Atheism vs Agnosticism?

[The Last Conformist]

I need certainty because that's what to demonstrate means.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

But it's certainty before demonstration. Unless there has been an experiment out there I don't know about...

 

[Gothmog]

How about ether as a good counter-example?

Yes, the classic example. But my point was that Occam's razor isn't some sort of truth machine. Reality is the way it is, it doesn't have to be simple or follow a philosphical rule. As I also pointed out Dirac dissagreed with it, and went out on a limb to predict the existence of the positron - sort of an 'In your face Occam' moment eh?

What does the God question have so special to be rendered "undecidable" by default?

What TLC said, I just want to mention that we are talking specifically about an inscrutable God. Indeed that is specifically what Occam was trying to prove.

Not to accept it would be to hold that it's as reasonable or more to believe there's an invisible incorporeal dog under your bed as not.

It seems as reasonable to me either way. I can't distinguish between the two scenarios, so what is the point in taking a stand either way. Where is the reason to reject the statement, because it feels wrong? because you think it's silly?

The point here is about making unfounded assumptions about the nature of reality. It is fine to do if you want to, and humans have a hard time not doing so, but there is really no value in it; quite the opposite. There really are incorporal, invisible, particles coursing through your body right now and practically incorporal, invisible, entities really do make you sick.

By your logic string theory is a total waste of time and studying it is unreasonable?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Yes, the classic example. But my point was that Occam's razor isn't some sort of truth machine. Reality is the way it is, it doesn't have to be simple or follow a philosphical rule. As I also pointed out Dirac dissagreed with it, and went out on a limb to predict the existence of the positron - sort of an 'In your face Occam' moment eh?

Wether reality is simple or complicated is not important (off topic in our case). It's the self-assurance that it is one way or the other. But there's a diference between assuming and believing. In that, we can assume "existance" is simple and try to "unlock" it somehow, without really needing to believe it is simple.

What TLC said, I just want to mention that we are talking specifically about an inscrutable God. Indeed that is specifically what Occam was trying to prove.

Are you defining God as inscrutable then draw the conclusion that it is so?

It seems as reasonable to me either way. I can't distinguish between the two scenarios, so what is the point in taking a stand either way. Where is the reason to reject the statement, because it feels wrong? because you think it's silly?

Agnosticism IS taking a stand, even if it's in the middle.

There really are incorporal, invisible, particles coursing through your body right now and practically incorporal, invisible, entities really do make you sick.

Whose existance has been proven. They are invisible for our eyes, but with adequate instruments are not.

By your logic string theory is a total waste of time and studying it is unreasonable?

String theory is not pseudoscience it's protoscience. It's tennets have not yet been established and it would be premature to discount it YET. But even if it's not a valid Physics theory, it does produce interesting results for the field of Mathematics (or so I've heard).

 

[The Last Conformist]

It seems as reasonable to me either way. I can't distinguish between the two scenarios, so what is the point in taking a stand either way. Where is the reason to reject the statement, because it feels wrong? because you think it's silly?

Basically. I think that the null hypothesis for anything is that it doesn't exist.

The point here is about making unfounded assumptions about the nature of reality. It is fine to do if you want to, and humans have a hard time not doing so, but there is really no value in it; quite the opposite. There really are incorporal, invisible, particles coursing through your body right now and practically incorporal, invisible, entities really do make you sick.

Neutrinos are neither incorporeal nor invisible in the sense I intended. viz. totally impossible to detect by any means imaginable.

By your logic string theory is a total waste of time and studying it is unreasonable?

Whoah!

First, I cannot imagine wherefrom you get the impression that I think something is a waste of time and unreasonable to study because I do not think it exists. I would have thought that my presence and contributions in theology threads should have dispelled any such notions.

Second, while string theory isn't empirically testable today, in principle it is - we can imagine experimental results that would prove it wrong. This means it's in a whole other division that the unobservable dog.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, we were defining God as inscrutable. I don't know of any testable definition of God that has stood the test of time.

TLC was attempting to use Occam's razor to justify his disbelief in God. I was questioning that use.

I'm saying if there's no sufficient grounds for believing that something exists, the reasonable attitude is to believe it doesn't exist

That is what I was responding to.

I guess my stance would be: if there is no evidence to help one decide between two scenarios then I don't know which is correct. Rather than disbelief, let uncertainty reign. I was questioning what the reason was for the disbelief. So in string theory we suspend judgement, we admit that we do not know and indeed cannot know... yet. We do not jump right to disbelief.

Edit: TLC - no disrespect meant. I didn't think you were discounting string theory. I was trying to follow your logic to a reasonable endpoint. Still, it seems that your null hypothesis for string theory would be that strings do not exist, and you would consider that the reasonable point of view. So you would consider the study of how to detect the invisible dog worthwhile?

 

[The Last Conformist]

To admit that one does not know is not mutually exclusive with believing one way or another on the issue.

 

[Gothmog]

True enough.

I try hard not to believe or disbelieve things, and fail as often as not.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Yes, we were defining God as inscrutable.

I define the green man from mars as unscrutable. Hence I can't ever hope of knowing him. QED

What purpose can this serve?

 

[The Last Conformist]

True enough.

I try hard not to believe or disbelieve things, and fail as often as not.

I do not see any particular reason not to hold beliefs on things you don't know as long as you recognize that your belief might be wrong.

 

[Gothmog]

What purpose can believing in an inscrutable being serve? Reinforcing preconcieved notions about human nature? Trying to make sense of the human condition? I'm the wrong person to ask but doesn't some majority of humanity believe in an inscrutable God? They call it faith, and often wear it like a badge of honor. So I'm sure it has some purpose.

I've found that a belief in one area tends to bleed over into other parts of ones intellect. It's an implicit assumption, and after a while can become ingrained. I try to stay humble and recognize that I may always be wrong, but it is hard. Especially when part of what I do for a living is try and defend marginally supported positions against other people who think I am wrong.

It can be hard to change a long held belief, just ask any former vocal opponent of plate tectonics.

Really, its a semantic difference. You are saying that you constantly remind yourself that your belief might be wrong. I'm saying that I try to avoid beliefs alltogether, focusing instead on the evidence that I have to support (or reject) a specific hypothesis.

I still don't see how it is more or less reasonable to believe or disbelieve in something for which there is no evidence. Emotionally, yes. Logically, no.

 

[yoshi74]

I know (or at least i'am pretty sure) that there is no god in the christian or islamic or jewish sence. IMO all these religions belittle a godly entity by describing them only as persons who behave as stupid as humans with too much power.

OTOH i belive in (or at least hope for a) higher lifeform in the universe than humans are. I mean: ~10? billion years since the big bang, and look at the world. This can't be the peak. There must be something more. Something better.

So what i'am. Agnostic? Atheistic?

Don't know.
Don't care.
This are only catagories. There truth is always outside of catogories.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

For me:

Atheism - A disbelief in any god.

Agnosticism - Which I consider myself. A belief that it is impossible to determine the existance of any god, for any religion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I still don't see how it is more or less reasonable to believe or disbelieve in something for which there is no evidence. Emotionally, yes. Logically, no.

Tangentially, that probably suggests there's an evolutionary value in tending to disbelieve in stuff for which there is no evidence.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I do not see any particular reason not to hold beliefs on things you don't know as long as you recognize that your belief might be wrong.

My attitude is even more lax than yours. You don't need to recognize that you might be wrong, per se - you just need to be responsive to new evidence.

 

[The Person]

The answer to this debate?
Your reality is what you choose it to be - It can be bland or it can be grand.
A label is something that gets stuck on a jar or an envelope, not a mind.

That's right. What's the point of categorizing people? It has led to rascism and discrimination for thousands of years. But still we do. Must be something that's pre-programmed in us.

It's not often that I find such wise words like those I quoted.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Categories enable us to employ prejudgments, which allows us to pass judgements at a reasonable rate. It's a means to handle a very complex world with a brain of limited capacity.

 

[The Person]

But it can easily get out of hand.

Point taken, though. We only need to restrain it so it doesn't, as I said, get out of hand.

 

[Gothmog]

TLC wrote

Tangentially, that probably suggests there's an evolutionary value in tending to disbelieve in stuff for which there is no evidence.

Funny, I would have said that there's an evolutionary value in tending to believe stuff for which there is no evidence if other humans believe it too. It's a way of defining a social group, very useful if one has to fight another group for survival. Certainly humans like to believe that we are central to reality.

I liked a lot of the things Nietzsche had to say on this topic:

Finally consider that even the seeker after knowledge forces his spirit to recognize things against the inclination of the spirit, and often enough also against the wishes of his heart - by way of saying No where he would like to say Yes, love, and adore - and thus acts as an artist and transfigurer of cruelty. Indeed, any insistence on profundity and thoroughness is a violation, a desire to hurt the basic will of the spirit which unceasingly strives for the apparent and superficial - in all desire to know there is a drop of cruelty.

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Our Virtues (229, last paragraph)