the line between agnostic and atheist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » the line between agnostic and atheist » the line between agnostic and atheist

the line between agnostic and atheist
Its logical but is it practical?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

the line between agnostic and atheist

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:38 PM:	#76
180 Proof wrote: These sketches seem reasonable to me: Theism -- "I do not believe in any god(s) except (my) One True God." Atheism -- "I do not believe in any god(s) because there are good reasons (e.g. conceptual incoherence; object impossibility; uniformity (i.e. closed causality) of nature; etc) to believe that god(s) do not exist (except in the imagination)." Nontheism -- "I do not believe in god(s) because there are no good reasons (i.e. sufficient evidence + sound arguments) to believe that god(s) exist." Agnosticism -- "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist(s) ..." "Agnostics" are not irrational, they simply refuse to think through the implications of what they do know (i.e. cannot rationally deny about reality). Yes, we do not "know" ... So what? So it is not belief in ignorance, whatever that is, or is it what the poster I replied to tried to make agnosticism seem like.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3662

Posted 05/12/08 - 08:32 PM:	#77
WW_III_ANGRY wrote: So it is not belief in ignorance, whatever that is, or is it what the poster I replied to tried to make agnosticism seem like. It's intellectual laziness. No one knows whether or not Santa Claus exists, and yet ...
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/12/08 - 10:35 PM:	#78
180 Proof wrote: It's intellectual laziness. No one knows whether or not Santa Claus exists, and yet ... And yet...what exactly? Your characterisation of agnosticism seems incomplete as well. Are you claiming that agnostics are those who just assert that "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist", or is there supposed to be something following that that your "..." seems to indicate? I'm having trouble seeing what you base your accusation of intellectual laziness on.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3662

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:38 AM:	#79
klorius wrote: Your characterisation of agnosticism seems incomplete as well. Are you claiming that agnostics are those who just assert that "I do not know whether or not god(s) exist", or is there supposed to be something following that that your "..." seems to indicate? Belief / disbelief in (a) "god" presupposes an answer to the question of (a) god's existence. Theists presuppose that "god exists" based on faith rather than sound argument / sufficient evidence; atheists presuppose that "god does not exist" precisely because there are no sound arguments / sufficient evidence in favor of that positive claim. The agnostic, however, merely refrains from answering by claiming that he doesn't "know enough" to answer one way or the other; but that's a lazy excuse: like Santa Claus, there are many sound reasons to doubt that "god exists" and no sound reasons to believe that "god exists". We may not have direct knowledge -- since "god", after all, "transcends" mere factuality / spacetime -- of "god's existence", but this sort of "ignorance" props itself up against a compendious background of indirect knowledge (e.g. uniformity of nature (re: contra "miracles" / supernaturalia), incoherence of god-concepts, mutually-excluding / self-contradicting "special revelations", etc) which agnostics simply ignore. They are not ignorant of "god's existence" so much as they ignore existence itself when considering the pros & cons and fail to think through which arguments are more consistent with existence as a whole (i.e. the best available knowledge of it which is patently irrational to deny). Edited by 180 Proof on 05/13/08 - 01:44 AM. Reason: ...
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 558

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:52 AM:	#80
180 - what do you mean by god? How can you be so sure, so certain, that "god" does not exist? If you cannot be sure, what is all this talk of certainty? Secondly, Do you mean that one particular conception of god does not exist, or that no possible conceptions of god can exist? I would agree that some conceptions of god seem to be inconsistent, but some seem rather sensible abstractions. Thirdly, do you take nothing at all based upon faith? Surely this would require you to reject any claims that had no rigorous supporting evidence, scientifically gathered, and found upon balance to be both falsifiable and unfalsified: this I would contend is not a consistent approach to take if one wants to act within society, and if you want I'll explain why when I have more time.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3662

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:08 PM:	#81
Makarismos wrote: 180 - what do you mean by god? I take issue with "god" as theists / worshippers tend to conceptualize it. Mostly, though not exclusively, this "god" is the JCI deity that's theologically (and often liturgically) defined by the predicates "supernatural" "transcendent" "personal" "creator". (The Omni-predicates are rather out-moded, scholastic considerations ...) How can you be so sure, so certain, that "god" does not exist? I'm no more "certain" of god's nonexistence than I am of Santa Claus' nonexistence. "Certainty" is not the issue, by the way; rather seeking the least irrational (i.e. inexplicable / unintelligible) belief is my point. The JCI god (and its analogues) calls everything rigourously known and reliably experienced about reality into question and thus accepting it is tantamount to denying the explicability / intelligibility of all else, which on balance is more irrational than the alternative. I am not "certain" that there's no JCI god, I just have good, sound reasons to believe that such a "god" does not exist. If you cannot be sure, what is all this talk of certainty? Please remind me where I've asserted "certainty" in any post on any thread on PF. Secondly, Do you mean that one particular conception of god does not exist, or that no possible conceptions of god can exist? I would agree that some conceptions of god seem to be inconsistent, but some seem rather sensible abstractions. Please give examples of some "particular conception(s) of god" that are "rather sensible abstractions." Thirdly, do you take nothing at all based upon faith? That depends upon what you mean by "take". If by "take" you mean "worship", as in religious commitment (i.e. hope, trust, submission, etc), then I do not; however, if you by "take" you mean "giving the benefit of the doubt" or "taking for granted" then yes, as practical matter, I do. But for clarity's sake, I try not to say "I have faith in your fluency in English for understanding this sentence" but rather "I'm taking it for granted that your fluencey in English allows you to understand what I've written." In the context of this thread topic it only confuses the issue to conflate the various meanings/usages of the word when only one specific meaning/usage is relevant. Edited by 180 Proof on 05/13/08 - 07:33 PM. Reason: opps ...
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:37 PM:	#82
180 Proof wrote: "Agnostics" are not irrational, they simply refuse to think through the implications of what they do know (i.e. cannot rationally deny about reality). ..... Alright: Rational - "consistent with or based on or using reason" I fail to understand how refusing to think, or reason, is not irrational.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:41 PM:	#83
WW_III_ANGRY wrote: The truth of the matter is, we truly don't know. Nor do you, nor does anyone else. You don't seem to want to recognize that fact. Then why do you believe that God doesn't exist if you are certain that such knowledge is impossible? If you want to say that "there is a greater possibility that God doesn't exist", then say that and call yourself an atheist, despite contradicting yourself. But even traveling past the 50/50 indecision threshold of the agnostic is what differentiates the two, and "You don't seem to want to recognize that fact".
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1741

Posted 05/13/08 - 01:44 PM:	#84
180proof wrote: The agnostic, however, merely refrains from answering by claiming that he doesn't "know enough" to answer one way or the other; but that's a lazy excuse 180, I have to disagree. Agnostics do not say they do not know enough but that certain claims (or perhaps all, as David Hume defended I think) are inherently unknowable as being true or not. It is lazy of both the theist and atheist alike that they cannot ponder the idea that they might be wrong, regardless of how likely you might consider the non-existence of God based on your subjective experience.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3662

Posted 05/13/08 - 02:05 PM:	#85
The_Rational_Animal wrote: 180 Proof wrote: "Agnostics" are not irrational, they simply refuse to think through the implications of what they do know (i.e. cannot rationally deny about reality). ..... Alright: Rational - "consistent with or based on or using reason" I fail to understand how refusing to think, or reason, is not irrational. Irrational - "inconsistency with and/or misuse of reason" Fallacious arguments (e.g. "Faith is a gift from god, I have faith in god, therefore god exists") and noninferential assertions (e.g. "God loves me." "Here I stand. I can do no other.") are irrational, but empirical statements alone (e.g. "I do not know whether or not god exists") are rational though inconclusive or trivial. benkei wrote: 180, I have to disagree. Agnostics do not say they do not know enough but that certain claims (or perhaps all, as David Hume defended I think) are inherently unknowable as being true or not. I'm confused here. Explain the non-pedantic difference between "I do not know enough to decide whether or not god exists" and "Nobody can know enough to decide whether or not god exists". To assert that some fact is "unknowable" begs the question so what substantively differentiates "unknown" and "unknowable"? This is the first I'm hearing of agnostics (i.e. religious / theological skeptics) making "categorical" claims. It is lazy of both the theist and atheist alike that they cannot ponder the idea that they might be wrong, regardless of how likely you might consider the non-existence of God based on your subjective experience. One who objects to believing claims on insufficient evidence (e.g. theism) does not to rely solely a "subjective experience" as the counterclaim is truth-conditional (i.e. fact-checking within publically specifiable parameters), and thus inherently fallible. Equivocating between "faith-based" and "sound argument/sufficient evidence-based" beliefs is either disingenuous or insipid. In fact, it is theists (with their "faith-based" claims) and agnostics (with their categorical "unknowability") who "cannot ponder that they might be wrong". Edited by 180 Proof on 05/13/08 - 02:33 PM. Reason: "Who told you that you were naked?"
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/13/08 - 04:20 PM:	#86
180 Proof wrote: Belief / disbelief in (a) "god" presupposes an answer to the question of (a) god's existence. Theists presuppose that "god exists" based on faith rather than sound argument / sufficient evidence; atheists presuppose that "god does not exist" precisely because there are no sound arguments / sufficient evidence in favor of that positive claim. The agnostic, however, merely refrains from answering by claiming that he doesn't "know enough" to answer one way or the other; but that's a lazy excuse: like Santa Claus, there are many sound reasons to doubt that "god exists" and no sound reasons to believe that "god exists". We may not have direct knowledge -- since "god", after all, "transcends" mere factuality / spacetime -- of "god's existence", but this sort of "ignorance" props itself up against a compendious background of indirect knowledge (e.g. uniformity of nature (re: contra "miracles" / supernaturalia), incoherence of god-concepts, mutually-excluding / self-contradicting "special revelations", etc) which agnostics simply ignore. They are not ignorant of "god's existence" so much as they ignore existence itself when considering the pros & cons and fail to think through which arguments are more consistent with existence as a whole (i.e. the best available knowledge of it which is patently irrational to deny). Then it's quite clear: your characterisation of agnostics as being intellectually lazy is dependent on the claims that "there are sound reasons to doubt that "god exists" and no sound reasons to believe that "god exists", and that the agnostic simply ignores the direct/indirect evidence against the existence of god. The use of 'doubt' seems unnecessarily confusing, since the agnostic effectively 'doubts' both the claims that God exists, and that God does not exist. At any rate, though, that can be interpreted as a definitive statement of disbelief rather than doubt. This is, however, patently unfair: it's surely not a given that all those issues are resolved definitely. Each of those issues could easily be debatable on their own; not everyone who considers those issues (e.g. problem of the supernatural, incoherence of the concept of God, problem of evil) necessarily reaches the same conclusion that those arguments conclusively prove the non-existence (or at least the incoherence of the concept) of a God or Gods. You're essentially assuming that the agnostic is simply ignoring those issues. Why is it not possible that the agnostic has examined those issues and found that none of those issues have been able to conclusively prove the issue one way or the other? Scepticism (in terms of agnosticism, scepticism of both sides) isn't necessarily an issue of laziness or ignorance; it could just as well be an issue of concluding that all known arguments for one or the other position isn't strong enough to prove the issue conclusively one way or the other. Theoretically, an agnostic could immediately become a theist or atheist if he/she finds that at least one of the arguments are, in fact, conclusive. (Unless, of course, he/she finds separate arguments from both sides to be conclusive, which would be more than a little problematic.)
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/14/08 - 08:51 AM:	#87
The_Rational_Animal wrote: WW_III_ANGRY wrote: The truth of the matter is, we truly don't know. Nor do you, nor does anyone else. You don't seem to want to recognize that fact. Then why do you believe that God doesn't exist if you are certain that such knowledge is impossible? If you want to say that "there is a greater possibility that God doesn't exist", then say that and call yourself an atheist, despite contradicting yourself. But even traveling past the 50/50 indecision threshold of the agnostic is what differentiates the two, and "You don't seem to want to recognize that fact". No it doesn't contradict. There's such a thing as atheist/agnostic as showed in the article in wiki on agnosticism that I posted. I don't know if there's a greater possiblity that God doesn't exist. I just don't believe God does, and why is because there is no communication from a God and there are flaws in every religion regarding god God or gods, and there are possible explanations for how we exist without a god. There are infinite # of unknowns regarding reality. We do not know if there are other dimensions for example. Perhaps there are infinite universes each within their own infinitely large dimensions of space and time, each unreachable from one to the next. Knowledge to this point is unnattainable. In the future, that may change. Currently, we don't know.

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/14/08 - 08:53 AM:	#88
Benkei wrote: 180, I have to disagree. Agnostics do not say they do not know enough but that certain claims (or perhaps all, as David Hume defended I think) are inherently unknowable as being true or not. It is lazy of both the theist and atheist alike that they cannot ponder the idea that they might be wrong, regardless of how likely you might consider the non-existence of God based on your subjective experience. Very good.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1741

Posted 05/14/08 - 12:04 PM:	#89
I'm confused here. Explain the non-pedantic difference between "I do not know enough to decide whether or not god exists" and "Nobody can know enough to decide whether or not god exists". To assert that some fact is "unknowable" begs the question so what substantively differentiates "unknown" and "unknowable"? This is the first I'm hearing of agnostics (i.e. religious / theological skeptics) making "categorical" claims. No fair, I'm ALWAYS pedantic! Well, the substantive difference for me is that "not knowing enough" implies facts can be gathered to some day perhaps know enough, it means the subject the claim makes a reference to can be studied, researched and/or perceived. This is not the case for claims about things that are inherently unknowable because the subject cannot be studied, researched and/or perceived. E.g., the unknown can be discovered the unknowable cannot. One who objects to believing claims on insufficient evidence (e.g. theism) does not to rely solely a "subjective experience" as the counterclaim is truth-conditional (i.e. fact-checking within publically specifiable parameters), and thus inherently fallible. Equivocating between "faith-based" and "sound argument/sufficient evidence-based" beliefs is either disingenuous or insipid. In fact, it is theists (with their "faith-based" claims) and agnostics (with their categorical "unknowability") who "cannot ponder that they might be wrong". Ach, the "lazy" was just rhetoric for me to turn your words upon you. Once we are settled into our ideas everyone becomes a little lazy - nice, comfortable, dogmatic slumber. I enjoy it often myself. In any case, where you see an essential difference between assuming the existence of something without proof between assuming the non-existence of something without proof, I see an obvious similarity and have no problem at all equivocating the two because I see no sound argument or sufficient evidence to conclude God does not exist. It remains an assumption. Edited by Benkei on 05/14/08 - 12:20 PM
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1741

Posted 05/14/08 - 12:29 PM:	#90
By the way, due to personal experiences I'm very sympathetic with theists. To me it has become obvious that, the mind has the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real. To explain that as the presence of God seems a viable interpretation although it is not the one I would choose.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 216

Posted 05/14/08 - 04:50 PM:	#91
Keda wrote: Empirical knowledge is of course prone to error, but that doesn't mean its not true knowledge. So under this terminology, knowledge could be wrong? In Kant's terminology belief (Glaube) is distinct from knowledge in that it presupposes an admission that one has not got any objectively sufficient grounds for the assent What makes something objective, and at what point does it cross the line from insufficient to sufficient? Dogma (likewise our daily use, maybe somewhat ambiguous use of the word belief) on the other hand does not make the distinction but exist in the realm of claims like knowledge do and is as such harmful to morality and consequently faith. I am not sure I see this. I guess it would depend on what you meant by 'dogma'. Couldn't one hold that 'God exists' as dogma, yet still (under the way you speak of agnosticism) be agnostic to the dogma believed? Furthermore, how does knowledge hinder morality if it is uncertain like beliefs are? Much of disagreements are illusory because of different terminology, but knowing what the trend is with of our language, the fine concepts we are dealing with may soon be gone. Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate when people assume that truth is found in language usage and not the underlying meaning where the actual importance lies, because many disagreements (as you say) are merely verbal.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2419

Posted 05/14/08 - 06:24 PM:	#92
Dranu wrote: So under this terminology, knowledge could be wrong? Yes. What makes something objective, and at what point does it cross the line from insufficient to sufficient? Objective meaning related to an object and sufficiency is determined on a practical basis. I am not sure I see this. I guess it would depend on what you meant by 'dogma'. Couldn't one hold that 'God exists' as dogma, yet still (under the way you speak of agnosticism) be agnostic to the dogma believed? A dogma according to Kant is a synthetic a priori proposition derived from concepts. As such ontological proofs of God could be called dogmas. Now if you have proved something exists, doesn't that put it on the same level as knowledge? It does, and if you get the impression that God's existence is a proven fact, then one would be prudent to act on his commandments to avoid hellfire. The implication is as Kant points out in CPR: Kant wrote: The dogmatism of metaphysics, that is, the preconception that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous criticism of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality. So that is why Jesus emphasized faith and rebuked the Pharisees for asking for signs. Dranu wrote: Furthermore, how does knowledge hinder morality if it is uncertain like beliefs are? Knowledge per its definition requires a objectively sufficient degree of certainty.
Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/14/08 - 08:29 PM:	#93
First off, I would like to point out the term "god" that is dealt with in Agnosticism does not refer to a specific god [like the Abrahamic "God"] but the IDEA of god, in general. Many people associate that term with God, of Abrahamic theistic belief, [ie. "Atheism is FAR more logical because God has been proven false SO many times", while that is true of the Abrahamic God, it is not true of the "idea" of god.] which instantly ruins the discussion. So right off the bat, the analogy: "that's a lazy excuse: like Santa Claus, there are many sound reasons to doubt that "god exists" and no sound reasons to believe that "god exists". [Not picking on you specifically 180 proof, just the argument in general] ...Should be thrown out. Santa Claus [and this goes for fairies, dragons, elves, etc] are all supposedly Earth-bound creatures, and are therefore subject to warrant evidentiary support when talking about their existence. The idea of god, however, almost NEVER binds god to this UNIVERSE, let alone this planet, and therefore evidence for, and against, god will always be unattainable. So where it is safe to assume that Santa Claus does not exist, because there is no evidence of his existence, and we KNOW that what he supposedly does is carried out by the parents of children, it is not safe to assume that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence on HIS behalf. Agnosticism [as well as nontheism, in a way] is THE most logical way of looking at theistic ideals, though, admittedly it is hardly a satisfying stance. Atheism argues that it is logical because there is no evidence for a god, and science can and has disproved many of the things that various religions have associated with gods. HOWEVER, simply because the writings of men about the idea of gods have proven to be false, does not mean that a god does not exist, it simply means that our idea of god is false. For this reason, striking the idea of god out of the picture is illogical. Similarly [yet, conversely] Theism is illogical, since --to put it basically-- most theistic belief systems are based off of, well, belief and faith. Faith is illogical in that one is basing his decision off of insufficient data. So we have Theism basing its conclusions off of insufficient data, and we have Atheism basing its conclusions off of insufficient/irrelevant data, and then we have Agnosticism which states "There is not enough information for me to accurately make a decision at this point". Again, while Agnosticism may be unsatisfying, it is at least logical. disclaimer: I, myself, hold the personal philosophy of Pantheism. [I do not like calling it my theistic belief, since there is no deity to my belief] EDIT: also, too add to my post; a reply: I'm confused here. Explain the non-pedantic difference between "I do not know enough to decide whether or not god exists" and "Nobody can know enough to decide whether or not god exists". To assert that some fact is "unknowable" begs the question so what substantively differentiates "unknown" and "unknowable"? This is the first I'm hearing of agnostics (i.e. religious / theological skeptics) making "categorical" claims. I agree that saying "Nobody can know enough to decide whether or not god exists" begs the question. However, I do not believe that that is the idea being portrayed in Agnostic idealism. The idea being portrayed is as follows: "Nobody knows enough to decide whether or not god exists; also, nobody knows a way to attain the information necessary [or even what information WOULD be necessary] to decide whether or not god exists" In this way, the Agnostic says that: A) nobody knows enough to decide, and B) nobody knows HOW to get the information, and WHAT information to get to decide. Because of A and B, the information is therefore, consequently, unattainable. At least, as the Agnostic will usually point out, at this point in time. This way, the agnostic says that the information is unattainable NOW, and is with-holding judgment FOR NOW, but if some new evidence comes to light in the future, they will revisit the idea. Edited by Kingt2 on 05/14/08 - 08:37 PM. Reason: Additional text.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1047

Posted 05/14/08 - 10:20 PM:	#94
Kingt2 wrote: Atheism argues that it is logical because there is no evidence for a god, and science can and has disproved many of the things that various religions have associated with gods. HOWEVER, simply because the writings of men about the idea of gods have proven to be false, does not mean that a god does not exist, it simply means that our idea of god is false. For this reason, striking the idea of god out of the picture is illogical. Our ideas are the only things it is possible for us to consider...

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7862

Posted 05/14/08 - 10:39 PM:	#95
it simply means that our idea of god is false That is what it means to be an atheist to me. I am also an a-luminiferous aether-ist, as our ideas about luminiferous aether were false. The big difference is, no one (really) is arguing for luminous aether anymore. The book is all but closed on it as a subject by far better explanations. Atheism merely holds that the same is true of God as is true of luminiferous aether.
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/14/08 - 11:05 PM:	#96
By that I meant our ideas of specific gods are false. If you want to call yourself an ATHEIST, because Christianity seems to be false, then you are calling yourself that under false pretenses. Saying "god doesn't exist because the bible is full of lies" and then showing that your statement was true does not disprove the concept of GOD, it disproves the christian idea of God. You might as well call your self an A-Christian-ist. A-Theism means that one does not believe that a GOD, of any kind, exists.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1047

Posted 05/14/08 - 11:17 PM:	#97
What does it mean to believe in an unspecific god?

Kingt2
RPI Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/14/08 - 11:52 PM:	#98
Again, missing my point. My point is that while one might show that the belief in a specific god [say, the christian god] is silly because of so-and-so, That does not disprove the concept of GOD. Simply because Jesus might not have actually walked on water, one can not argue that the concept of a being that transcends our space and time and does such and such an action [or inaction] is false. My point is this: 1. Theistic belief systems can rarely, if ever, be disproven. 2. Those that come close merely show that belief in that system is illogical [am assumption that was already known, since faith is an illogical action anyway] 3. One can not -at this point- disprove the idea of a transcendental being. I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that since we can not prove one way or the other, both extremes are illogical, and the Agnostic remains the only truly logical person of the three main groups. The Atheist puts his faith in the idea that since it is silly to believe in god A [or any number of popular ideas of what a god would be like], that god can not exist. The Theist puts his faith in the idea that God does exist, despite the lack of evidence to support his claim. And the Agnostic says "At this point, nobody possesses the knowledge, a way to attain the knowledge, or even what that knowledge might be, to prove or disprove the concept of god. Therefore, I will with-hold my judgment until such a time that I can make a fully educated and logical conclusion"
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3662

Posted 05/15/08 - 02:06 AM:	#99
Kingt2 wrote: I would like to point out the term "god" that is dealt with in Agnosticism does not refer to a specific god [like the Abrahamic "God"] but the IDEA of god, in general. In this case the agnostic is considering only 'empty concepts' and not fact-claims (i.e. conceptual contents that entail truth-conditions). This is mere, idling, "Cartesian doubt". The idea of god, however, almost NEVER binds god to this UNIVERSE, let alone this planet, and therefore evidence for, and against, god will always be unattainable. If the concept of universe connotes "the whole of existence" or "all there is" or "reality", then it stands to reason that some object (e.g. "the idea of god" "god in general") defined as not bound to, or wholly separate from, (the) universe does not exist. Positing that such an object exists separate from existence seems a contradiction in terms. A-Theism means that one does not believe that a GOD, of any kind, exists. More precisely, atheism is disbelief in (i.e. rejection of) any god as a consequence of lacking sufficient evidence and sound arguments for believing that "(any) god exists" is true. Benkei wrote: ... I see no sound argument or sufficient evidence to conclude God does not exist. Neither do I. Conclusions, however, are not what I'm going on about, but rather comparative warrant (i.e. relative merit). My objections to the fact-claim "god exists" have nowhere ever been adequately answered (including the argument that a "transcendent, creator god" (e.g. JCI deity) is impossible), and as long as this circumstance obtains I find it far more rational to reject (i.e. disbelieve) "god exists" than to believe it. It remains an assumption. *What is truth -- "conclusive proof" or least error?* If you assume the latter, as I do, then "agnosticism" is vacuous as I've argued. If not, how then do you (we) escape the intellectual cul de sac of [absolute skepticism --> radical relativism --> passive nihilism] in which every "Humpty Dumpty" prevails (e.g. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less ...")? To me it has become obvious that, the mind has the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real. Yes, but the question is: does this "larger presence that feels more real" transcend the real? (First explain how "transcending the real" makes any sense as it is almost always attributed to a "higher power" that also happens to be "creator" and not limited to "time, space, causality" (i.e. even that minimal of reality we call "the physical.")) klorius wrote: Then it's quite clear: your characterisation of agnostics as being intellectually lazy is dependent on the claims that "there are sound reasons to doubt that "god exists" and no sound reasons to believe that "god exists", and that the agnostic simply ignores the direct/indirect evidence against the existence of god. Yes. The use of 'doubt' seems unnecessarily confusing, since the agnostic effectively 'doubts' both the claims that God exists, and that God does not exist. Doubt requires grounds, however, and what I'm pointing out is that the agnostic does not have grounds to doubt both claims. "Cartesian doubts" are idle and question begging. Does it make any sense to doubt both the claim that "Santa Claus exists" and the claim that "Santa Claus does not exist"? Furthermore, does it make sense to doubt both claims equally? If not, the claim less doubtful prevails (no matter how provisionally), and thus no skeptical epoche obtains. This is, however, patently unfair: it's surely not a given that all those issues are resolved definitely. Each of those issues could easily be debatable on their own; not everyone who considers those issues (e.g. problem of the supernatural, incoherence of the concept of God, problem of evil) necessarily reaches the same conclusion that those arguments conclusively prove the non-existence (or at least the incoherence of the concept) of a God or Gods. Substitute "Santa Claus" for "God". "Conclusive proof" is a red herring; sufficient evidence and/or sound arguments adequately warrant assent to defeasible fact-claims. That consensus is not unanimous does not reflect on the merits of the issues raised. Please, however, feel free to show that any one of the issues raised does not call every extant god-concept into question (re: by "incoherent" I mean the concept, as defined, cannot ostensibly refer (e.g. "five-side triangles")). You're essentially assuming that the agnostic is simply ignoring those issues. By equivocating between the opposing fact-claims, the agnostic demonstrates he is ignoring the issues raised. Why is it not possible that the agnostic has examined those issues and found that none of those issues have been able to conclusively prove the issue one way or the other? It's certainly possible; in fact, this seems to be what most agnostics do, and this is what I think is intellectually lazy. "Conclusive proof" is irrelevant where strong warrant for assenting to ,or dissenting from, fact-claims will suffice, so to set the bar 'too high' from the outset only to then opine that the claims-in-question are out of reach provides a built-in, methodological excuse for not thinking through the claims or their (defeasible) implications. Astrophysicists are not "agnostic" about black holes -- even though direct observation is impossible -- because they actively seek out and make indirect observations of massive gravitic influences on nearby phenomena and high-energy bursts (jets) predicted as consequences of the black hole's spin. Agnostics miss the point, throwing up their hands as if the question is between a 'non-factual thesis' and its 'non-factual antithesis' -- which being 'non-factual' would, of course, be undecidable -- rather than between opposing fact-claims. This misguided doubt misses by a wide mark. Scepticism (in terms of agnosticism, scepticism of both sides) isn't necessarily an issue of laziness or ignorance; it could just as well be an issue of concluding that all known arguments for one or the other position isn't strong enough to prove the issue conclusively one way or the other. To ignore the comparative implications of holding either of the opposing fact-claims (re: "god exists" "god does not exist") as "true" is lazy. Again, "conclusive proof" is not needed; rather, *which fact-claim is less inconsistent with our background of "justified beliefs" suffices.* An agnostic might not accept this "lower standard" sticking to his "Cartesian doubts" but I find the question of "god's existence" to be more significant than an idle, ivory tower diversion. Theoretically, an agnostic could immediately become a theist or atheist if he/she finds that at least one of the arguments are, in fact, conclusive. (Unless, of course, he/she finds separate arguments from both sides to be conclusive, which would be more than a little problematic.) This absurdity begins to make my point ... Edited by 180 Proof on 05/15/08 - 02:11 AM. Reason: Amor fati.
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1741

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/15/08 - 04:12 AM:	#100
Neither do I. Conclusions, however, are not what I'm going on about, but rather comparative warrant (i.e. relative merit). My objections to the fact-claim "god exists" have nowhere ever been adequately answered (including the argument that a "transcendent, creator god" (e.g. JCI deity) is impossible), and as long as this circumstance obtains I find it far more rational to reject (i.e. disbelieve) "god exists" than to believe it. But how is that more rational? There is no rational decision making process that can lead you to that. I agree it is intuitive to assume something does not exist when we have never seen it. (Imagine hearing of pink birds standing on one leg with curved black beaks from the first explorer to have found them. The intuitive reaction would be disbelief based on experience.) You're saying that it is only rational to trust our senses. Only if a thing has been perceived is it relatively more merited as to belief in its existence but I find it more rational to say that if we cannot perceive a thing we cannot hold an opinion of it. This is the very reason that any form of deduction is circumspect, no matter how many black ravens I see it is never with certainty that we can say: "All ravens are black." What is truth -- "conclusive proof" or least error? If you assume the latter, as I do, then "agnosticism" is vacuous as I've argued. If not, how then do you (we) escape the intellectual cul de sac of [absolute skepticism --> radical relativism --> passive nihilism] in which every "Humpty Dumpty" prevails (e.g. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less ...")?[/quote] How do you assert which one of two competing claims has the least error with regard to a thing that both claims agree cannot be perceived? There is no conclusive proof or least error with regard to unknowable things because we cannot assign a truth value to any claim about things that are unknowable. You assume this least error based on experience that a lot of things you do not perceive in fact do not exist but for instance neutrons, electrons etc. exist too (or at least are assumed as scientific fact). The fact that human kind has accepted that it can trust instruments more than its own senses already shows that it is not necessary for us to accept truth claims with regard to objects we cannot perceive. It seems therefore that your problem is with trust in the messenger, e.g. the instrument, more than the object we are discussing. Suppose if a convinced atheist friend of yours, a person you intimately trust, would reveal someday to you that he had a religious experience (seeing a Christian angel carrying words of wisdom) would that cause a little doubt? What if this had happened to you as a child, and your father or mother had shared such an experience with you. Would you believe them? I'm not suggesting that those personal experiences would necessarily be of objective reality but I would certainly entertain the possibility because of it. Yes, but the question is: does this "larger presence that feels more real" transcend the real? (First explain how "transcending the real" makes any sense as it is almost always attributed to a "higher power" that also happens to be "creator" and not limited to "time, space, causality" (i.e. even that minimal of reality we call "the physical.")) It's the mind transcending itself not transcending the real. But granted, that does not explain the mechanism or even how this is possible. But it's a metaphor of sorts. The most I have ever said of my specific experiences was the following: Silence; inexpressible thoughts, feelings and experiences. The insisting feeling of something beyond, out of reach, inexplicable but persistent, spiritual and unreasonable. Magnificence, excellence, divinity, beauty all come together - but these words, shackled by human expression and interpretation, fall short, yet only through antrophomorphism can I begin to express something as elusive; a seed that might grow to understanding in another. Yet through words I move further away from understanding what lies beyond, it is as if to understand it I require an entirely different way of thinking - to let go of words, feelings and visions and then all that is left to me is Silence. And this is brought about whenever I think of the wonder of existence, the idea that Something is more natural than Nothing, whereas I cannot divine at all - not understand in the slightest - why this is; I see no reason for Everything to begin or to have an end or to have always existed. Each and every explanation does not provide understanding. I can recount an instance of clairvoyance on the part of my mother, which had happened once before, the previous one my dad attests to. And on the basis of time symmetry and quantum physics precognition/presentiment is possible (and there is scientifically relevant data of a controlled experiment as well - Dean Radin, see below). The Ganz experiment has revealed statistically relevant data as well, justifying additional research. Dean Radin's work His hypothesis was that, if presentiment were real, we would see an anticipatory bump in arousal levels before the presentation of charged pictures and a neutral response before the neutral pictures. Sure enough, this is what he has found, though he has been refining the experiment in various ways and is still running more trials to create robust findings for statistical purposes. Some subjects show virtually no effects, while others show fairly strong effects. In the presentiment-prone subjects (which, incidentally, correlates nicely with self-reports on an intake questionnaire), there is typically an increase in arousal two to three seconds before the presentation of a charged picture. This experiment has also been repeated by others in different locations (University of Utrecht in the Netherlands) and the results were the same. http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?con... Just a few examples of things that are generally not believed as it is considered irrational based on people's overall personal experience and what parapsychological research has found so far. It's not conclusive evidence but it sure makes one wonder. So why distrust someone else's religious or spiritual experience?
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.