:	#4
Now I ask, shouldn't every lover of knowledge question their own faith until it is met with the undeniable end of "I just can't know for sure"? But what if a lover of knowledge discovers that, for him to know what he loves, he must believe in it first, without proof of the sort that he is used to? What if knowledge of the truth cannot, by its very nature, be contingent on a standard of proof already accepted by the knower, so that knowledge of truth requires a leap of faith?
"This is all I have known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love, that I believe, and whoever believes that is not mistaken." --Kierkegaard "If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." --GK Chesterton

Wandered Off
Almost right

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2005
Location: only know speed
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 81

Posted 05/18/06 - 06:38 AM:	#5
Crazy wrote: Well quite simply, if you believe there is any possibility for a god, do you really want to run the risk of not following him? Is it worth the possibility of going to hell, or any other religious place away from said god? That's just simple logic for you there. This has sort of same problem as Pascal's wager. Because there are so many mutually exclusive claims about different gods, each with its own "place away from said god" and each claiming to be the One True Way, are you really reducing your risk significantly by picking one? It's the "avoiding the wrong Hell problem".

4rch3nemy
Self-Synaptic Sloth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2005
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/18/06 - 08:53 AM:	#6
PhilW wrote: But what if a lover of knowledge discovers that, for him to know what he loves, he must believe in it first, without proof of the sort that he is used to? What if knowledge of the truth cannot, by its very nature, be contingent on a standard of proof already accepted by the knower, so that knowledge of truth requires a leap of faith? That's a good point. I never thought of another standard for rightness or wrongness besides logical reasoning. This is the biggest problem for me to accept any one religion as being true, is "feeling" the unknowable to be true. I'd like to say that maybe it's me missing the proper sense for this type of truth, but that seems less likely than this type of truth being wholly nonexistant. Occam's Razor. I'm still at step 1 of my problem, though. Crazy wrote: Well quite simply, if you believe there is any possibility for a god, do you really want to run the risk of not following him? Is it worth the possibility of going to hell, or any other religious place away from said god? That's just simple logic for you there. I've thought this way before. I brought this sort of reasoning to a priest and he disagreed with it on the grounds that picking a religion is more than a safety against hell. He would rather have another believer for the fact that they want to feel closer to God rather than a believer for the fact that they're scared of hell. I agree. This is a baser type of belief based of safety rather than true faith. Lodestone wrote: Personally I prefer not to make certainty a prerequisite for knowledge—I can know something without being certain of it. How do you allow yourself to do this? The room for error is enormous, though I'm sure you know very much and correctly (or close to correctly) have knowledge of many things. The uncertainty is just too daunting for me to prescribe to this way of thinking as well! I contradict myself.. because I have "faith" in science and logical reasoning.. and I'm not quite sure why. Would a true agnostic person not believe in anything, like a true skeptic (think Descartes)?
It all starts with questions.. and ends in more questions.

Lodestone
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Sep 14, 2004
Location: St Andrews, Scotland
Total Topics: 63
Total Posts: 1362

Posted 05/18/06 - 09:13 AM:	#7
4rch3nemy wrote: How do you allow yourself to do this? [not have certainty as a prerequsitie for knowledge] Roughly speaking, by making the criteria "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "beyond all doubt". The uncertainty is just too daunting for me to prescribe to this way of thinking as well! Then do you not find yourself stymied and unable to do anything? We have to believe things in order to do things. i have this view of knowledge because it is a useful view.
Where once my wit, perchance, hath shone, In aid of others let me shine; And when, alas! our brains are gone, What nobler substitute than wine?

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Womenâ€™s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 05/18/06 - 10:17 AM:	#8
Agnosticism is the only position for the skeptic and the epistmological nihilist. Similarly, the for the skeptic and epistmological nihilist, the answer to the question "is there milk in the fridge" is always "I don't know". However, not everyone is a epistemological nihilist or skeptic. In fact, many people believe that propositions can be known as true. One of those [propositions may be that there is no god, another may be that one hundred cents make a dollar, and another may be that there is no zombies. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 05/18/06 - 10:32 AM:	#9
Crazy wrote: Well quite simply, if you believe there is any possibility for a god, do you really want to run the risk of not following him? Is it worth the possibility of going to hell, or any other religious place away from said god? That's just simple logic for you there. Of course it's worth it. The likelyhood of there being a God that matches whatever belief system that I choose is astronomically small. So small, in fact that I couldn't reasonably guess. So I don't guess on the long shot that there is a God and the following longshot that God X is the real God. I also don't bet $1000 buck on the trifacta. It's a really bad bet. A better bet would be that there is no God. I go with that one. Much safer.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/18/06 - 11:53 AM:	#10
Archenemy, absolute certainty of the kind you seek does not exist on this planet, except through the human capacity for faith. If you are looking to anything else to give it to you, like dialectic or observation, then you’ll never get it. To generalize: Aren't philosophers reasonable people (for the most part) who can follow the logical reasoning towards the agnostic position regarding religion? In my experience philosophers are some of the most crazy people I know, actually. I just can't clearly reason out any other conclusion besides "I just don't know" and am wondering how anyone else can. Why do you hold your (purely abstract) standard for knowledge that itself cuts you off from every actually knowing anything? In other words, how useful is this standard? It sounds as though you are just deftly afraid of ever being wrong, and so you are looking for some man-centered guarantee. Life doesn’t work that way – you have take leaps on this moonlight rock.
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.