The Agnostic's Dilemma

[Gogf]

@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.

I'd have to go with options b and d. There is no way for us to have any serious discussion about this, because no evidence exists either way.

 

[mdwh]

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".

I'd say he's both (as am I - I'd give the same answers); atheism is about not believing, agnosticism is about not knowing.

Unfortunately "agnostic" has many different meanings, many of them not mutually exclusive to being an atheist.

 

[nihilistic]

Okay, I'm going to need to define the terms here. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about the meaning of "agnosticism." This is what I meant in my post.

Atheist One who does not believe in God. In this case, someone who reaches conclusions based on the most logical possibility.
Theist Practitioner of a religion. In this case, someone who accepts religious ideas based on faith.
Agnostic One who does not believe in or disbelieve in God. One who requires absolute proof before reaching a conclusion.

I do not profess that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God. Nevertheless, I do not believe in his existence.

That was a rather crappy definition for "atheist" there. Usually by that capitalized "God" you would be referring to the specific singular (or ternary) Judeo-Christian deity. By that definition then, Hindus, Buddhists, and essentially practitioners of every other religion (maybe even Muslims), would by your definition be atheists.

Your definition of "agnostic" also describes a lot of atheists.

By your definitions, it is completely possible for someone to be an "atheist", an "agnostic", and a "theist" all at the same time.

You've fail badly at defining things.

 

[Gogf]

That was a rather crappy definition for "atheist" there. Usually by that capitalized "God" you would be referring to the specific singular (or ternary) Judeo-Christian deity. By that definition then, Hindus, Buddhists, and essentially practitioners of every other religion (maybe even Muslims), would by your definition be atheists.

Okay, that should read "a god" instead of "God." Good catch .

Your definition of "agnostic" also describes a lot of atheists.

By some definitions, yes. Not by mine.

You've fail badly at defining things.

Some words have multiple interpretations. I am not a dictionary, so I don't need to cover them all. I defined the terms as I meant them in my post.

 

[Gothmog]

@Ayatollah So

I consider myself ann agnostic in the sense that I don't believe anyone has true knowledge of God. In other words I don't believe in the God described by christians, mormons, or anyone else. Though I do find all thoughtful descriptions of God interesting.

@Gogf, I would say b and e.

I am not seeing how it can be logically excluded in the absence of evidence. Which is an integral part of the agnostic philosophy. It does falls outside of empiricism.

 

[Gogf]

@Gogf, I would say b and e.

I am not seeing how it can be logically excluded in the absence of evidence. Which is an integral part of the agnostic philosophy. It does falls outside of empiricism.

Fair enough, e is also true.

I never said it could be logically excluded. But it's pointless to have a discussion about something which we can never reach any substantive conclusion on.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Merely referring to a divine being by the name "God" does not assume anything, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, about His/Her/It/Their attributes.

 

[Mon Mauler]

I am a little confused by the OP.

I am an agnostic. I believe my world views to be consistent, and I do not require absolute proof of the creator to believe that he exists.

To explain:
I believe that the universe and all of the matter in it expanded from an infinitely dense point a long, long time ago. After that, I believe that the universe has developed completely of its own accord, in line with the laws of physics (some (many?) of which are still unknown). After that the Earth developed justly, and her environs progressed, mostly according to the Theory of Evolution.

So, how is it that I believe in a creator?

Basically, at some point in time that infinitely dense point had to come to be. Thus far science has offered no compelling arguments as to how that could have occurred. That infinitely dense point - the universe - had to be created by something, and since I have heard of no compelling natural process that would generate such an instance, it had to be supernatural.

That's it.

I offer no assumption on what it is that created the universe. It could have been a God. It could be multiple Gods. It could be a Force. It could be beings, similar to us, existing in another universe utilizing technology to create our universe. Any of these possiblities, and literally millions more, would fall into my definition of the creator.

In sum, I don't know how the universe began, but I do believe the most compelling argument is that it was created. For this reason, I am an agnostic.

Regarding the OP:
The question seems more directed towards beliefs than it is the nature of the universe. The very question seems set up to perceive favorably atheists and theists whose beliefs will not be shaken in the face of incontrovertible evidence. The question itself paints a negative picture of those who freely admit that evidence on either side of the debate is sketchy at best, and who objectively consider any evidence on either side of the coin. Of course, I may just be reading it wrong...

 

[nihilistic]

Merely referring to a divine being by the name "God" does not assume anything, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, about His/Her/It/Their attributes.

Sure, but one tactic a lot of people use involves juxaposing the capitalization to achieve an equivocation, namely, declaring that the word "God" to refer to a general deity when convenient and then attribute that to refer to a specific deity when inconvenient. Thus, they in effect construct the false dichotomy of "either no deities exist or deities exist uniquely as their singular 'god'/'God' ".

If you are going to refer to a general deity, say "deity". Or at least drop the cacpitalization on the 'g' if you prefer the word 'god'.

 

[FredLC]

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.

Now there is some truly Sidhe-centered version of the facts. If any brave soul cares for a review of a few pages, feel free to check the threads Ask an Agnostic and Explain Why you don't believe in God and see the true avoid-to-answer relation happening there. A long path but sure a fun one.

Now for shorts, here is - again - my whole response in a nutshell.

Agnosticism is almost an philosophically consistent answer, sure enough. This does not make it the best answer, by a longshot, for philosophy allows for unreasonable doubt in it's lucubrations. That is what makes philosophers so troubled with rhetoric questions such as "do I really exist?", or "is there a world outside my cave?".

In that, agnosticism seems like a particular case of Pyrrhonic skepticism, and the only reason why theirs chosen ataraxia does not translate into bad consequences is because, much to the reinforcement of my soon-to-be-made atheism defense, the "God" hypothesis is rather immaterial.

But as far as that goes, agnosticism is even worse than pyrrhonism, for, unpractical as it is, the ataraxia proposed by Pyrrho is at least internally consistent, for it applies for all knowledge. My beef with the consistency of agnosticism is that it does not disqualify the possibility of empiricism to attain information of the surroundings, but, just because the proponents of God arbitrarily defined an divine existence that aprioristically cannot be felt by sensitive means, they pay homage to that definition and decide that just for that particular case, induction should be deemed insufficient and ignored.

The downfall of agnosticism as a position is, than, it's inconsistency, for allowing someone to live a life of empirically sound determinations, and than deciding that part of their world view cannot be empirically validated (or invalidated) just because someone else said so.

When someone defines "agnosticism" as the position that no knowledge of first principles can be obtained, he always forget to say why first principles should be different than anything else - which are the mechanism justifying this conclusion.

As for atheism: I'm the very first to say that, for current human knowledge, strong atheism is a position that requires as much faith as theism, for it claims a knowledge that is not yet obtained.

However, as an weak atheist, I feel that the lack of the perfect knowledge is not an excuse to refrain from concluding. I feel that the inconsistency of the models of God, as well as the ever-growing deciphering of natural processes allow for the reasonable extrapolation that the coming-to-be of the universe may not be a volitive work, but a blind event, and as this is the simplest thesis (for it requires a smaller interaction of factors - one God 'less"), this is a conclusion determined by the principle of parsimony.

Now, as a philosophically consistent idea, this accepts the possibility of being wrong, the uncovering of complexities that cannot even in thesis exclude a "maker" - but this demonstration is extraordinary, and no one has provided it.

I also call for a pragmatical edge of atheists. Not in how we live our lives, for agnosticism's ataraxia guarantees a pretty alike response to life facts - but in the arrival of our conclusions. As we very well admit, even though perfect knowledge is impossible, we accept that it's practical to respond to the clues of our senses, and postulate them as basically correct. that is why no skeptic doubts the existence of elephants, supermodels and vanilla ice cream - our senses attest their existence (as for supermodels, hopefully tact ).

As for God, no sensorial experience is available (only subjective experience). As so, I discredit it, the same way I would discredit someone saying that there is a box around my keyboard right now and that I'd be unable to type - that simply contradicts the response i'm getting from reality around me.

I'm sorry, but when someone says that there is something out there, that cannot, even in thesis, be sensed in any objective manner whatsoever, but it's there and i should take his word for it, I don't feel it's absurd, at all, to discredit it. As I said before, this here is where I diverge from agnostics - why they render any credibility to that claim, and accept the rules imposed by the theist (this here cannot be felt in any way) is an inconsistency with how they otherwise live their lives, and i see no manner to defend it.

In the end, Sidhe will probably say, as he did other times before, that "science and philosophy don't mix". Well, sorry, Sidhe, but while empiricism is a tool of the scientific method, it's also a philosophical concern since ancient Greece, and numerous worldly-renowned names did dig into it, such as the likes of Aristotle, Plato, David Hume, Emmanuel Kant, Karl Popper.

Even if it wasn't, if you feel like defending that to combine forms of knowledge as means to reach conclusions is wrong somehow, good luck - as I said before, painting, metallurgy and architecture are unrelated disciplines, but they are all fundamental in constructing buildings.

Oh, Sidhe will also probably argue that I'm a lawyer (hence what I say is not to be trusted, for we all know that lawyers can't make sincere arguments, don't we?), and that this post is a form of foul play (that somehow I'm saying nothing of relevance to the topic and using pretty words to mislead people). I guess this, such as the claim that I once had "neatly avoided answering him" before, is a matter that will have to be decided on personal bases by every reader.

Regards .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If you are going to refer to a general deity, say "deity". Or at least drop the cacpitalization on the 'g' if you prefer the word 'god'.

I made a whole thread on this once - basically, if one is ascribing any attriibutes at all to a divine being, then "God" is a proper noun and according to the rules of English should be capitalized. I distinguish between God as a concept (by using the somewhat unwieldy but at least thorough Him/Her/It/Them) and God as I believe Him (note the use of the masculine singular).

 

[innonimatu]

I also think "agnostic" can very well be used to classify those that don't care about whether there are gods. I personally wouldn’t give a damn about god, even it there was proof one existed. Don't owe it anything, and the creature never manifested any interest (that can be proved) in Earth or its inhabitants.

I’m not going to take seriously the crazy people (or outright charlatans) who throughout history claimed to speak on a god’s behalf.

 

[Mon Mauler]

Fred LC, I am still unclear as to exactly why you believe agnosticism to be a logically incosistent position.

My beef with the consistency of agnosticism is that it does not disqualify the possibility of empiricism to attain information of the surroundings, but, just because the proponents of God arbitrarily defined an divine existence that aprioristically cannot be felt by sensitive means, they pay homage to that definition and decide that just for that particular case, induction should be deemed insufficient and ignored.

First, you refer to the proponents of God, but you give no credence to their claims by saying their definition is arbitrary and that He cannot be sensed. This is consistent with your atheistic beliefs, but that does not make it so. Who is to say that the existence of God could not, some day, be empirically proven?* Simply because it hasn't been done yet does not make it impossible. In the 1200's, if I started talking about atoms my skeptics would make the same arguments you make. Now we have empirical proof of the existence of the atom. Perhaps our cognitive and technological capabilities simply do not allow us, at the present time, to empirically examine the creator?

Later in your post you make reference to the degrees of atheism - strong, weak, etc. This ignores the fact that many similar variations exist within the precepts of agnosticism, and not all agnostics believe in the existence of a creator. For example, agnostic atheism, one of the many branches of agnosticism, specifically doubts the existence of a creator. Agnostic atheists assert that they do not know if there is a creator, but believe that there is not. In fact, your position of weak atheism sounds remarkably similar to agnostic atheism: You admit that you do not know if there is or is not a creator, but you do not believe in his existence. Would you like to convert?

The downfall of agnosticism as a position is, than, it's inconsistency, for allowing someone to live a life of empirically sound determinations, and than deciding that part of their world view cannot be empirically validated (or invalidated) just because someone else said so.

Agnosticism merely states that it is not possible, at least at the present time, to know if the creator does or does not exist. Ultimately, the point that Sidhe was trying to make is that this is the most empirically sound determination. Indeed, to reject the existence of a creator outright is more of an abrogation of the empirical evidence than agnoticism. The existence of the creator cannot be proven or disproven!

As I said before, this here is where I diverge from agnostics - why they render any credibility to that claim, and accept the rules imposed by the theist (this here cannot be felt in any way) is an inconsistency with how they otherwise live their lives, and i see no manner to defend it.

Agnostics do not inherently accept any other philosophy's conception of the creator! Furthermore, agnosticism does not proscribe a way for someone to live his life. Certainly, not all agnostics conduct their lives and base all their beliefs on empirical evidence. Someone could practice Christianity all his life but still be an agnostic, and this would be logically consistent. Actions are separate from beliefs, and actions do not necessarily reveal beliefs.

To restate, agnosticism is nothing more than the belief that the existence of the creator cannot, at the present time, be proven or disproven. That definition absolutely allows for a wide range of beliefs, some of which accept the idea of a creator and others which reject that belief. How is that logically inconsistent?

To me it seems much more inconsistent to base your life on belief of the empricial (which you claim to do), and then make judgments about first principles when no conclusive emprical evidence has yet been obtained.

*Strong agnostics would say this

 

[warpus]

As for atheism: I'm the very first to say that, for current human knowledge, strong atheism is a position that requires as much faith as theism, for it claims a knowledge that is not yet obtained.

Not quite.

Strong atheism is a negative claim whereas theism is a positive claim.

The positive claim of theism has no evidence behind it, which gives is far less credibility than the negative assertion of strong atheism.

 

[El_Machinae]

I made a whole thread on this once - basically, if one is ascribing any attriibutes at all to a divine being, then "God" is a proper noun and according to the rules of English should be capitalized. I distinguish between God as a concept (by using the somewhat unwieldy but at least thorough Him/Her/It/Them) and God as I believe Him (note the use of the masculine singular).

I tend to use a capital G when referring to the Christian god, when I'm using it as a name. When I'm using the word 'god' as a descriptor, I use a small g.

So, for example, I can ask: "Was Jesus, God?" and "Was Jesus a god?"

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, the phrase "a god" is correct, as it is just a regular noun. But "God" becomes a proper noun whether it is describing the JCI version or the FSM version.

But, whatever.

 

[Gothmog]

@Mon Mauler -

Nice post (#48) - you are not reading it wrong IMO.

Note that FredLC is not really an atheist, in the philosophical sense. As he says in his post, in past debates I have called his position Handsomism. Handsomism is just like agnosticism except that it doesn't acknowledge the problem of first principles and actively denies the possibility of God (note that I always capitalize God - it's a habit from my Jewish upbringing - an I almost always refer to God as an 'it').

In this quote from FredLC

Now, as a philosophically consistent idea, this accepts the possibility of being wrong, the uncovering of complexities that cannot even in thesis exclude a "maker" - but this demonstration is extraordinary, and no one has provided it.

he basically takes the position of an agnostic.

@FredLC

If you are going to argue that it is unreasonable to doubt our senses, then you have taken a position that includes many a priori assumptions (many first principles) though you obviously don't want to acknowledge that point. I also assume that you include extensions of our senses such as scientific instruments and logically consistent mathematics such as the solution of differential equations.

When you discredit God in such an offhand way, that is with no evidence either way and not even a theory, in the same breath you discredit any other heretofore unknown entity. As in my discussion with brenner, take for example the internal structure of an electron. I do not discredit the idea of such a thing (as you must), I await some theory that makes it necessary and has other value in terms of describing the external world. I say "I do not know", I withhold judgement, I do not discredit. That is why science and agnosticism go so well together.

It is interesting that Hume, Kant, and Popper were all, to my knowledge, agnostics. Perhaps there is a reason for that?

Agnosticism deals with all empirical and inductive knowledge in the same way, but it does acknowledge that the question of first principles is inherently different. This is true of any logical system. I will not be able to convince you of this other than to suggest you look into logical proof and what it entails. Some of the philosophers you list for Sidhe could be a place to start.

 

[FredLC]

Fred LC, I am still unclear as to exactly why you believe agnosticism to be a logically incosistent position.

Let’s try to clear things up than, ok?

First, you refer to the proponents of God, but you give no credence to their claims by saying their definition is arbitrary and that He cannot be sensed. This is consistent with your atheistic beliefs, but that does not make it so. Who is to say that the existence of God could not, some day, be empirically proven?* Simply because it hasn't been done yet does not make it impossible.

Who said it? It’s them, the theists, every time a miracle is argued and, when people say “let’s empirically analyze it”.

See, I have myself said that I don’t think first principles are any different than anything else. Maybe this hasn’t communicated, but what this means is that yes, I think that, if there truly is a God, there possibly is a way to prove him empirically (even if it has not been done yet).

What is ludicrous on the theistic approach, IMHO, is to live a life objectively in response to a subjective knowledge, something I myself said agnostics don’t do.

In the 1200's, if I started talking about atoms my skeptics would make the same arguments you make. Now we have empirical proof of the existence of the atom. Perhaps our cognitive and technological capabilities simply do not allow us, at the present time, to empirically examine the creator?

Indeed. But, in 1200, if someone were building atomic shelters or started trying to enrich uranium, he’d be a lunatic. Mind me, he’d be a lunatic even with later science proving that atoms do exist. And the reason why he would be a lunatic is because, back then, there were no way he could actually know. The foundation of his knowledge would be false, the correctness of the assertion, a mere coincidence, and the behavior he displayed, useless.

Enough arbitrary claims may produce some partially correct assertion eventually, but this does not alter it’s foundation of ignorance.

P.S.: the existence of atoms was first proposed by the Greeks, as an alternative theory to that of the elements of existence. The idea was scientific if rather sketchy, base don the reasonable notion that some fundamental particle could be the base of all existence. This form of crude thinking, however, cannot be compared with imaginative people claiming things out of their asses and expecting people to trust their words. In the first, there is usage of reason; in the second, there isn’t.

Later in your post you make reference to the degrees of atheism - strong, weak, etc. This ignores the fact that many similar variations exist within the precepts of agnosticism, and not all agnostics believe in the existence of a creator. For example, agnostic atheism, one of the many branches of agnosticism, specifically doubts the existence of a creator. Agnostic atheists assert that they do not know if there is a creator, but believe that there is not. In fact, your position of weak atheism sounds remarkably similar to agnostic atheism: You admit that you do not know if there is or is not a creator, but you do not believe in his existence. Would you like to convert?

Actually, I know that atheism and agnosticism have some interchangeable area, and my actual view of agnosticism is far less confrontational than maybe my post seemed. However, I treated the fundamental idea behind each, to show why I think a conclusion on the matter is due.

Agnosticism merely states that it is not possible, at least at the present time, to know if the creator does or does not exist. Ultimately, the point that Sidhe was trying to make is that this is the most empirically sound determination. Indeed, to reject the existence of a creator outright is more of an abrogation of the empirical evidence than agnoticism. The existence of the creator cannot be proven or disproven!

I know that. But I argue that, except in the realm of philosophy (where most everything is doubtful), we trust our senses and, in practice, don’t concern ourselves with what is “not there”. Why should “does God exist” determine a doubt greater than “does talking amoebas exist” is what I am questioning.

Except in discussing philosophy, we are all aware that we exist, that the world exists, and that we can’t walk through walls. If the question “Is there a God” was just a rhetoric of philosophers, it would be a very interesting and well put thing. But there is no reason why it should alter our usual handling of things – which is to not give credit to what isn’t empirically there.

Agnostics do not inherently accept any other philosophy's conception of the creator! Furthermore, agnosticism does not proscribe a way for someone to live his life. Certainly, not all agnostics conduct their lives and base all their beliefs on empirical evidence. Someone could practice Christianity all his life but still be an agnostic, and this would be logically consistent. Actions are separate from beliefs, and actions do not necessarily reveal beliefs.

Not? Than why accepting that we can’t form an opinion? Your senses tell you nothing is there; there is nothing but the words of theists suggesting that there is... how is that not paying homage to their idea?

As for how agnostics not living their lives based on their agnosticism, well, that is exactly what ataraxia means – not allow that this brand of believes have any weigh, not to concern yourself with the matter. If you did, you’d be paralyzed in doubt. Than, you are preaching to the converted on the matter.

To restate, agnosticism is nothing more than the belief that the existence of the creator cannot, at the present time, be proven or disproven. That definition absolutely allows for a wide range of beliefs, some of which accept the idea of a creator and others which reject that belief. How is that logically inconsistent?

I know that, I agree with that. I just state, in disagreement, that the indirect evidence does merit a conclusion, even if there is no decisive proof, on the grounds that the idea of God is nothing special and can be discredited with the same easy as any other logically inconsistent claim.

To me it seems much more inconsistent to base your life on belief of the empricial (which you claim to do), and then make judgments about first principles when no conclusive emprical evidence has yet been obtained.

Well, I never said I do made a conclusion on first principles, which I didn’t. My opinion on the non-existence is not a sentence on the matter, but an extrapolation of what is available as information about God (which is, exactly, nothing but untrustworthy testimony), in comparison with the plethora of information available about everything which is empirically sensible.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

If you are going to argue that it is unreasonable to doubt our senses, then you have taken a position that includes many a priori assumptions (many first principles) though you obviously don't want to acknowledge that point. I also assume that you include extensions of our senses such as scientific instruments and logically consistent mathematics such as the solution of differential equations.

Note, gothmog, that I don't say that it's unreasonable to distrust our senses. I actually find it's a very reasonable position, as far as pure reason go. I postulate a trust on them.

And I don't call that a first principle. My understanding of first principles tells me that they are fundamentals of reality. How I understand my relations with my personal senses do not qualify.

Now, maybe to solve the matter, in a pure philosophical debate, I would possibly define myself as an agnostic. But I separate, in my head at least, what is my position as a philosopher wannabe, and what is my position as a practical, functional, citizen of the world. When running my world errants, i don't concern myself with doubts of invisible walls, just because people yell "watch out, invisible wall ahead" to me. It's under the same pragmatism that I am confident to state that I am an atheist to most, if not all, important senses of the word.

When you discredit God in such an offhand way, that is with no evidence either way and not even a theory, in the same breath you discredit any other heretofore unknown entity. As in my discussion with brenner, take for example the internal structure of an electron. I do not discredit the idea of such a thing (as you must), I await some theory that makes it necessary and has other value in terms of describing the external world. I say "I do not know", I withhold judgement, I do not discredit. That is why science and agnosticism go so well together.

Yes, there is no evidence of a negative, sure, as there will never, ever, be.

And look, I don't off-hand discredit any unknown entity. I think that extrapolation goes a long way. A model of atomic structure? Hell, I'm all for it, as long as it is consistent. I never been to a black hole, but I don't doubt there are those, because of the merits of the way their existence was postulated.

Trust me, if there were similar reasons to believe in God, except models which are either awfully vague or awfully inconsistent, I'd be far less emphatic in denying it.

It is interesting that Hume, Kant, and Popper were all, to my knowledge, agnostics. Perhaps there is a reason for that?

Well, I don't agree with everything they said.

Agnosticism deals with all empirical and inductive knowledge in the same way, but it does acknowledge that the question of first principles is inherently different. This is true of any logical system. I will not be able to convince you of this other than to suggest you look into logical proof and what it entails. Some of the philosophers you list for Sidhe could be a place to start.

I did read some of their stuff, Gothmog, I have an habit of doing my homework - even though my biggest influence would most certainly be Kant.

Nevertheless, while they handle the issues of empiricism beautifully, I never found, in any of them, a reason why first principles should be treated differently. Now, really, if you know someone explaining that, point that out, I'd love to see, because that assumption have always been baseless AFAIK.

As I don't buy mere authority, even though I recognize the greatness of these authors, I don't concur with the dogmatic approach of that aspect of their evaluation.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Not quite.

Strong atheism is a negative claim whereas theism is a positive claim.

The positive claim of theism has no evidence behind it, which gives is far less credibility than the negative assertion of strong atheism.

Ok, maybe strong atheism needs less faith, but it needs faith nonetheless.

Regards .