Isn't it time Agnostics got off the fence?

[GPLindsey]

If I understand agnosticism, agnostics believe that there is insufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other that there is a God--the scales are balanced. I agree with the view that the nonexistence of God cannot be proved beyond ALL doubt, but as an atheist I can't see how the evidence for and against God equals out. Absolute certainty is an impossibility, so we live our lives by relying on reasonable certainty. I'm reasonably certain based on all available evidence that I am sitting here typing this, but there is a remote, remote possibility that I am in a coma someplace and this is all just a dream. Both are possible, but I certainly don't think they are equally probable, so I accept with reasonable certainty that I am actually typing.

Now, the evidence and arguments against the existence of God are all over this Web site, so I won't repeat them here. I find them convincing and they lead me to my acceptance of atheism, even though I cannot prove God does not exist beyond all doubt. My question for any agnostics out there--is it your view that the evidence for and against God is actually equal? If so, what evidence do you find so compelling on the theistic side of the scale, to make things balance out? If, instead, you are agnostic because of the remote possibility that God exists, despite the overwhelming evidence against it--aren't you withholding judgment while waiting for the unobtainable, absolute certainty?

[diana]

Originally posted by GPLindsey
If I understand agnosticism, agnostics believe that there is insufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other that there is a God--the scales are balanced. I agree with the view that the nonexistence of God cannot be proved beyond ALL doubt, but as an atheist I can't see how the evidence for and against God equals out. Absolute certainty is an impossibility, so we live our lives by relying on reasonable certainty. I'm reasonably certain based on all available evidence that I am sitting here typing this, but there is a remote, remote possibility that I am in a coma someplace and this is all just a dream. Both are possible, but I certainly don't think they are equally probable, so I accept with reasonable certainty that I am actually typing.

Now, the evidence and arguments against the existence of God are all over this Web site, so I won't repeat them here. I find them convincing and they lead me to my acceptance of atheism, even though I cannot prove God does not exist beyond all doubt. My question for any agnostics out there--is it your view that the evidence for and against God is actually equal? If so, what evidence do you find so compelling on the theistic side of the scale, to make things balance out? If, instead, you are agnostic because of the remote possibility that God exists, despite the overwhelming evidence against it--aren't you withholding judgment while waiting for the unobtainable, absolute certainty?

Wow. You just managed to make an interesting post on one of the most worn-out subjects around here. Very nice.

A couple of thoughts. This bugs me, too, to be honest. If you take the terms literally, they aren't even talking about the same thing. Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge while atheism/theism is about belief. They don't fall on the same continuum.

Further, as each category contains two mutually-exclusive conditions, every one of us must be label-able with one of the following:

agnostic atheist
agnostic theist
gnostic atheist
gnostic theist

Which are you?

So you're an "agnostic." Fine. But do you believe or don't you? If you answer with "I don't know," that's a no, because I suspect if you did believe, you'd know it already. Your indecision doesn't reflect belief with fear of facing it, but lack of belief but fear of facing it.

"Agnostic" is just shorthand for "Reticent Atheist." Or, as some unknown person put it, an agnostic is just an atheist with good PR.

d

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by diana

So you're an "agnostic." Fine. But do you believe or don't you? If you answer with "I don't know," that's a no, because I suspect if you did believe, you'd know it already. Your indecision doesn't reflect belief with fear of facing it, but lack of belief but fear of facing it.

Aren't you conflating two entirely different questions ?
And also conflating three different meanings of the word "to believe" ?
And therefore making a wrong conclusion ?

Do you believe there is a God ?

Meaning: Do you either feel or conclude on the basis of other "evidence" that there is a God ?

Possible justifiable answers:
a) No
b) Possibly, type of God unknown, but several types ruled out by virtue of illogicallity;
oh, and also, the most types of possible God have bugger all effect in the normal world, so it's not much point worrying about it
c) yes, and here is the type of God

Do you believe in God ?

Meaning: Do you either worship or fear or otherwise warily respect a particular God ?

Possible justifiable answers:
a) No, because I don't believe in Gods
b) No, because while there may be a God, it seems all rather immaterial, and nothing much would change if there was one or there wasn't
b) No, because while there are gods, they're fairly bloody useless
c) yes
d) depends on what mood I'm in

Does this illustrate adequately where I think the problem with your argument lies ?
And why agnosticism may be perfectly justifiable ?
"Agnostic" is just shorthand for "Reticent Atheist." Or, as some unknown person put it, an agnostic is just an atheist with good PR.

OTOH, why should I do my usual trick of defending the agnostics ?
;)
Let 'em come up with some better arguments and PR.

Regards,
Gurdur The Hardline Atheist

[sandlewood]

Good posts. I don’t think agnostic should be used to mean “undecided” although I think some people use it that way. As I understand it, an agnostic believes that God is inherently unknowable. It is impossible to know whether God exists or not. It’s a question of knowledge, not belief. Though of course, belief is usually (hopefully) based on knowledge, so that definition doesn’t separate the issues quite so cleanly.

But if you maintain that there is not enough evidence either for or against the existence of God, then I think your position has to be that he doesn’t exist. As long as there isn’t enough evidence that God exists, then it’s rational to say he doesn’t exist. There isn’t going to be any evidence that God doesn’t exist, so you can’t sit around expecting it. The only thing that matters is whether there is sufficient evidence of his existence. As long as there isn’t, I don’t see why agnosticism is justified.

[diana]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Aren't you conflating two entirely different questions ?No.
And also conflating three different meanings of the word "to believe" ?No. I'm going with the default "to have a firm religious faith."
And therefore making a wrong conclusion ?Of course not, you silly Aussie.

[LIST=1] Do you believe there is a God ?[/COLOR]

Meaning: Do you either feel or conclude on the basis of other "evidence" that there is a God ?

Possible justifiable answers:
a) No
b) Possibly, type of God unknown, but several types ruled out by virtue of illogicallity;
oh, and also, the most types of possible God have bugger all effect in the normal world, so it's not much point worrying about it
c) yes, and here is the type of GodI'm arguing that "possibly" isn't a legitimate answer to "do you believe." You either believe or you don't. What's this "possibly" business? Even if you haven't done your homework and haven't made up your mind, you're still either convinced enough to say you believe or you aren't.

Basically, how can belief be anything BUT and either/or position?

Does this illustrate adequately where I think the problem with your argument lies ?No.
And why agnosticism may be perfectly justifiable ?No.

OTOH, why should I do my usual trick of defending the agnostics ?
;)Because you wanna tangle. ;)

Let 'em come up with some better arguments and PR.Let my opponents come with less convoluted rebuttals that don't misrepresent my position and with better powers of expression.

Cheers,

d

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by sandlewood
[...
As long as there isn’t enough evidence that God exists, then it’s rational to say he doesn’t exist.

Really ?
I have no idea if a man named Batholemew Higgleson exists in the USA at this time. I possess no evidence for it.
Should I therefore "rationally" decide no such man exists ?
Do you see my point ?
There isn’t going to be any evidence that God doesn’t exist, That statement itself might well be considered a statement of faith.
Quite a few religions interpret the physical "evidence" as pointing to the existence of a God(ess)(e)(s).
All a matter of how you weigh the evidence and the framework.

Atheists often have a very bad way of abusing the word "rational(ally)"; I always get the giggles every time atheists get into value arguments (such as morals or politics or whatever), since they most often wind up trying to defend their own abitrary value choice as the only "rational" choice possible, which is frankly hilarious.

Certainly, I hold that all the evidence points to the non-existence of any God; but while I am a very hardline atheist indeed, and have been so a long, long time, I also recognise that that's not the point for most people; the point for them is,
"Which values do you choose to have and/or to promote ?"

which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Anyway, like I hinted, usually I defend the agnostics, but at the moment as far as I'm concerned, I have much better things to do (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=53887).

;)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by diana
....
Let my opponents come with less convoluted rebuttals that don't misrepresent my position and with better powers of expression.
*sigh*
That doesn't mean me, does it ?

Anyway, you might like to see my other post to sandlewood just above to see why believe/not believe can be a false dichotomy --- and I think you neglected to see the argument about the meaning of "believe".

no, I don't feel like tangling --- I just felt like adding a note or two.
Anyway, I'm outta here.

[diana]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Really ?
I have no idea if a man named Batholemew Higgleson exists in the USA at this time. I possess no evidence for it.
Should I therefore "rationally" decide no such man exists ?
Do you see my point ?Well. If you based it on a bit more than your own lack of knowledge, you very well may. Say, if Bart was said to be invisible, you'd be considered "rational" to assert that he doesn't exist.

That statement [that you won't find any evidence of God's existence] itself might well be considered a statement of faith.
Quite a few religions interpret the physical "evidence" as pointing to the existence of a God(ess)(e)(s).
All a matter of how you weigh the evidence and the framework.Or how you define "evidence" and "faith."

Atheists often have a very bad way of abusing the word "rational(ally)"; I always get the giggles every time atheists get into value arguments (such as morals or politics or whatever), since they most often wind up trying to defend their own abitrary value choice as the only "rational" choice possible, which is frankly hilarious.

Certainly, I hold that all the evidence points to the non-existence of any God; but while I am a very hardline atheist indeed, and have been so a long, long time, I also recognise that that's not the point for most people; the point for them is,
"Which values do you choose to have and/or to promote ?"You lost me. What does one's values have to do with one's definition of "rational"?

*sigh*
That doesn't mean me, does it ?Well, yeah.

Anyway, you might like to see my other post to sandlewood just above to see why believe/not believe can be a false dichotomy --- and I think you neglected to see the argument about the meaning of "believe". I missed both, I guess. Still missing them.

no, I don't feel like tangling --- I just felt like adding a note or two.
Anyway, I'm outta here. Too bad. I was in the mood to tangle. Could have something to do with being apparently exhausted, stuck at work and punchy, though.

Anyway, like I hinted, usually I defend the agnostics, but at the moment as far as I'm concerned, I have much better things to do (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=53887).Happy gardening.

d

[NearNihil Experience]

For me, agnostic has sort-of been a label forced on me by the common concept of God. I feel that everyone is agnostic, in that as God is most often defined as a Being of mystery, beyond comprehension. The Moslem idea of Allah as unknowable and mysterious fits. Noone's senses or rationale is equiped to give them clear evidence one way or another.

There in lies the importance, and the crux of the concept of faith. Since no evidence is available on such a topic, one draws one's own conclusions from their experience and initial mental state.

I'm agnostic, in that everyone honest or at least consistent with above definition, is agnostic.
However I have faith that there is no God. My answer to the mystery is not more mystery, but that there is no mystery.

However, Pantheism always sounds a little different than alot of the shit people try to feed you. But its only a retreated position from weak theism, ala Spinoza.

A personal God, a bit different from the mysterious God, to me is the last refuge of the desperate and\ or schitzophrenic, and a tool for the clergy and status-quo militia to rally the troops agaisnt common sense and descency.

Alot of this subject depends on how one defines God and what one's criteria for evidence is. gonna get alot of different answers.

[Free Thinkr]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Really ?
I have no idea if a man named Batholemew Higgleson exists in the USA at this time. I possess no evidence for it.
Should I therefore "rationally" decide no such man exists ?
Do you see my point ?

Do you really think the odds of a god and 'ole bart are the same? Let's use this name for your example: Poopyhead Shitbrain.

Now, I find it very hard to believe there is anyone on earth with that name, but who knows? Perhaps someone really is named that. However, I find it unlikely enough that, without positive evidence, I can safely conclude no one bears that name.

[GPLindsey]

"Unknowable" doesn't work for me. We can sit around all day and come up with all sorts of hypothetical beings with unknowable properties that cannot be disproved. That doesn't mean they exist or that I should hedge my opinion on their existence by saying I am agnostic.

Also, the God we are talking about is not a total mystery, because he is believed by his followers to be the creator, that he worked from a design, and that and he is constantly interacting with his creation. Thus, we can judge whether there is a Mysterious God out there by his alleged effects. If we don't find evidence of intelligent design or of supernatural interference in the Universe, then the idea that there is a God out there is effectively refuted.

Finally, the example noted in the earlier post on whether a hypothetical Bart Higgleson was living in the U.S. This analogy doesn't work. The U.S. has 260 million people. Bart Higgleson is not that strange of a name, so encountering someone with that name in the U.S. requires no miracle. We also haven't assigned any other special properties to Bart. Thus, even without knowing he is there, it would be proper to be an "agnostic" about whether he exists or not. However, amend the analogy to give Bart Godlike powers, or just purple wings and the ability to see through lead, and then I become an atheist and say he isn't there. But can I prove beyond all doubt that he isn't there? No.

[Dr. Retard]

Two things:

First, "agnostic" has umpteen million different meanings. Some types of "agnostic" are stupider than others. On some meanings, being an agnostic is obviously reasonable.

Second, some agnostics do indeed think that there is solid evidence for God's existence, as well as for God's nonexistence. Philosopher Paul Draper, for instance. These folks defend some theistic arguments and some atheistic arguments. And they're not sure where the evidence points.

[Jobar]

Thinking about it, I'm unsure whether we should look at belief as only having two possible values, believe or disbelieve. Because it's a very common circumstance to *withhold* belief- we are told that something exists: nessies, UFOs, surcingles, dark matter, heroin-laced X. Is the automatic default for belief in any of these things 'no'? I would say instead that it's 'maybe' or 'mu'; there are colors on the belief/disbelief spectrum, not just black&white. In fact I don't see how a proper scientifically-minded skeptic can claim to purely believe, or disbelieve, in anything at all- simple humility before the fact of our human fallibility and imperfect knowledge requires us to always put error bars on our beliefs, no matter how strongly held.

With all that, though, I still agree with Free Thinkr's position that our opinion of the reality of so unlikely a critter as a god should be very far towards the 'disbelief' end of the scale, and very short error bars on our uncertainty. *Technically* I suppose we all qualify as agnostics, and none of us can say we are absolutely atheist; practically though, I have no qualms about calling myself atheist.

[sandlewood]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Really ?
I have no idea if a man named Batholemew Higgleson exists in the USA at this time. I possess no evidence for it.
Should I therefore "rationally" decide no such man exists ?
Do you see my point ?
But you do have some evidence for it. You know that many human beings do indeed exist in the USA. You also know that there is nothing about the existence of Mr. Higgleson that is out of your usual experience that makes him unlikely to exist.

However, if you have spent some time and effort to look for Mr. Higgleson and could not find him, I think it would be reasonable to believe that he doesn’t exist.
That statement itself might well be considered a statement of faith.
Quite a few religions interpret the physical "evidence" as pointing to the existence of a God(ess)(e)(s).
All a matter of how you weigh the evidence and the framework.
I’m not so much arguing here about how evidence is interpreted. An agnostic has already interpreted the evidence as insufficient to prove the existence of a god. And what I’m saying is that that is enough to decide a god doesn’t exist.

I’m saying that the strength of the argument that god doesn’t exist does not rest on the amount of evidence that he does not exist. It rests on the lack of evidence that he does. And presumably, for the agnostic, there is a lack of evidence that he does.

I don’t think that saying you’re an atheist means you have decided once and for all that god doesn’t exist. I think it means that you don’t believe god exists until evidence for him presents itself, at which time you’ll change your mind.
Atheists often have a very bad way of abusing the word "rational(ally)"; I always get the giggles every time atheists get into value arguments (such as morals or politics or whatever), since they most often wind up trying to defend their own abitrary value choice as the only "rational" choice possible, which is frankly hilarious.

Certainly, I hold that all the evidence points to the non-existence of any God; but while I am a very hardline atheist indeed, and have been so a long, long time, I also recognise that that's not the point for most people; the point for them is,
"Which values do you choose to have and/or to promote ?"
I’m also not sure what personal values have to do with the definition of “rational”. But I agree with you that for many people believing a god exists is a question of values. Though that’s based on the success of religion to establish and propagate the stigma that atheists are immoral.

If anything, I’d say that a theist’s values are more arbitrary in that they don’t offer any reasoning to explain why their morals are justified. They exempt themselves from this by saying “because god says so”. So they do not need to explain their own arbitrary values.

[Calzaer]

If you insist on forcing people to make a decision one way or the other, especially when they believe there's no good reason to believe in one position more than the other, you run the risk of creating just as many more theists as atheists.

Further, forcing someone to chose when they don't feel sufficiently convinced in terms of which position is correct makes you no better than the Pentacostal evangelist at a tent revival. He'd say much the same thing to the agnostics, after all.

Why is "when I see it, I'll believe it, but until then I'm going to reserve judgement" such a threatening statement to you?

[Bill]

Originally posted by GPLindsey
If I understand agnosticism, agnostics believe that there is insufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other that there is a God--the scales are balanced. That is one definition, although it is far from the best definition. As one of the few "hard core" agnostics around here, I'm afraid that I get accosted by "your kind" on a fairly regular basis, and quite frankly, I'm pretty sick and tired of the intolerance exhibited by atheists who can't think their way out of a paper bag and thus adopt false beliefs about agnosticism. So, to help you think a bit about this topic, let me spit out a few links for you to read: My own definition of agnosticism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html), which is, I will readily admit, a minority view, even among agnostics, but which I'm sticking to for historical reasons (to honor the man who coined the word, Thomas Henry Huxley). Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html), by atheist Professor Ted Drange. Professor Drange remains a good friend of mine in spite of the fact that we disagree about the definition of the word "agnostic." I understand his reasons for his definition and he understands my reasons for my definition, but we each have our strong motives for our differing points of view and there it sits. We've agreed to disagree. More on Professor Drange later. The Mental Discomfort of "Why?" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) by Jim Still. In this essay, Still summarizes Wittgenstein's view on "the problem of life," and leads us to an understanding of just why that problem cannot be "solved" (in any traditional sense). As diana has pointed out, the original view of agnosticism made it out to be an epistemological claim about what was known or knowable. This is entirely in accord with my own views (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html), as noted above.

However, that is not the sense in which most people today use the word "agnostic," and so when we get into using the word "agnostic" in a metaphysical sense, I then side with Professor Drange's definition (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html), which is: "you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition ["God exists"] is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, 'The evidence is insufficient' (or words to that effect)." This is my own view, which I will support based in part upon Jim Still's essay on Wittgenstein (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html).

However, there is one more essential point we must draw from Professor Drange's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html), and that is his point that: Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. Subscripts could be used for the different senses of "God." Thus we have the proposition that God[1] exists, the proposition that God[2] exists, the proposition that God[3] exists, etc., with each different sense of "God" suitably defined. For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God. A person might be a theist relative to one concept of God but an atheist or agnostic relative to a different one. If the question is raised whether God[1] exists, then theists relative to that concept (of God) are people who answer that question affirmatively. Atheists relative to that concept are people who answer the question negatively. And agnostics relative to that concept are people who understand the question but who avoid committing themselves to a "yes" or "no" answer to it by maintaining that the evidence either way is insufficient. I'm avoiding, for the purposes of this discussion, the fourth alternative of those who believe that the proposition "God exists" (in any particular sense) "is a cognitively meaningless sentence." Those people are noncognitivists with respect to that particular definition of what the word "God" means.

I have absolutely no hesitation about calling myself an atheist with respect to the Christian idea of God. I absolutely and firmly disbelieve the truth of that idea of God. And frankly, like Bertrand Russell, I will normally tell ordinary people that I am an atheist.

But I do not view atheism as central to my philosophy, nor am I an atheist with respect to even every usual definition of what the word "God" means. I am in at least two senses an "agnostic fundamentalist." In the first sense, I cling to the epistemological definition of what "agnostic" means, as set forth in my essay on that topic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html). And, with respect to the so-called "argument to design," and various variations on that argument (such as the "fine tuning" argument), I find enough evidence on the theist view of things to be militantly agnostic (the term "militant agnostic" was coined by E. Haldeman-Julius, and is frequently presented as I don't know, and you don't either!). Jim Still's essay on Wittgenstein (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html), which explains why humans can never know "an answer" to "the problem of life" only bolsters my militant agnosticism. Not only do we now not know, but humans (by their very nature) cannot ever know! I agree with the view that the nonexistence of God cannot be proved beyond ALL doubt, but as an atheist I can't see how the evidence for and against God equals out. Absolute certainty is an impossibility, so we live our lives by relying on reasonable certainty. I'm reasonably certain based on all available evidence that I am sitting here typing this, but there is a remote, remote possibility that I am in a coma someplace and this is all just a dream. Both are possible, but I certainly don't think they are equally probable, so I accept with reasonable certainty that I am actually typing. You are attacking a strawman characterization of agnosticism. I agree with you that absolute certainty is an impossibility, but that isn't the point. With respect to at least certain definitions of what the word "God" means, proof either way is an impossibility, and to thus declare in favor of one side (theism) or the other (atheism) is flatly wrong! Now, the evidence and arguments against the existence of God are all over this Web site, so I won't repeat them here. I find them convincing and they lead me to my acceptance of atheism, even though I cannot prove God does not exist beyond all doubt. My question for any agnostics out there--is it your view that the evidence for and against God is actually equal? If so, what evidence do you find so compelling on the theistic side of the scale, to make things balance out? If, instead, you are agnostic because of the remote possibility that God exists, despite the overwhelming evidence against it--aren't you withholding judgment while waiting for the unobtainable, absolute certainty? As a Board member of the Internet Infidels, I've had a lot to do with accumulating the evidences against God which appear on our web site. Unfortunately, since most of us come from the United States, most of the evidences and arguments on our web site deal with evidences and arguments against Christianity.

And in fact, my bet is that when you, yourself, proclaim that the evidence against God is compelling to you, you are speaking only of the Christian idea of God (the so-called "Holy Trinity"), or at least the "God of Abraham" (which expands the above concept by adding Islamic and Jewish God-concepts into the mix). More likely than not, you have not considered any Eastern god-concepts at all, nor have you thought much about which theistic arguments which have some degree of merit (and, in fact, you ask us agnostics to itemize those arguments for your benefit).

The God-concept of God as the "First Cause" of the existence of our material universe is one such argument. This is the one which Jim Still's essay on Wittgenstein (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) declares to be formally un-provable for either side (theist or atheist). Given that proof, how could I be anything but agnostic with respect to the "First Cause" definition of God?

I'm also agnostic about certain forms of the "Argument to Design" and/or "Fine Tuning Argument(s)." In particular, I'm troubled by the willingness of the atheist to dismiss the idea that the very fact that evolution works as a process to create increasingly complex life forms is not, in and of itself, something extraordinary and in need of an explanation. Intuitively, if I took a primitive planet (Earth at age 100 million years or so) and I applied nothing but heat energy (from the Sun) I would not expect any forms of life to grow. But they do grow, and not only grow, but they evolve with increasing complexity over long periods of time. This is definitely a surprising state of affairs, based upon what we know about physics, so it needs an explanation, which we don't currently have. (And, if the explanation is at all related to the "First Cause," above, we may be prohibited from ever having.)

Mind you, I see no justification whatsoever for adopting any theistic position with respect to any non-trivial definition of the word "God." (If "God is love," then I'm a theist, because I firmly believe that "love" exists; but that is a pretty-trivial definition of what the word "God" means, if you get my drift....)

But equally, I see no justification for full and complete atheism, based upon my arguments, above. Since I also reject the noncognitivist position (I believe the proposition "God exists" expresses a proposition that I understand; at least for most commonly used definitions of the word "God").

This leaves me with agnosticism, and as I noted above, I'm a militant agnostic.

== Bill

[Free Thinkr]

Originally posted by Jobar
Thinking about it, I'm unsure whether we should look at belief as only having two possible values, believe or disbelieve. Because it's a very common circumstance to *withhold* belief- we are told that something exists: nessies, UFOs, surcingles, dark matter, heroin-laced X.
LOL
:notworthy

*Technically* I suppose we all qualify as agnostics, and none of us can say we are absolutely atheist; practically though, I have no qualms about calling myself atheist.
Exactly.

[Bill]

Originally posted by diana
"Agnostic" is just shorthand for "Reticent Atheist." Or, as some unknown person put it, an agnostic is just an atheist with good PR. Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong!

As a militant agnostic, I find it is more like living in "no man's land" between two lines of battle. I get shot at by BOTH SIDES!

== Bill

[diana]

Originally posted by Bill
Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong!

As a militant agnostic, I find it is more like living in "no man's land" between two lines of battle. I get shot at by BOTH SIDES!

== Bill Yes, I understand that in your opinion I'm dead wrong. In my opinion, you're the one who's mistaken. We're even, but we've gotten nowhere.

Thank you for stating your position so unequivocally.

But why am I "wrong" in Bill-land?

I'm rather interested in exploring the idea of belief/disbelief as a black/white versus "shades of gray" issue, as my position hinges on this assumption.

(I have skimmed here at the moment, but I'll catch up on this thread later, in the wee hours. I responded to this short post as I think there are more civil ways to disagree with someone's position than to tell them they're "wrong," as this sets you up to be the authority, which is not only rude, but arrogant to boot.)

d

[Bill]

Originally posted by diana
But why am I "wrong" in Bill-land?Simple answer: you are doing nothing but engaging in name-calling when you say what I quoted above: "Agnostic" is just shorthand for "Reticent Atheist." Or, as some unknown person put it, an agnostic is just an atheist with good PR. Name-calling isn't a resolution to a philosophical disagreement. And in fact, name-calling generally prevents any such resolution. I'm rather interested in exploring the idea of belief/disbelief as a black/white versus "shades of gray" issue, as my position hinges on this assumption. Ask yourself this question: in politics, just how many issues are clearly black/white versus shades of gray? For the key issues of our day, I feel very few are truly black/white. If you want to discuss a specific issue, try abortion. (ducks...)

Given that, why should we expect that a question regarding the primary philosophical foundation for civilized society should be broken down into a clear black/white question? There are more shades of gray in questions of religion than the typical atheist would care to admit. One of the arguments I frequently have with my atheist friends is the question of whether or not religion does any "good." Most of my atheist friends would prefer to assert that everything about religion is bad. But, in my view, that position is totally unsupportable. There are not only good things about religion, but religion is central to ("essential to," even) civilization (which is why there hasn't been a known civilization where atheists were anything more than minor players on the sidelines).

But my real point here is that religion is neither "good" nor "bad" but rather a collection of shades of gray, as religion performs certain vital functions for civilizing people, but also frequently descends into clear atrocities for perfectly selfish reasons. We have to take the bad with the good, and we seem to need some sort of a religion in order to remain civilized. (Whether or not this will always be true necessarily remains to be seen, but as of this minute, I would have no problem providing a decent proof.) (I have skimmed here at the moment, but I'll catch up on this thread later, in the wee hours. I responded to this short post as I think there are more civil ways to disagree with someone's position than to tell them they're "wrong," as this sets you up to be the authority, which is not only rude, but arrogant to boot.) If you begin with an ad hominum attack against agnostics, why should you expect to receive better than you gave?

In other words, don't you see it as both rude and arrogant for you to tell all agnostics that they are merely "Reticent Atheists," etc.? I surely do, and frankly, given your rule-breaking ad hominum attack, I thought I was quite civil in reply....

== Bill

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Bill

As a militant agnostic, I find it is more like living in "no man's land" between two lines of battle. I get shot at by BOTH SIDES!


*Fires a "God type theories are exceedingly poor theories, why should we withold some level of judgement. Do we not wisely avoid certain routs, even not having taken them before?" at the besieged Bill*

Fight to free humanity of unparsimonious pontification!

PS. Bill, I am an instance of a formerly reticient atheist using the lable agnostic. I certainly sympathise with a lot of agnostic thinking, even if I don't today agree with it.

[ComestibleVenom]

I would concur with comments to the effect that "Belief" is a complex system of evaluative agencies, not a one dimentional measure of magnitude.

The various components are connected with eachother. I myself have found that the theoretical reasons I call the Easter Bunny a fiction do not exclude vastly mistaken theories about God's role in existence. God's just a fiction, a bad theory. We are nowhere close to having to resort to such speculations, nowhere even remotely dreamably close.

The development of western thought has (perhaps usefully) been marked by a gradual erosion of God's domain. A process which, amongst theists, continues today and still constitutes an informative foil for atheism.

Chasing the rainbow, each time we move towards it, it recedes in the distance. But the magical ability to anticipate us and hide makes us all the more convinced that a magical leprechaun is fleeing your greedy approach. Fiction, imagination, nothing close to plauible.

[Gurdur]

Editing out my original comments ---- this thread is at least good for displaying classical Pavlovian theory

[diana]

Originally posted by Bill
Simple answer: you are doing nothing but engaging in name-calling when you say what I quoted above: Name-calling isn't a resolution to a philosophical disagreement. And in fact, name-calling generally prevents any such resolution.

...

If you begin with an ad hominum attack against agnostics, why should you expect to receive better than you gave?

In other words, don't you see it as both rude and arrogant for you to tell all agnostics that they are merely "Reticent Atheists," etc.? I surely do, and frankly, given your rule-breaking ad hominum attack, I thought I was quite civil in reply....

== BillThem's serious charges, Bill. With all due respect to your exhalted position and with gracious acknowledgement to your extensive published works, I think I've found a sensitive area in which you appear incapable of thinking clearly.

From Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm):

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches. It seems you interpret my designation of same as "reticent atheist" as an attack on your character, being the militant agnostic you are. I do not see this as a character attack for two reasons:

1. Ad hominem attacks (the definition that would apply here) attack the person, not the assertion. They are a fallacy of irrelevance. My comment, however, was relevant to the discussion. We're discussing the meaning of the term "agnostic." It isn't as though I've pulled something insulting out of my ass in order to attack my opponent.

Were I to say something like "....atheists who can't think their way out of a paper bag and thus adopt false beliefs about agnosticism," however, I'd be committing this very infraction. The writer here has presumed to be an authority on "agnosticism" to the point that he feels justified in pronouncing some beliefs about it "false," and has stated that atheists who disagree with his point of view can't think their way out of a paper bag. Such a comment is gratuitous and is a clear example of a character attack. In so many words, the writer just broadly stated that anyone who disagrees with him is just stupid. This is textbook ad hominem.

2. If I'd meant "chickenshit atheist," which seems to be the way you took it, I'd have said just that. (And there are more than enough people who will attest to my unstained record of bluntness.)

However, I meant reticent. Theists self-identify as believers. Agnostics do not do this. Hence, I conclude they don't believe. But they choose the "there isn't enough information" stance, which avoids the question of belief. This avoidance of the question--for whatever reason--I call "reticence."

Usually, these people simply don't want to think about it or discuss it. They have better things to do with their lives and just aren't interested in pursuing the matter or they don't have time to look into it. They feel uncomfortable taking a stance they feel must be defended (and while atheism shouldn't need to be defended, we all end up defending it, nonetheless). It is no insult to be reticent, Bill. Neither is it an insult to be an atheist.

I was a reticent atheist for many years. I know many who seem content to stay there. I do not by any stretch of the imagination consider this an insult or affront to their characters.

And in fact, my bet is that when you, yourself, proclaim that the evidence against God is compelling to you, you are speaking only of the Christian idea of God (the so-called "Holy Trinity"), or at least the "God of Abraham" (which expands the above concept by adding Islamic and Jewish God-concepts into the mix). More likely than not, you have not considered any Eastern god-concepts at all, nor have you thought much about which theistic arguments which have some degree of merit (and, in fact, you ask us agnostics to itemize those arguments for your benefit). I agree. People tend to not believe in concepts they haven't considered. When the concept is that of a god, and person X hasn't considered it, it's fairly safe to say person X doesn't believe it. The default is still atheist. (Better: agnostic atheist.)

As I said, I'm interested in exploring my definition.

d

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by diana
......
As I said, I'm interested in exploring my definition.

You have an odd way of showing it.

[diana]

ME: I'm rather interested in exploring the idea of belief/disbelief as a black/white versus "shades of gray" issue, as my position hinges on this assumption.

THEE: Ask yourself this question: in politics, just how many issues are clearly black/white versus shades of gray? For the key issues of our day, I feel very few are truly black/white. If you want to discuss a specific issue, try abortion. (ducks...) True.

Given that, why should we expect that a question regarding the primary philosophical foundation for civilized society should be broken down into a clear black/white question?Simply because I can't understand how it is possible to "kinda believe" anything. Or to "withhold belief," for that matter.

I hear people say these things, and have all my life, beginning with the Christian idea of "weak" or "strong" faith. Try as I might, I've never managed to understand what this means, though. It seems to me that you don't believe something up to a point, but at that point, you have enough evidence (or what you take as evidence) to believe it. There is a "gray area" where you have enough "evidence" to make you wonder about the truth of the proposition, but this is still unbelief--you still aren't persuaded.

I've been told there are weak and strong beliefs. Perhaps there are, but I can't grasp the concept.

There are more shades of gray in questions of religion than the typical atheist would care to admit. One of the arguments I frequently have with my atheist friends is the question of whether or not religion does any "good." Most of my atheist friends would prefer to assert that everything about religion is bad. But, in my view, that position is totally unsupportable. There are not only good things about religion, but religion is central to ("essential to," even) civilization (which is why there hasn't been a known civilization where atheists were anything more than minor players on the sidelines).

But my real point here is that religion is neither "good" nor "bad" but rather a collection of shades of gray, as religion performs certain vital functions for civilizing people, but also frequently descends into clear atrocities for perfectly selfish reasons. We have to take the bad with the good, and we seem to need some sort of a religion in order to remain civilized. (Whether or not this will always be true necessarily remains to be seen, but as of this minute, I would have no problem providing a decent proof.) I agree with you here. I see many good things that can be done with religion and that its adherents can take from it.

It's belief that I simply can't imagine being a "shade of gray."

d

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by diana

Simply because I can't understand how it is possible to "kinda believe" anything. Or to "withhold belief," for that matter.

It's belief that I simply can't imagine being a "shade of gray."

I'm rather interested in exploring the idea of belief/disbelief as a black/white versus "shades of gray" issue, as my position hinges on this assumption.

You know that we add up evidence to come to our decisions. So I think it's like a scale 0..100 and you consider somewhere around "100" to be labeled "belief" - and so we either believe or we don't believe. That makes sense.

But we can also say that somewhere around "0" is labeled "no belief" - and somewhere around the middle of course is labeled "don't know". I think this makes sense, also.

So what then is a priori wrong about saying "I don't know"?

[Bill]

Originally posted by diana
Simply because I can't understand how it is possible to "kinda believe" anything. Or to "withhold belief," for that matter.

I hear people say these things, and have all my life, beginning with the Christian idea of "weak" or "strong" faith. Try as I might, I've never managed to understand what this means, though. It seems to me that you don't believe something up to a point, but at that point, you have enough evidence (or what you take as evidence) to believe it. There is a "gray area" where you have enough "evidence" to make you wonder about the truth of the proposition, but this is still unbelief--you still aren't persuaded.

I've been told there are weak and strong beliefs. Perhaps there are, but I can't grasp the concept.

{...snippity-snip...}

It's belief that I simply can't imagine being a "shade of gray." My guess would be that you've fallen for some form of the Bifurcation Fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#bifurcation): Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example: "Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..." It is really rather more typical to have shades of belief, uncertainty, and disagreement. I might hear an argument that sounds convincing, but it leads to a conclusion that I'm not ready to accept. I feel that there are other things the particular argument doesn't consider, so I'm not convinced. Or, I might agree with most of the argument, but disagree on a point or two, and yet feel that the conclusion is valid and that there are ways around the points where I disagree.

"Belief" is just another word for "opinion," and clearly, opinions can be strongly or weakly held, or they can be not really held, but the person in question can be leaning in one way or another way. Opinion researchers use multiple question techniques to attempt to measure (in scientifically quantifiable terms) the degree of commitment to any particular opinion. In political campaigns, for instance, we speak of support for a particular candidate as being "strong" or "weak" in terms of the level of commitment that candidate's supporters have, and the degree of effort needed for the opponant to sway blocks of voters to come over to the other side.

Perhaps you've been misled by the political battle going on to change the formal dictionary definition of atheism to "an absence of belief in the existence of gods" (or words to that effect), and the word "absence" leaves no doubt in your mind that there is no room for any shades of gray here. What you've then done is again executed the Bifurcation Fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#bifurcation), above, by attempting to force everybody who has even the slightest belief in any god or gods to define themselves as a theist (many atheists I've encoutered have made this very argument to me). You might think that is fair, but I certainly don't! If I choose to believe that one or two theistic arguments have some merit, and deserve further consideration (even if I don't see them as being in any way "proven"), am I then a theist? I frankly don't think I am, because I still reject the idea that any known form of theism is true. I'm merely unconvinced that either atheism or theism is true. I am an agnostic. There are good arguments on both sides, and no present way to resolve those arguments.

And, as an agnostic, I strongly resent being labeled theist or atheist against my will! Those who engage in that sort of behavior have violated my intellectual integrity, and ultimately, my own civil rights to adhere to those opinions I personally find to be correct.

And this is my civil right, vis-a-vis the government, anyway, as declared by the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=319&invol=624) (June 14, 1943): If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. You certainly aren't the government, so you aren't bound by that holding, but it is still a principle that everybody ought to respect: don't force opinions upon other people, particularly when they've already expressed their unwillingness to abide by those opinions.

If you can't see that belief comes in many shades, then that is a fault within your own personal makeup. And if you wish to live in the world of false dichotomies as a consequence of this fault of yours, then that is your own chosen fate. But I personally see such a fault or choice on your part as being nothing less than bigotry and/or prejudice, and I don't see any real difference between atheist bigotry against agnostics and any other form of bigotry (raceism, etc.). And yes, bigotry does get my emotions in gear and makes me really, really angry.

== Bill

[Bill]

Originally posted by diana
1. Ad hominem attacks (the definition that would apply here) attack the person, not the assertion. They are a fallacy of irrelevance. My comment, however, was relevant to the discussion. We're discussing the meaning of the term "agnostic." It isn't as though I've pulled something insulting out of my ass in order to attack my opponent. The post of yours in question offered no facts nor argumentation in support of your comments. It was thus "name calling," pure and simple, and "name calling," no matter how you try to avoid it, is quite simply an ad hominem attack.

If you had presented some facts or arguments in support of your assertions, even as briefly as you've now presented in attempting to defend yourself against my charge of using the ad hominem attack, then perhaps it might have seemed to be appropriate when I first read it. But it surely seemed to me that those comments were entirely gratuitous at the end of a post which was not an argument in support of those statements as a conclusion. To me, it frankly did seem that you "pulled something insulting out of [your] ass in order to attack [your] opponent" [edited comment on moderator, pescifish]

Besides, it isn't like this is the first time this topic has been argued on this board. Its probably well over a hundred times by now (I haven't counted, and frankly don't care to), so you surely ought to know the distinction between argumentation and "fighting words" by now!

== Bill

[diana]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
You know that we add up evidence to come to our decisions. So I think it's like a scale 0..100 and you consider somewhere around "100" to be labeled "belief" - and so we either believe or we don't believe. That makes sense.

But we can also say that somewhere around "0" is labeled "no belief" - and somewhere around the middle of course is labeled "don't know". I think this makes sense, also.

So what then is a priori wrong about saying "I don't know"? Nothing is wrong with saying "I don't know," but it doesn't speak to belief.

This is what I keep coming back to, see. When a person says, "I don't know if I believe or not," it sounds to me like that person doesn't have enough evidence to believe yet. He instead has enough information to consider the possibility that the proposition may be true, to give him pause--but not enough to switch him from nonbelief in that particular thing to belief.

Does that make sense?

d

[Gurdur]

My apologies to Diana for misinterpreting some comments and over-reacting to them.
--- Gurdur

[diana]

Thanks, Gurdur. No worries.

d

[johngalt]

Some people just resort to Agnosticism because they don't want to make either side feel bad. LOL:D

[keyser_soze]

<shrugs>..."who is john galt?"

[Sorry man, but I love that little use of name in it's proper reference mode....it's just cool.]

[niggle]

Having read a similiar thread in a different forum (where Bill was involved), I must say I DON'T CARE!!!

Is it so important for some atheists to pull agnostics down off the fence? Is it in any way productive?

As an atheist, I firmly disbelieve in any God. I also am positive that Bill and other agnostics are wrong when they say the existence of God in unknowable. However, I see little value of making an issue of it. Agnostics aren't intellectually lazy or cowards and they don't hurt the cause that we all share (freedom from intrusive religion).

Every group has its inner squabbles and disagreements, but unless it addresses a fundamental problem, the arguing is counterproductive.

It's an issue that deserves a quiet death.

[Calzaer]

"Agnostic" is just shorthand for "Reticent Atheist."

But that's ok, because all Atheists are really just "Backslidden Christians".

(Both statements are equally insulting, just in case anyone didn't get the point)

[diana]

Originally posted by Calzaer
But that's ok, because all Atheists are really just "Backslidden Christians". Even newborn babies?

(Both statements are equally insulting, just in case anyone didn't get the point) Well, thank you for your input. I've lost count now of how many people experienced an emotional reaction to my comment in lieu of addressing the point I've repeatedly made and explained with some care.

This is something I've thought for some time--the idea of belief actually being a bifurcation instead of a "shades of gray" issue--and I honestly do not understand how it is possible to do anything, in the end, besides believe or disbelieve. I've granted that there is a point where your disbelief has enough information to make you contemplate the veracity of the claim. But at that point, it seems to me that it's still disbelief. You're still considering the truth of the proposition. You haven't yet accepted it. Once you do, you trip over from disbelief to belief.

There are conditions that are bifurcated in reality. You're either married or you aren't, for example. Once "married" is defined, there is a bifurcation. Not everything is shades of grey.

I'm simply questioning the idea that belief is a "shade of gray." It seems to me that, despite popular conception, it isn't. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

(You are, of course, welcome to focus on the idea that I'm just insulting agnostics. Such was not and is not my intention, and I apologize to all and any who took my comments thusly. I suppose, though, that there are people who can manage to be insulted by anything. I try not to insult people, but I confess I was absent the day they taught omniscience, so I don't always know what strokes people's cats backwards.)

d

[pescifish]

I agree with the association of belief with atheism and knowledge with agnosticism. For at least 20 yrs I considered myself a theist agnostic. My most solid belief is that god is irrelevant, existing or not. Currently, I am what I consider a strong nontheist in terms of belief. But I think the label 'agnostic' is more representative of my viewpoint. These days I am an atheist: but 'nontheist agnostic' is a more accurate term. Originally posted by diana
This is something I've thought for some time--the idea of belief actually being a bifurcation instead of a "shades of gray" issue--and I honestly do not understand how it is possible to do anything, in the end, besides believe or disbelieve. I've granted that there is a point where your disbelief has enough information to make you contemplate the veracity of the claim. Since I feel the existence of god is irrelevant, I generally choose not to contemplate it. Frankly, imo, it's not important enough to spend the time to think about it.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by diana
Nothing is wrong with saying "I don't know," but it doesn't speak to belief.

This is what I keep coming back to, see. When a person says, "I don't know if I believe or not," it sounds to me like that person doesn't have enough evidence to believe yet. He instead has enough information to consider the possibility that the proposition may be true, to give him pause--but not enough to switch him from nonbelief in that particular thing to belief.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I understand your position - nonbelief is the starting or default position, then with enough evidence we may decide to "believe". Lacking the evidence, we don't hold that belief.

I consider the default position to be "don't know", ie ignorance. Evidence for tends to make be believe, while evidence against tends to make me not believe.

For example, after looking at all the evidence I can find, I don't believe in any of the personal-type gods I've heard of - xian, zeus, etc. I believe there are no gods.

HOWEVER I have heard of many other meanings for the word "god", some of which may have merit, but I haven't seen all the evidence yet. I don't believe in any of these ideas, but neither do I believe they are false.

Put another way, I believe that my lack of belief in the xian god is almost certainly accurate. I do not believe that my lack of belief in a "higher power" is almost certainly accurate.

I would resist the claim that my lack of belief in the xian god, is equivalent to my lack of belief in (say) a "higher power".

So it's okay (logical) to think of belief as an all or nothing with no shades of gray, but then the shades of meaning get lost! Your position ("no-belief" is default) is not wrong, but maybe it's more useful to think of "don't know if I believe or not" as default, then see where the evidence takes us.

[Overgrowngoblin]

On each side of the theist/atheist argument are the people who have figured out the grand mysteries of the universe. They say that either there is or isn’t a god and to them the answer is so clear that they can’t even understand how anyone else could be so stupid to believe otherwise; let alone the audacity of someone to sit on the fence.

When they see someone in the middle, such as an agnostic, they tell them to pick a lane and get on with it; either believe in a god or don’t believe in a god. What they don’t understand is that an agnostic doesn’t see two lanes of traffic to make a choice from. There is only one lane, a one-way street, and theists and atheists are all going in the same direction. The street is called knowledge.

They both claim to have the knowledge (belief) that they need to unlock the mysteries of the universe and to them the ‘answer’ is so obvious. An agnostic, instead of traveling down the one-way street of knowledge (belief), they step off the road and admit that currently there is not enough information, at this time, to unlock the greatest mysteries of the universe. Instead they choose to travel along the sidewalk of the unknowable. We acknowledge that the universe is a pretty big place and that maybe, just maybe, human’s brains are not so big that they have figured out all the mysteries of that big grand universe.

For this reason alone I can’t help but chuckle ever time I hear someone say an agnostic is a weak or cowardly atheist or a very liberal theist. For simply put, an agnostic has less in common with either of the opposite sides (theist/atheist) than the opposite sides have in common with each other. So once again the agnostic is not sitting on the fence but is traveling in the opposite direction, with both eyes wide open and looking at the scenery.

[Free Thinkr]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
On each side of the theist/atheist argument are the people who have figured out the grand mysteries of the universe. They say that either there is or isn’t a god and to them the answer is so clear that they can’t even understand how anyone else could be so stupid to believe otherwise; let alone the audacity of someone to sit on the fence.

When they see someone in the middle, such as an agnostic, they tell them to pick a lane and get on with it; either believe in a god or don’t believe in a god. What they don’t understand is that an agnostic doesn’t see two lanes of traffic to make a choice from. There is only one lane, a one-way street, and theists and atheists are all going in the same direction. The street is called knowledge.

They both claim to have the knowledge (belief) that they need to unlock the mysteries of the universe and to them the ‘answer’ is so obvious. An agnostic, instead of traveling down the one-way street of knowledge (belief), they step off the road and admit that currently there is not enough information, at this time, to unlock the greatest mysteries of the universe. Instead they choose to travel along the sidewalk of the unknowable. We acknowledge that the universe is a pretty big place and that maybe, just maybe, human’s brains are not so big that they have figured out all the mysteries of that big grand universe.

For this reason alone I can’t help but chuckle ever time I hear someone say an agnostic is a weak or cowardly atheist or a very liberal theist. For simply put, an agnostic has less in common with either of the opposite sides (theist/atheist) than the opposite sides have in common with each other. So once again the agnostic is not sitting on the fence but is traveling in the opposite direction, with both eyes wide open and looking at the scenery.
On each side of the unicornist/aunicornist argument are the people who have figured out the grand mysteries of the universe. They say that either there are or are no unicorns and to them the answer is so clear that they can’t even understand how anyone else could be so stupid to believe otherwise; let alone the audacity of someone to sit on the fence.

When they see someone in the middle, such as an agnostic, they tell them to pick a lane and get on with it; either believe in unicorns or don’t believe in unicorns. What they don’t understand is that an agnostic doesn’t see two lanes of traffic to make a choice from. There is only one lane, a one-way street, and unicornists and aunicornists are all going in the same direction. The street is called knowledge.

They both claim to have the knowledge (belief) that they need to unlock the mysteries of the universe and to them the ‘answer’ is so obvious. An agnostic, instead of traveling down the one-way street of knowledge (belief), they step off the road and admit that currently there is not enough information, at this time, to unlock the greatest mysteries of the universe. Instead they choose to travel along the sidewalk of the unknowable. We acknowledge that the universe is a pretty big place and that maybe, just maybe, human’s brains are not so big that they have figured out all the mysteries of that big grand universe.

For this reason alone I can’t help but chuckle ever time I hear someone say an agnostic is a weak or cowardly aunicornist or a very liberal unicornist. For simply put, an agnostic has less in common with either of the opposite sides (unicornist/aunicornist) than the opposite sides have in common with each other. So once again the agnostic is not sitting on the fence but is traveling in the opposite direction, with both eyes wide open and looking at the scenery.

-Sometimes a concept is ridiculous enough to dismiss.

[Overgrowngoblin]

Sometimes a concept is ridiculous enough to dismiss.

I fail to see how comparing the concept of a universe unknown to a unicorn nullifies the argument that man may not know everything about the universe we live in. Comparing the Xian god, Greek gods, Buddhist god, ect, ect, to a unicorn makes sense because they are both fabrications dreamed up by mortal men. But how do you compare man simple not knowing everything about the universe with a belief in unicorns?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Free Thinkr
On each side of the unicornist/aunicornist argument are the people who have figured out the grand mysteries of the universe. They say that either there are or are no unicorns and to them the answer is so clear that they can’t even understand how anyone else could be so stupid to believe otherwise; let alone the audacity of someone to sit on the fence.

Try "wormholeist" and "awormholeist". If you do, then then you should be able to see the agnostic position - unless you claim you know the truth about wormholes.

[Calzaer]

But that's ok, because all Atheists are really just "Backslidden Christians".

Even newborn babies?

No, they're forward-sliding Christians. If they go straight from baby to atheist, they done slid right past! :p

[sandlewood]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
They both claim to have the knowledge (belief) that they need to unlock the mysteries of the universe and to them the ‘answer’ is so obvious.

I don’t claim to have that knowledge or to have unlocked the mysteries of the universe. Theists have claimed that their god exists but I have never seen any evidence of it. I’m not making any sort of claim about gods not existing. I was just standing here minding my own business when someone started claiming his god exists but gave no evidence. What am I supposed to do? Why is it suddenly my job to have the “answers to the universe” and to prove him wrong, otherwise he is right? All I’m saying is that I’ve never seen any evidence for their claim. So I don’t believe their god exists. How knowledgeable does one have to be to see evidence for a god that is supposedly everywhere?

It could very well be that atoms are not really made of electrons and protons. I don’t know everything about physics. But I’ve still formed the belief that atoms are made up of electrons and protons. I may change my belief someday if there is any additional evidence or if I learn more. But until then, I have that belief.

[Overgrowngoblin]

Dear Sandlewood,

You say you haven’t claimed to have that knowledge or to have unlocked the mysteries of the universe but forming an opinion on either side of the god issue is the same as claiming one has knowledge and has unlocked the mysteries of the universe.

Originally posted by sandlewood

But if you maintain that there is not enough evidence either for or against the existence of God, then I think your position has to be that he doesn’t exist. As long as there isn’t enough evidence that God exists, then it’s rational to say he doesn’t exist. There isn’t going to be any evidence that God doesn’t exist, so you can’t sit around expecting it. The only thing that matters is whether there is sufficient evidence of his existence. As long as there isn’t, I don’t see why agnosticism is justified.

Originally posted by sandlewood

An agnostic has already interpreted the evidence as insufficient to prove the existence of a god. And what I’m saying is that that is enough to decide a god doesn’t exist.

The god issue is the made-up answer to the unknowable things. Anything that is beyond the scope of a human being we find they have made up a convenient answer – god. How did the universe start? Don’t know? God. What happens after we die? Don’t know? God. These answers are far to simplistic in an overly complicated universe for my tastes, especially with the very humanistic face that they have veiled these deities in.

However, even with the disbelief in the made-up human gods I am still left with the currently unanswerable questions in our universe. How did the universe start? Don’t know. What happens after we die? Don’t know.

The answers to these questions are within the scope of my imagination. I can imagine many answers to these questions, but I could probably guarantee that they would all be wrong. So often it happens throughout history that scientists will claim they have figured out some great mystery only to later find out they were wrong or only partially correct (which is why we call them theories and not facts). As far as the biggest questions go (see above) I do not believe we are even close to figuring them out. But instead of picking one side or the other in the two-sided debate I reserve judgment until further data is received.

Originally posted by sandlewood

I don’t claim to have that knowledge or to have unlocked the mysteries of the universe. Theists have claimed that their god exists but I have never seen any evidence of it. I’m not making any sort of claim about gods not existing. I was just standing here minding my own business when someone started claiming his god exists but gave no evidence. What am I supposed to do? Why is it suddenly my job to have the “answers to the universe” and to prove him wrong, otherwise he is right? All I’m saying is that I’ve never seen any evidence for their claim. So I don’t believe their god exists. How knowledgeable does one have to be to see evidence for a god that is supposedly everywhere?

It certainly doesn’t have to be your job to have the ‘answers to the universe,’ but an atheist saying for a fact that no gods exist is the same as saying they have some of the ‘answers to the universe’.

Originally posted by sandlewood

I don’t think that saying you’re an atheist means you have decided once and for all that god doesn’t exist. I think it means that you don’t believe god exists until evidence for him presents itself, at which time you’ll change your mind.

Am I wrong on the definition of atheism? Does it not roughly mean a person who does not believe that any gods exist? By saying this quote above you seem to become a dictionary definition of an agnostic. Welcome to the club. :)

[The AntiChris]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
Am I wrong on the definition of atheism? Does it not roughly mean a person who does not believe that any gods exist? By saying this quote above you seem to become a dictionary definition of an agnostic. Welcome to the club. :) You're perpetuating the popular but mistaken belief that the atheist position is one of absolute certainty.

I know of no rational atheist, or anyone else for that matter, who subscribes to absolute certainty about anything.

People who use the term "agnostic" specifically in order to distance themselves from atheism on the basis that there is insufficient evidence seem to me to be exhibiting a degree of credulity in the god concept.

Just as the burden of proof is on theists to justify their extraordinary claims it seems to me that the burden of proof is on "agnostics" to justify their lack of incredulity.;)

Chris

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by The AntiChris
Just as the burden of proof is on theists to justify their extraordinary claims it seems to me that the burden of proof is on "agnostics" to justify their lack of incredulity.;)

Now I think this is a good point. Although atheists should try to better explain their epistemological position, I don't think that God-theory is even tenable. It's way out there, outside science, certainly undeserving of serious consideration in these modern times. Maybe many years ago God was a serious possibility, maybe far, far into the future he will be, but not now no how.

[diana]

Am I wrong on the definition of atheism? Does it not roughly mean a person who does not believe that any gods exist? By saying this quote above you seem to become a dictionary definition of an agnostic. Welcome to the club. Hi, Overgrowngoblin. Welcome to II. I'm enjoying your posts so far. (Even when I ain't, you're welcome anyhow. ;))

You appear to be arguing for the position that agnosticism falls on the continuum between belief and disbelief. I'm starting to see the underlying disagreement differently.

It seems to me that those who call themselves "agnostics" (and agnostics only) see the "degrees of belief," shall we say, like this:

ATHEIST ----- AGNOSTIC ----- THEIST

Let's call this "the continuum model." I think this plays more to the common understanding of the terms, as opposed to their literal meanings.

I use the terms in their literal senses, however, which means they can't fall on the same continuum. Indeed, neither represents a continuum at all, but rather an either/or choice. Yes...many of you disagree with me here and accuse me of committing the bifurcation fallacy--but I argue some things are an either/or choice--I gave the condition of married as an example (you are or you aren't)--and knowledge of a deity and belief in a deity are two more such choices.

a-theism = without belief in a deity or deities
a-gnosticism = without knowledge of a deity or deities

I see this not as a continuum but as two distinct categories, and every person falls into one choice of each. Either you have belief in a deity or you do not. Either you have knowledge of a deity or you do not. I'll call this the "switch model," in which every person has one characteristic from each category: (a) agnostic atheist, (b) agnostic theist, (c) gnostic atheist, or (d) gnostic theist.

I am an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of a deity and I have no belief in a deity.

Those who adopt the continuum model seem to make the inherent assumption therein that the atheist somehow claims to have knowledge that a deity doesn't exist, or faith that a deity doesn't exist. I argue that these are misconceptions perpetuated by the continuum model. To be an atheist as it pertains to any given deity or deities, you must (a) have never heard of the deity, in which case you cannot believe in it, and/or (b) lack sufficient evidence to convince you of the deity's existence.

People keep arguing with me about how belief doesn't have to be black and white because everything is not black and white. I agree. Everything isn't black and white. But some things are.

Jobar commented that it is possible to "withhold belief." I agree. But I argue that he who "withholds belief" has yet to accept a proposition's truth, no matter how close he may be to stepping to the other side. As soon as he accepts it, then he believes. Up to that point, he does not, no matter how much evidence he does or doesn't have.

d

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by diana
I am an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of a deity and I have no belief in a deity.


I have no knowledge of a two protoned, twelve neutroned, five hundred and sixty electroned molecule. I know what it's supposed to be (as with God), but I have no knowledge of it.

Does that mean I am agnostic about such an thing?

1. It is not continuous with current scientific knowledge.
2. It is unparsimonious to believe it.
3. It is a human fiction.

No, I am not nor should I be an agnostic about it. It is a concept that for scientific and philosophical reasons should be discounted as a serious possibility. Agnosticism in this case would be taking the idea irrationally seriously.

[Free Thinkr]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Try "wormholeist" and "awormholeist". If you do, then then you should be able to see the agnostic position - unless you claim you know the truth about wormholes.

Apparently you missed the last line of my post:

-Sometimes a concept is ridiculous enough to dismiss.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Free Thinkr

Apparently you missed .....
Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
...
Agnosticism in this case would be taking the idea irrationally seriously.
Originally posted by The AntiChris
.....
Just as the burden of proof is on theists to justify their extraordinary claims it seems to me that the burden of proof is on "agnostics" to justify their lack of incredulity.

*sigh*
I said I was out of this, but I might as well change my mind.

There is no burden of proof upon agnostics, just as there is none on atheists.

Allowing a 0.000000001 % chance that some form of a god may exist simply recognises metaphysical difficulties
(think Gödel, Popper etc.).

You then have two choices:
decide whether or not that that chance is so insignificant then to be able to "rationally" say "No god exists, ergo I am an atheist"

or decide the question is ultimately unknowable or undecidable or simply immaterial for practical purposes, owing to that tiny chance, so you declare,
"The question is unknowable/undecidable/immaterial, ergo I am an agnostic."

The ultimate decision is then a question of value --- the value you set in the decision-making process upon non-significant chances.

Since it is a value, it is therefore subjective.
And therefore it is irrational to regard the consequences of a subjective arbitrary value choice as being somehow the Ultimate Decision With Only One "Right" Choice.

Or, IOW, atheists who demand agnostics jump off the fence are simply being irrational.
:)

[sandlewood]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
However, even with the disbelief in the made-up human gods I am still left with the currently unanswerable questions in our universe. How did the universe start? Don’t know. What happens after we die? Don’t know.

Which is it that you’re agnostic towards? How the universe started or whether a god exists? They are two different things. I agree with you that we don’t know how the universe came to exist. I’m agnostic on that. But atheism doesn’t ask the question “how did the universe start?” It asks the question “do you hold the belief that one or more gods exist?”

Regarding the question of how the universe and life came to exist, there is the answer “I don’t know, and you don’t either.” I will agree with you on that. But that is not the point, and not what I’m saying as an atheist (at least, as far as weak atheism goes). I am saying, “I don’t know, but I don’t see any reason to think it was created by a god.” Atheism doesn’t say that you know how the universe and life came about. It only says that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that they were created by a god.

I doubt there are many people that believe that the IPU exists. Yet there is hardly more evidence for the Christian god’s existence than for IPU’s existence. But people are not agnostic with respect to the IPU’s existence. Why is that? If we then say that the IPU is not just a random entity but that it is the entity that created the universe, then should we suddenly become agnostic about the IPU? Why would agnosticism with respect to the IPU change? Doesn’t that confuse our agnosticism about the creation of the universe with agnosticism about whether the IPU exists or not?

You may choose to adopt the position that god as defined excludes the possibility of evidence. He might exist and it might be that there is no possible way for there to be evidence of him. Therefore the only tool you have to work with is reasoning. You can reason that he could exist. But I think there is a gulf between showing how a god could exist and showing that one does exists. We might be able to reason that any number of non-existing but logically possible entities exist.

I’m not trying to convert agnostics to atheists. I’m just explaining why I don't adopt an agnostic position.

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Gurdur
There is no burden of proof upon agnostics, just as there is none on atheists.

Burden of proof is not the real point of the discussion, methinks the key is the eludication of the philosophical views that lead us to our respective stances on God.

Allowing a 0.000000001 % chance that some form of a god may exist simply recognises metaphysical difficulties.

That's an *extremely* generous estimation of the probability of God's existence. I would give at most 1 x 10^-61%, at MOST.

The fact is that God is a being of arbitrary power and complexity. That is the archetype of an outlandish theory. Pink unicorns are downright certain to exist relative to the probability that we could ever find rational justification to believe in a being like that.


decide whether or not that that chance is so insignificant then to be able to "rationally" say "No god exists, ergo I am an atheist"

Once again, the point is not merely probability. It is a question of the plausibility of God-type theories by and large.

Since it is a value, it is therefore subjective.
And therefore it is irrational to regard the consequences of a subjective arbitrary value choice as being somehow the Ultimate Decision With Only One "Right" Choice.

My position is very far from arbitrary. I make no claims to the ultimate, but I believe that I am right and with reason.

[The AntiChris]

Originally posted by Gurdur
There is no burden of proof upon agnostics, just as there is none on atheists.

Did you miss the smiley wink?;)

Chris

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by The AntiChris
Did you miss the smiley wink?
ah.
Mind you, I myself often use smilies as blunt instruments --- there's no set convention on what smilies signify, so I took your post seriously.
I stand corrected.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom

Burden of proof is not the real point of the discussion, Wrong.
It's at least implicitly a point of discussion with some here, even not counting The AntiChris.
That's an *extremely* generous estimation of the probability of God's existence. I would give at most 1 x 10^-61%, at MOST. Irrelevant. You've just granted me my point.
It's a probability estimate, and it's of no consequence what the actual probability is once the probability is insignificant.

I could of course have simply taken the other route and declared all metaphysical questions are in fact ultimately undecidable from a rational viewpoint ---- which is why I referred readers to Gödel and Popper.
The fact is that God is a being of arbitrary power and complexity. Wrong !
The fact is that that gods are undecidable on an ultimate metaphysical level, and decidable only on a probability basis on a practical level.
That is the archetype....non sequiter

Once again, the point is not merely probability. It is a question of the plausibility of God-type theories by and large.ROFL !
:D
The point is not probability, but plausibility ????
My word.
Try thinking "synonyms" in this context.
;)

My position is very far from arbitrary.
Wrong.
I make no claims to the ultimate, but I believe that I am right and with reason. You contradict yourself.

[Overgrowngoblin]

Dear Diana,

Thanks for the welcome it’s good to be here.

Originally posted by diana
Everything isn't black and white. But some things are.
But how do you know that this issue is black and white?

Originally posted by diana
ATHEIST ----- AGNOSTIC ----- THEIST

Let's call this "the continuum model." I think this plays more to the common understanding of the terms, as opposed to their literal meanings.

I use the terms in their literal senses, however, which means they can't fall on the same continuum. Indeed, neither represents a continuum at all, but rather an either/or choice. Yes...many of you disagree with me here and accuse me of committing the bifurcation fallacy--but I argue some things are an either/or choice--I gave the condition of married as an example (you are or you aren't)--and knowledge of a deity and belief in a deity are two more such choices.
Some things are an either/or choice but how do you know that this issue is an either/or choice? 2+2=5 true or false? It is either true or it is false and by this model one could stand on either side of the debate and decide. But agnostics only see it as 2+. Not enough information to pick a side.

Originally posted by diana
I am an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of a deity and I have no belief in a deity.
Exactly you use your knowledge and take it one step further to form your belief. Agnostics use their knowledge to determine there is not enough data to form their belief, therefore, it becomes a belief of not knowing.

Atheism and theism is an answer (gods/no gods). Agnosticism is a question without enough information to make a determination.

Originally posted by diana
Jobar commented that it is possible to "withhold belief." I agree. But I argue that he who "withholds belief" has yet to accept a proposition's truth, no matter how close he may be to stepping to the other side. As soon as he accepts it, then he believes. Up to that point, he does not, no matter how much evidence he does or doesn't have.

The key phrase in the above quote is ’has yet to accept a proposition's truth’. If there is a ‘truth’ in this matter than it would be a black or white issue but there is not enough data to determine where the truth lies. (Can you tell I’ve got a theme going? :))

[Overgrowngoblin]

Dear The AntiChris

Originally posted by The AntiChris
You're perpetuating the popular but mistaken belief that the atheist position is one of absolute certainty.

I know of no rational atheist, or anyone else for that matter, who subscribes to absolute certainty about anything.

People who use the term "agnostic" specifically in order to distance themselves from atheism on the basis that there is insufficient evidence seem to me to be exhibiting a degree of credulity in the god concept.

I know of no rational atheist/theist/agnostic who subscribes to absolute certainty about anything either. But how does that further the debate on the unknowable questions of the universe? Everyone has opinions on the matter but whenever push comes to shove most people fall back on either ‘it is because it is’ or ‘there are no certain absolutes.’

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Now I think this is a good point. Although atheists should try to better explain their epistemological position, I don't think that God-theory is even tenable. It's way out there, outside science, certainly undeserving of serious consideration in these modern times. Maybe many years ago God was a serious possibility, maybe far, far into the future he will be, but not now no how.
ComestibleVenom I couldn’t agree more. I to would like it if more atheists (please note I said more and not all) would better explain their epistemological position, because then they would be bringing something to the debate. So often it seems I’m debating with an atheist and they keep repeated the burden of proof is on the theists but then offer nothing of their own into the debate. They refuse to go out on a limb. I would like it if more atheists would go out on a limb and put an alternative out there. They have good enough minds to have thought through the silly human-god, but then many times that’s as far as it goes. No one likes it when the Democrats/Republican criticize the ‘in power’ policies and offer nothing as an alternative (which is easy to do), but once again it doesn’t further the debate very far.

[Calzaer]

Sometimes a concept is ridiculous enough to dismiss.

And what is the criteria for "ridiculous"? Can you define "ridiculous" and "ridiculous enough"? What is the unit of "ridiculousness" and how many of those units can an idea posses before it must be dismissed? This hardly seems scientific...

Or is this one of those "I don't know art, but I know what I like" statements with absolutely no qualitative meaning (or, hell, any real meaning at all)?

[diana]

Good afternoon, Overgrowngoblin.

May I say it is pleasant indeed to disagree with someone agreeably. :)

ME: Everything isn't black and white. But some things are.

THEE: But how do you know that this issue is black and white?That's just it. I don't. I stated that by way of explanation that merely saying "bifurcation fallacy!" does not disprove my position. One must show that a third option is available.

Some things are an either/or choice but how do you know that this issue is an either/or choice? 2+2=5 true or false? It is either true or it is false and by this model one could stand on either side of the debate and decide. But agnostics only see it as 2+. Not enough information to pick a side.Right. My point is, though, that if there isn't enough information to believe, do you believe? Or do you not (or not yet, as the case may be)? Not believing yet is still disbelief.

You bring up another interesting point, or should I say "misconception." It is true that agnostics officially stand on either side of the debate and decide. But do atheists not?

Please remember that I use "atheist" in it's strictest sense: not a believer in deities. Do you think that, as an atheist, I am precluded for viewing the evidence and arguments fairly?

Exactly you use your knowledge and take it one step further to form your belief. Agnostics use their knowledge to determine there is not enough data to form their belief, therefore, it becomes a belief of not knowing.I'm afraid you lost me there, and it's a pity because this tackles the question to which I seek the answer. What, exactly, do you mean by "a belief of not knowing"? That makes no sense to me.

For example: do you believe in wiggleditties? Do you disbelieve in wiggleditties? (Wiggleditties, for the sake of this discussion, are bright green worms that live in Antarctica and subsist entirely upon champagne and caviar.) Or do you have "a belief of not knowing"?

If you "don't have enough data to form a belief," as you stated, then...you haven't formed a belief. If you have not yet formed a belief, then you don't yet have a belief. In short, you don't believe. It seems so clear to me.

Atheism and theism is an answer (gods/no gods). Agnosticism is a question without enough information to make a determination.Ah! I don't see atheism/theism as "an answer," but as a statement of belief/nonbelief. It isn't as though these people have, by stating their present state of belief/nonbelief, closed their minds to further information.

When I don't have enough information that something exists, I don't believe. I don't have enough information to support the theory that my father will leave me a million dollars when I die. I may be agnostic about this--it's always possible that he's been squirrelling away every red cent he ever made for the express purpose of leaving it all to me--but I admit up front that I simply don't believe it is true. I don't have all the information and I know it, but I don't believe at the same time.

Do you see what I mean by the difference between statements of belief/nonbelief and statements of knowledge/ignorance?

The key phrase in the above quote is ’has yet to accept a proposition's truth’. If there is a ‘truth’ in this matter than it would be a black or white issue but there is not enough data to determine where the truth lies. (Can you tell I’ve got a theme going? :)) One's lack of knowledge in any given subject doesn't affect whether that subject is a black and white issue, though. You may be married or single. My lack of knowledge concerning your marital status does not change the fact that you're either one or the other.

Although...you tossed in that word "truth" there, I see. Now we're determining truth. AAaaaaah! Maybe this is where we're failing to communicate. I want to examine this a bit more closely:

If there is a ‘truth’ in this matter than it would be a black or white issue but there is not enough data to determine where the truth lies.

Hm. If there is a truth? I would assert that there is. One way or another. Either a god (or more) exists or no god exists. There is a truth.

Judging from the last part of that sentence, you agree with me. You said, "there is not enough data to determine where the truth lies." I concur completely! There is a truth. We don't have enough data to state unequivocally what that truth is. That is, we don't know if a god exists or not. I think we're together on this point.

But theism/atheism doesn't speak to data or knowledge at all. It speaks to belief. Faith, as it were (and its opposite, lack of faith).

All I'm saying (in interminable posts ;)), is that belief--as far as I can tell--isn't a "shades of grey" proposition at all. If you aren't convinced yet, you simply don't believe yet. It's still nonbelief, even if you're seriously considering the evidence and thinking about changing your mind. When you do change your mind, you believe.

d

[Overgrowngoblin]

Dear Diana Goddess of the Hunt,

I think your hunting ability has tracked down the sticking point in this debate -- Belief.

Originally posted by diana
A couple of thoughts. This bugs me, too, to be honest. If you take the terms literally, they aren't even talking about the same thing. Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge while atheism/theism is about belief. They don't fall on the same continuum.

I couldn’t agree more but . . .

Originally posted by diana
So you're an "agnostic." Fine. But do you believe or don't you? If you answer with "I don't know," that's a no, because I suspect if you did believe, you'd know it already. Your indecision doesn't reflect belief with fear of facing it, but lack of belief but fear of facing it.

Originally posted by diana
All I'm saying (in interminable posts ), is that belief--as far as I can tell--isn't a "shades of grey" proposition at all. If you aren't convinced yet, you simply don't believe yet. It's still nonbelief, even if you're seriously considering the evidence and thinking about changing your mind. When you do change your mind, you believe.

Hopefully this following example won’t degrade into a strawman.

A child who has never been swimming before, but has seen other children do it, might believe that he can swim. On the other hand, he has seen children almost drown and believe he may not be able to swim. The two sides will battle in his brain until he jumps into the water to find out what the truth really is (sink or swim). Now just because he can believe both points of view doesn’t mean one side is automatically deleted. The two beliefs do not cancel each other out. They hang in a balance – a thin line right down the middle of belief. But of course there is no pool of water that philosophers can jump into to find the truth of matter.

[diana]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
Dear Diana Goddess of the Hunt,I think I'm in love.

Hopefully this following example won’t degrade into a strawman.Not a strawman. Great analogy, I thought.

A child who has never been swimming before, but has seen other children do it, might believe that he can swim. On the other hand, he has seen children almost drown and believe he may not be able to swim. The two sides will battle in his brain until he jumps into the water to find out what the truth really is (sink or swim). Now just because he can believe both points of view doesn’t mean one side is automatically deleted. The two beliefs do not cancel each other out. They hang in a balance – a thin line right down the middle of belief. But of course there is no pool of water that philosophers can jump into to find the truth of matter.So you're saying "agnostic" is just another way of saying "I'm theist one moment and atheist the next"?

Are we close to understanding one another?

d

[Overgrowngoblin]

I think we have found one of the most difficult things for two people to find – understanding. Thank you. :)

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Gurdur
It's a probability estimate, and it's of no consequence what the actual probability is once the probability is insignificant.

I see you missed my little joke. It was totally obscure, I wouldn't have understood it even if I told it to myself. Being the worst possible place for a bad joke, I think I mislead you as to what my position is. I hope to clarify somewhat.

The practice of our public methods of relating to the world subsumes the estimation of possibilities; not only of gods and demons, but bosons and computer viruses.

Why should, in the grand schema of things, our metaphysics be anything but our methodological consideration of the world? The practical/metaphysical razors that slice Santa Clause salami, grate Godflesh.

The fact is that that gods are undecidable on an ultimate metaphysical level, and decidable only on a probability basis on a practical level.

But is metaphysics not of necessity connected to the level of practice? That's just the basic problem with God; it is an idea the divorces metaphysical outlook from practice with it's hand waving appeal to the omnipotent.

non sequiter

That was not supposed to be an argument, it was a statement of fact. Beings of arbitrary complexity (invisible pink unicorn, pulsating superfluid transdimentional jelly fish with a frozen helium shell) constitute the core archetype of outlandish.

ROFL !
:D
The point is not probability, but plausibility ????
My word.
Try thinking "synonyms" in this context.
;)

Perhaps I should explain more clearly which the (not quite semantically identical) terms were meant to suggest. I should explain because you cannot possibly understand my position unless you grasp this distinction. (Though you aren't obliged, of course, to accept the lables I slap upon it)

The term probability should be taken as a reference (one which, as I think you suspect, is problematic) to some grand estimation in the grand scheme of things, what is the *numerical probability* of God's existence. In this language game, I think on the balance I would agree that no truth preference can be established with respect to God.

This is not, however, due to any special property of a totally unconstrained God, but of any subject within this impossibly unconstrained domain of discourse.

The term plausibility connotes the relationship of a particular cognitive system to a theory or class of theory. I would like to emphasize here that no numerical connotation (despite my joking suggestion) should be implied. This relationship, necessarily involves a continuity of access to the world. Bits of knowledge, memories with no connection, die, because here death is to be without a connection to other things.

Alas, when we examine the umbillical cords of God: the orderliness of nature, the history of mankind, the genesis of God-myths, we find them, one and all, severed.

God is a stupendously overarching theory. God-theory needs a lot of lifeblood, a lot of connections to other things in our world. (I would, in fact, argue that no amount of such connections would rationally assure us of anything close to omnipotence)

But the connections are nowhere to be found. Only the ideaof God remains, a floating bundle of incoherent qualities feeding still upon our imagination and our fear.

Wrong.

Overlooking your clear misunderstanding of my position, you're totally right. My position is arbitary, I flipped a coin an arbitrary number of times to pick out an arbitrary selection of arbitrary choices.

Now that I have explained my own (clearly arbitary) position, perhaps you could account for yours in the following terms. Upon what basis does one decide the probability of 'God' questions in 'practice'. Precisely why is the question of God undecidable metaphysically?

[diana]

Originally posted by Overgrowngoblin
I think we have found one of the most difficult things for two people to find – understanding. Thank you. :) The light is not on. The light is not off. It is flickering--kinda like one of those worn out florescent bulbs. ;)

This is still a redefinition of "agnostic" from the literal "I don't know if there's a god" to the common "I don't know if I believe in a god or not," which is one of the problems I seek a solution to. The problem with words that have several interpretations is that with each definition that can be assumed in any given context, the more useless the word becomes.

Take "biannual," for instance. It means both "twice a year" and "once every two years" in the same context. It is ambiguous by nature. The one who uses it ends up explaining which definition he means, anyway, which makes the word itself superfluous. "Dinner" is another such word (in the US): "lunch" or "supper"?

Maybe the problem with "agnostic" could be solved if we just all agree that it isn't talking about lacking knowledge of a god at all, since to use this definition is about as discriminating as referring to a person as "human." Or maybe the rest of the world did this long ago, and I'm the only person who insists upon being so insufferably pedantic about the word.

d

[Jobar]

We are dealing with not just one, but two ill-defined concepts here- god and belief. It shouldn't surprise any of us that our view of the cross products between them have extremely high degrees of uncertainty!

I'd like to examine 'belief' a bit here- diana and others have stated that it constitutes a different 'continuum' from knowledge. I (tentatively) disagree; it seems to me that belief is our emotional reaction to what we know. The two are intimately intertwined, not separate axes along which we can measure.

Consider how many theists claim to 'know' God, or that cutesy little bumper sticker about 'No God, no peace/Know God, know peace.' (And no jokes about the Biblical sense of the word 'know', OK? ;))

I don't think we have a good handle on 'belief' here; rather like the difficulty in defining God. Our belief(s), or lack thereof, are subjective experiences, and individual to each of us- precisely what you'd expect for an emotional reaction, no?

[Gurdur]

Well, now, at last this is getting interesting.
:)

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
.....
Why should, in the grand schema of things, our metaphysics be anything but our methodological consideration of the world ?
Short answer:
because of the existence of non-computational problems, because of Gödel, because of Popper.

At the heart of every methodological system are premises that can no longer be derived, but must be assumed arbitrarily.
The sophist position is one such; naturalistic metaphysics is another.
The practical/metaphysical razors that slice Santa Clause salami, grate Godflesh.
Nope.
Better said, only some Godflesh gets grated.
Other bits escape flensing owing to inability to falsify (see Popper).
But is metaphysics not of necessity connected to the level of practice? Nope, not at all.
You're confusing two entirely different things:
metaphysics and decision-making processes
That's just the basic problem with God; it is an idea the divorces metaphysical outlook from practice with it's hand waving appeal to the omnipotent. Nope, metaphysics was long divorced. God wasn't even a significant co-respondant at the divorce trial, merely one of many.
outlandish. Agitprop.
Fallacy of argument from emotion.

In fact, your entire argument is also a fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam), to wit:
you claim "that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."
...(one which, as I think you suspect, is problematic) Correctly supposed.
to some grand estimation in the grand scheme of things, what is the *numerical probability* of God's existence. In this language game, I think on the balance I would agree that no truth preference can be established with respect to God.

This is not, however, due to any special property of a totally unconstrained God, but of any subject within this impossibly unconstrained domain of discourse. Almost correct.
....Alas, when we examine the umbillical cords of God: the orderliness of nature, the history of mankind, the genesis of God-myths, we find them, one and all, severed. You seem to be implying some kind of exotic phenomenological viewpoint here; yet that gets stuffed at the beginning, since many supernaturalists and philosophical dualists also rely upon forms of phenomenology as legitimization.
God is a stupendously overarching theory. Which god ? God-theory needs a lot of lifeblood, a lot of connections to other things in our world. (I would, in fact, argue that no amount of such connections would rationally assure us of anything close to omnipotence)Who brought up omnipotence ?
Not me, mate. In fact, I've been stating implicitly throughout this thread that there's far too much conflation going on here; gods do not necessitate omnipotence.
But the connections are nowhere to be found. Only the ideaof God remains, a floating bundle of incoherent qualities feeding still upon our imagination and our fear. Mostly correct.
Overlooking your clear misunderstanding of my position, you're totally right. My position is arbitary, I flipped a coin an arbitrary number of times to pick out an arbitrary selection of arbitrary choices. Sarcasm is misplaced. Perhaps you should re-read Gödel and Popper ?
A good, easy place to start is:
Labyrinths of Reason: Paradox, Puzzles, and the Frailty of Knowledge (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385242719/qid=1054138127/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/102-4544291-3260904), by William Poundstone

The Recursive Universe: Cosmic Complexity and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688039758/qid=1054138217/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-4544291-3260904?v=glance&s=books), also by William Poundstone.

Upon what basis does one decide the probability of 'God' questions in 'practice'.
Cogency, coherency, applicability, relevance, falsifiability.
You will of course note immediately that these judgement criteria are arbitrarily chosen by myself --- just as yours are by you.

Cogency ---- implies also relevancy/applicability, i.e. does the idea have any real significance to oneself and the (arbitrarily-recognised) real world ?

Coherency --- is the idea internally consistant and logical ?

Falsifiability --- is there any way the idea can possibly be proven false ? If not, it's probably not much use as an idea.

Precisely why is the question of God undecidable metaphysically? See above.
:)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Gurdur
....
You will of course note immediately that these judgement criteria are arbitrarily chosen by myself --- just as yours are by you....

Though, mind you, so far mine are the better-explained and far less emotional.

:p :p :p

[Overgrowngoblin]

Originally posted by diana
This is still a redefinition of "agnostic" from the literal "I don't know if there's a god" to the common "I don't know if I believe in a god or not," which is one of the problems I seek a solution to.
They are one in the same. One has to believe in something to acknowledge its existence. One would have a hard time explaining, “I don’t believe in a god, but I know a god exists.” Also vice versa, “I know a god exists, but I don’t believe in it.” Once you acknowledge the existence of a god how could you not believe in the existence of that god? For an atheist knowledge becomes belief and for a theist belief becomes knowledge.

[ComestibleVenom]

Excellent. Once again what many people dismiss as a quibbling syntactic distinction disguises real philosophical differences.

The very idea of a truly arbitrary epistemological principle is incoherent. While fairly arbitrary assumptions play an important part in every field of human endevor they are inevitably constrained by many more non-arbitrary assumptions. The retention of such assumptions is, furthurmore a matter that is very far from arbitrary. What else would one expect from a stochastic network like the human brain?

Humans can't think randomly, every arbitrary choice is informed by a huge, non-arbitrary (neuronal) network of principles. Your application of the descriptor to very obviously non-arbitrary rules is a good illustration of the issue.


Originally posted by Gurdur
Short answer:
because of the existence of non-computational problems, because o