ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I think I may have identified your problem here . . .
The Agnostic's Dilemma
- Thread starter Gogf
- Start date
I think I may have identified your problem here . . .
Which is where atheism comes in and the only way to rationalise that is with science? As FredLC so neatly avoided answering though science is not applicable to philosophy, because it needs some sort of evidential basis to work on, thus the most logical conclusion is that you cannot know.
Agnosticism is the most rational if not the best system, and in fact the only real system of non-belief inherently.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'm not sure how it's possible to both "not believe in" and "not disbelieve" in something...
I realise you don't want to debate word definitions, so can you define your usage of "disbelieve", please?
Simple. You hold no position on the subject whatsoever.
Have you, before today, had an opinion on the existence on hyperintelligent multidimensional cheese dwarves? Likely not. Before today you did not believe, nor did you disbelieve. You simply did not have an opinion.
Atheism is non-belief too (even if it's an explicit choice) - and that includes going by the definition posted for this thread.
Ah right, this makes sense - as opposed to making an explicit choice to reject belief.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
What about those of us who do not agree with your definitions? Im Agnostic because I view "god" as a thought experement impossible to prove or disprove. An agnostic can disbelieve in god but does not believe it is possible to know if god exists or otherwise. An athiest asserts that god does not exist. I dont see how it is possible to assert the certainty of such a statement.
What Gothmog said.
Gogf, you are constructing a strawman; if you want to define agnostic as someone who requires "absolute proof" of everything, then go ahead, but the discussion will be useless as no one is agnostic by that definition. You might as well argue against Christianity by defining Christianity as the belief that a giant seahorse named Jesus became pregnant despite being female, even though male seahorses are the ones that have the babies. Yes, it would be rather easy to attack "Christianity" in that case, but why bother?
I know you said not to do this, but I feel I should give an alternative definition of agnosticism: There are two camps, the "hard agnostics" who believe that it is fundamentally impossible for humans to acquire knowledge regarding the existence or nonexistence of God, and the "soft agnostics" who believe it might be possible to do so but who also believe it has not been done yet. I consider myself a soft agnostic (and a soft atheist, which pretty much all soft agnostics are---both deal with the idea I should just tentatively assume that God does not exist, considering the lack of evidence, but that it is possible that he does exist).
But anyway, enough about agnosticism. I think your ideas, Gogf, are interesting when taken as general philosophical inquiry, rather than a specific attack on agnosticism. Like Gothmog said, you're dealing with the idea of a priori principles or a "first philosophy." You also are dealing with the notion of "proof," and the basic nature of science.
We all have our experiences, and then we have thoughts to make sense of these experiences. Many (probably most) philosophers have suggested that the latter must come first; that is, we must have some sort of "first philosophy" that we can add our experiences onto. For example, everyone (except for maybe the occasional wacko) operates under the assumption that our five senses should, in general, be trusted. Your mother exists, because you can see her. If you smell smoke, you should run, as there's a fire. The alternative would be to assume that our five senses should NOT be taken as good ways of getting information, and we should ignore them. (Obviously that would be crazy by most people's standards.) Whatever the case, you are starting with a "first philosophy" that you build everything else onto. Doing otherwise (building something out of nothing) is as logically impossible as drawing a square circle. The assumptions that you use to make your first philosophy are a priori principles ("a priori" = "before experience"). The scientific method is an example of a first philosophy.
Again, I disagree with your characterization of agnostics, but for the sake of argument, even if agnostics do indeed demand full proof of something in order to believe it, this is not an inconsistent philosophy; rather, it is just a case of applying a first philosophy.
I think you are mischaracterizing science and "proof." "Proving" something means showing that it logically follows from one or more given statements. Of course, those given statements can themselves be proven by showing that they in turn follow from even more fundamental given statements, which can in turn be proven by ... etc. When using this process, obviously you need to start somewhere: with a priori principles, or axioms. The axioms themselves cannot be proven, as there are no more fundamental statements to work with. Contrary to what you said, proof is impossible in science, and scientists make a living by constantly proving things wrong---no theory is ever proven right, but instead can only be proven wrong, and when a theory has been tested and tested over and over again and has never been shown to be wrong, we become more and more confident that it's right, but never 100% sure. "Proof" is something only found in mathematics and logic, for obvious reasons. And I'm sure most agnostics understand this.
Some philosophers disagree with the above idea that we must have a "first philosophy," and instead they think we can jump right into our experiences without having any sort of epistemological principle to start with. The most important of these philosophers would be W.V. Quine. I'm not sure what to think about that, though.
Gogf, you are constructing a strawman; if you want to define agnostic as someone who requires "absolute proof" of everything, then go ahead, but the discussion will be useless as no one is agnostic by that definition. You might as well argue against Christianity by defining Christianity as the belief that a giant seahorse named Jesus became pregnant despite being female, even though male seahorses are the ones that have the babies. Yes, it would be rather easy to attack "Christianity" in that case, but why bother?
I know you said not to do this, but I feel I should give an alternative definition of agnosticism: There are two camps, the "hard agnostics" who believe that it is fundamentally impossible for humans to acquire knowledge regarding the existence or nonexistence of God, and the "soft agnostics" who believe it might be possible to do so but who also believe it has not been done yet. I consider myself a soft agnostic (and a soft atheist, which pretty much all soft agnostics are---both deal with the idea I should just tentatively assume that God does not exist, considering the lack of evidence, but that it is possible that he does exist).
But anyway, enough about agnosticism. I think your ideas, Gogf, are interesting when taken as general philosophical inquiry, rather than a specific attack on agnosticism. Like Gothmog said, you're dealing with the idea of a priori principles or a "first philosophy." You also are dealing with the notion of "proof," and the basic nature of science.
We all have our experiences, and then we have thoughts to make sense of these experiences. Many (probably most) philosophers have suggested that the latter must come first; that is, we must have some sort of "first philosophy" that we can add our experiences onto. For example, everyone (except for maybe the occasional wacko) operates under the assumption that our five senses should, in general, be trusted. Your mother exists, because you can see her. If you smell smoke, you should run, as there's a fire. The alternative would be to assume that our five senses should NOT be taken as good ways of getting information, and we should ignore them. (Obviously that would be crazy by most people's standards.) Whatever the case, you are starting with a "first philosophy" that you build everything else onto. Doing otherwise (building something out of nothing) is as logically impossible as drawing a square circle. The assumptions that you use to make your first philosophy are a priori principles ("a priori" = "before experience"). The scientific method is an example of a first philosophy.
Again, I disagree with your characterization of agnostics, but for the sake of argument, even if agnostics do indeed demand full proof of something in order to believe it, this is not an inconsistent philosophy; rather, it is just a case of applying a first philosophy.
I think you are mischaracterizing science and "proof." "Proving" something means showing that it logically follows from one or more given statements. Of course, those given statements can themselves be proven by showing that they in turn follow from even more fundamental given statements, which can in turn be proven by ... etc. When using this process, obviously you need to start somewhere: with a priori principles, or axioms. The axioms themselves cannot be proven, as there are no more fundamental statements to work with. Contrary to what you said, proof is impossible in science, and scientists make a living by constantly proving things wrong---no theory is ever proven right, but instead can only be proven wrong, and when a theory has been tested and tested over and over again and has never been shown to be wrong, we become more and more confident that it's right, but never 100% sure. "Proof" is something only found in mathematics and logic, for obvious reasons. And I'm sure most agnostics understand this.
Some philosophers disagree with the above idea that we must have a "first philosophy," and instead they think we can jump right into our experiences without having any sort of epistemological principle to start with. The most important of these philosophers would be W.V. Quine. I'm not sure what to think about that, though.
Well, if we are going to debate word definitions, people might find the terms implicit and explicit atheism useful.
Implicit atheism means not believing in God, but never having explicitly rejected belief - i.e., what I think Gogf defined agnostic as. This leaves agnostic to be used for people who say we don't or can't know about God.
Meanwhile, explicit atheism is those who have explicitly rejected belief in God.
OTOH, some people use "nontheism" to refer to both of these concepts, and only use "atheism" for explicit atheism. Again, that frees up agnostic.
GinandTonic: Only a "strong atheist" asserts that God does not exist.
Implicit atheism means not believing in God, but never having explicitly rejected belief - i.e., what I think Gogf defined agnostic as. This leaves agnostic to be used for people who say we don't or can't know about God.
Meanwhile, explicit atheism is those who have explicitly rejected belief in God.
OTOH, some people use "nontheism" to refer to both of these concepts, and only use "atheism" for explicit atheism. Again, that frees up agnostic.
GinandTonic: Only a "strong atheist" asserts that God does not exist.
Gogf
Indescribable
WillJ:
A lot of what you said is a good refutation of what I said. I can respond to a lot of what people have said here, but I don't think anything substantive will come out of it. I am not seeking to set up a strawman. I am speaking only of agnostics who demand proof of everything (God might exist because we cannot prove he does not; we might not exist because we cannot prove we do). There may not be a lot of people with this view (and I think a lot of people would consider my an agnostic by their definition) but I hope that I have showed that this kind of view is irrational.
Although I think most of your post is a perfectly fair rebuttal of what I said, I most certainly did not say that anything is proven in science. Over the past few months, I have probably said "nothing is ever proven in science" on these forums more than any other poster. This is, of course, another reason why demanding proof before accepting anything is ridiculous.
A lot of what you said is a good refutation of what I said. I can respond to a lot of what people have said here, but I don't think anything substantive will come out of it. I am not seeking to set up a strawman. I am speaking only of agnostics who demand proof of everything (God might exist because we cannot prove he does not; we might not exist because we cannot prove we do). There may not be a lot of people with this view (and I think a lot of people would consider my an agnostic by their definition) but I hope that I have showed that this kind of view is irrational.
Contrary to what you said, proof is impossible in science, and scientists make a living by constantly proving things wrong---no theory is ever proven right, but instead can only be proven wrong, and when a theory has been tested and tested over and over again and has never been shown to be wrong, we become more and more confident that it's right, but never 100% sure. "Proof" is something only found in mathematics and logic, for obvious reasons. And I'm sure most agnostics understand this.
Although I think most of your post is a perfectly fair rebuttal of what I said, I most certainly did not say that anything is proven in science. Over the past few months, I have probably said "nothing is ever proven in science" on these forums more than any other poster. This is, of course, another reason why demanding proof before accepting anything is ridiculous.
Yes, I would certainly say that anyone who demands full "proof" of everything is a little mixed up in the head. I'm not sure it has anything to do with an inconsistency in the basics of their philosophy (if you think it does, then we can discuss it further), but it's senseless nonetheless.
Oops. In that case, sorry for misrepresenting your views.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
@WillJ
Quine is playful and serious at the same time, I have no issues with his work.
Here's a little quote of his which I like:
"For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits"
@Gogf
let me ask you.
How do you feel about 'last thursdayism' or its many variants.
That is, I claim that reality was created last thursday exactly as it is.
Do you think my claim:
a) is silly and not worth discussing
b) is a worthless hypothesis
c) is not logically defensible
d) is contradicted by the scientific method and/or can be logically disproved
e) cannot be said to be true or false in the absence of divine revelation
f) some combination of the above.
Quine is playful and serious at the same time, I have no issues with his work.
Here's a little quote of his which I like:
"For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits"
@Gogf
let me ask you.
How do you feel about 'last thursdayism' or its many variants.
That is, I claim that reality was created last thursday exactly as it is.
Do you think my claim:
a) is silly and not worth discussing
b) is a worthless hypothesis
c) is not logically defensible
d) is contradicted by the scientific method and/or can be logically disproved
e) cannot be said to be true or false in the absence of divine revelation
f) some combination of the above.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
Last Thursdayism sounds like the movie "The Langoliers".
It's non belief in a God, but it is a belief without evidence that a God, either probably doesn't exist, or absolutely doesn't, thus it is still a belief based on opinion not hard facts.
Perfection
The Great Head.
The "opinion" that theories shouldn't be thoroughly worthless is about as philosophically problematic as any "hard fact" IMHO.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
None of the above. I believe that theres something which in some ways approximates what we tend to think of as 'god', but Id hardly call that a 'faith'.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
@WillJ:
Just because you're disposed to believe that your mother is in front of you when you see her there, doesn't truly imply that you believe that your vision is trustworthy. You may, after all, be a small child who has the concept "mommy" but not the concepts "vision" and "trustworthy".
@Gogf and critics:
The definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" floated here seem to leave out a crucial point. To wit, when you ask someone "does God exist?" and they answer sincerely, is their answer "maybe" or is it "no"? IMHO, that's the line between agnosticism and atheism.
Note that you don't need to be a "hard atheist" (=df. taking it as proven that God doesn't exist) to answer "no".
Just because you're disposed to believe that your mother is in front of you when you see her there, doesn't truly imply that you believe that your vision is trustworthy. You may, after all, be a small child who has the concept "mommy" but not the concepts "vision" and "trustworthy".
@Gogf and critics:
The definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" floated here seem to leave out a crucial point. To wit, when you ask someone "does God exist?" and they answer sincerely, is their answer "maybe" or is it "no"? IMHO, that's the line between agnosticism and atheism.
Note that you don't need to be a "hard atheist" (=df. taking it as proven that God doesn't exist) to answer "no".
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
@Ayatollah,
not quite so simple.
As I have noted previously it depends on the context of the conversation.
For example if I am asked "do you believe in God" by a born again christian, or mormon, or whatever at my door. My answer is "no" (heh, or sometimes "I'm Jewish").
If I am asked "does God exist" in the context of a philosophical discussion, then my answer is "I don't know".
Recently I linked to an essay by Russell on this topic, the quote from Quine addresses this as well.
As we were getting at above, agnosticism boils down to a question of first principles.
not quite so simple.
As I have noted previously it depends on the context of the conversation.
For example if I am asked "do you believe in God" by a born again christian, or mormon, or whatever at my door. My answer is "no" (heh, or sometimes "I'm Jewish").
If I am asked "does God exist" in the context of a philosophical discussion, then my answer is "I don't know".
Recently I linked to an essay by Russell on this topic, the quote from Quine addresses this as well.
As we were getting at above, agnosticism boils down to a question of first principles.
That's only strong atheism. The definition in this thread (and which I would agree with) is "One who does not believe in God." If not believing automatically equals itself a belief, then that catches agnostics too.
I don't see how choosing not to believe something until there is sufficient evidence is less rational than someone who has yet to make a statement on the matter. It just means you've answered "No" to "Do you believe in X", rather than avoiding the question. You might say it's not rational to say that God definitely doesn't exist, and you might say it's not rational to say you won't change your mind even if presented with evidence.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Then you're an agnostic, on my map. Bear in mind, I don't claim that my map is the only useful one - just a useful one. I think it captures the way a whole lot of people use the words "agnostic" and "atheist".
Similar threads
