Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"
George Dance
As George Orwell noted more than 50 years ago, control of people's
language is a way to control their thought. Control definitions, and
one controls the language.
That is why those whose aim is propaganda often use a tactic called
'definition-switching.' An agnostic-basher, for instance, can simply
redefine agnosticism as some other position, and go on to (validly)
argue for the absurdity of that position instead.
Definition-switching is a logical fallacy known as the "Strawman":
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Fallacy or not, though, definition-switching is often effective tactic
in discrediting a position.
Ironically, the example we'll be looking at is an anonymous article
from http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html entitled
"The agnostic fallacy".
> The agnostic fallacy
>
> Agnosticism is mostly considered a vague middle ground in the debate
> surrounding the god question. Some people see it as the most rational
> alternative, given the sheer weight of debate going on from both
> theists and atheists.
>
> Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus :
>
> Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
> the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the
> principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your
> reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And
> negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters
> are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
> Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism"
To his credit, the author at least begins with an agnostic's definition
of agnosticism; however, it's not an easily understood one. What, for
instance, does "follow your reason as far as it can take you" mean?
Any clearer paraphrase would necessarily involve some interpretation.
Fortunately, Huxley himself has provided his own perfectly clear
paraphrase (which is the actual definition we will use here):
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
However, the anonymous author rejects the above as 'bad definition'
(signalling that definition-switching will soon be in order):
> Some people think he formed the word as a joke, a wordplay on the old
> gnostic sects. I can't really say.
>
> At any rate, the definition above is enlightening, but is also a bad
> definition.
So why is it bad?
> It defines a process instead of a result. As such, it is a
> good rational guideline, in terms of following the objective evidence,
> but it does not tell us what agnosticism is as a position.
Indeed, those interested in the 'god-question' are interested in what
agnosticism has to say about god. What agnosticism has to say about
gods depends on what knowledge there is about gods (which is not a
matter of definition, but an empirical claim about the state of human
knowledge). Given as an empirical fact that no one has grounds - no
actual evidence, no valid arguments, no means to even test - any
assertions about gods, then an agnosticism (by Huxley's definition)
implies not saying that one knows or believes anything about them:
However, the author has already rejected Huxley's definition as bad;
and now he switches the above knowledge claim as (at least part of) his
new, allegedly 'modern', definition:
> The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge
> about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing,
> just like a-theism means not-belief in god.
Indeed; agnosticism presupposes that there are some things that no one
- not just the agnostic, but no one at all - knows; some things for
which one has no grounds for knowing or believing at all - and
therefore, just as Huxley says, one has no grounds for professing to
know or believe any of them. However, according to the author, the
'modern definition of agnosticism' (which tells us a bit about, but
does not give) says nothing of the kind. By it, agnosticism becomes
not a general position on belief and knowledge, but a 'position' on one
question only: "the god question."
It's one thing to say that there is an 'agnostic position' on the 'god
question'; it's quite another to say that agnosticism as being
concerned with nothing but that question, by definition. For one
thing, it defines those who are agnostic about other things - ET, the
Loch Ness monster, universes other than our own, eg - completely out
of existence. For another, it allows agnostic-bashers to claim that
agnostics are concerned only with 'gods' - that they "treat God
differently from everything else," as many such bashers like to claim.
For a third, it turns 'lack of knowledge on the god-question' from an
empirical, falsifiable claim (as the agnostic treats it) into itself a
presupposition, which (allegedly) the agnostic is trying to smuggle
into the debate by definition (allegedly as it's supposed to be the
'modern' agnostic's own definition, not the author's own).
Yet another problem with the author's definition is that it prevents
him from explaining (or evidently, understanding) the next definitions
that he offers:
>
> Graham Oppy distinguishes between strong and weak agnosticism. This is
> his thesis :
>
> strong agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that
> it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the
> question of God's existence. (...) weak agnosticism, i.e. the view
> which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable
> persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
> "Weak Agnosticism Defended", Graham Oppy
If agnosticism were nothing but a claim about the 'god-question'; that
there's a 'lack of knowledge' about it - then what in the world does
'suspend judgement' mean? Just why does 'lack of knowledge' imply
'suspend[ing] judgement?' Just what does 'suspend[ing] judgement' even
mean?
To answer those questions in reverse order:
When confronted with a proposition P, a person can judge P to be true;
which means only that he thinks that P is true, or IOW that he believes
P. Or he can judge P to be false, which means only that he thinks that
the contradictory of P (not-P) is true, or IOW that he believes non-P.
Alternately, a person can suspend judgement on P - neither judge it to
be true, nor either judge it to be false. In which case he believes
neither P nor non-P.
By Huxley's definition, if an agnostic "no grounds for believing either
P or non-P, then he "shall not say he knows or believes" either P or
non-P; IOW, he must suspend judgement on P. All he can say is, "I
don't believe P, and I don't believe non-P either."
Which, specifically in regard to the 'god-question', is what agnostics
(at least those who know enough about agnosticism to have heard of
Huxley) do say: "I don't believe that there are any gods, and I don't
believe that there aren't any gods." Which is the exactly what Oppy
means by "suspend[ing] judgement on the question of God's existence."
Howeer, the author either misunderstands or ignores this point, as he
immediately goes on to declare that agnosticism has nothing to say
about belief in gods:
> It is important to note, at this point, that agnosticism is not in fact
> part of the atheism-theism gradient. Both atheism and theism are
> concerned about belief, not knowledge. The basic atheist proposition
> can be formulated as follows :
>
> A1 : I lack belief in gods.
Which in turn is consistent with two further propositions:
A3: "I don't believe there are any gods, and I believe there are no
gods."
A4: "I don't believe there are any gods, and I don't believe there are
no gods."
A3 and A4 are commonly used to distinguish 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.
Notice, though, that the two statements do not differ only in degree -
in part of what they say, they are clearly inconsistent as well.
Note, too, that A4 is exactly what Oppy means by 'suspend[ing]
judgement on the question of God's existence' - not professing to 'know
or believe' either answer; while A3 entails claiming something that
(lacking grounds for it) an agnostic 'shall not' profess to believe.
Since an agnostic is restricted (given his knowledge) to 'suspending
judgement' - ie, to professing A4 - and since to profess A4 is to
profess A1 - and since A1 is 'the basic atheist belief' - it follows
that anyone who applies Huxley's definition correctly does profess A1:
IOW, that everyone 'agnostic' who properly applies that definition is
also professing atheism. The 'method' of agnosticism, consistently
applied, leads to the 'position' of atheism.
> And the theist proposition as follows : T1 : I believe in gods.
Like A3, T1 is a profession to 'know or believe' a proposition: 'There
are gods.' To 'believe' a proposition means to hold it as true, or IOW
to think that it is true. So T1 means: "I think it is true that there
are gods." Given the 'lack of knowledge of the god-question' (and
Huxley's definition of agnosticism), an agnostic 'shall not' conclude
any such thing; an agnostic has no grounds for believing there are
gods, and therefore "shall not profess to know or believe" that there
are any. So agnosticism is not, in fact, unconcerned with propositions
like T1; agnosticism in fact rejects T1. An agnostic simply is not
allowed to say, by his own principle, something like, "I have no
grounds for believing in gods, but I believe in one anyway."
> Both are inherently personal propositions. We are talking here about
> what the person believes, not about reality itself. If we look at this
> ontologically, we can translate it in the following way :
>
> A2 : I know that there is no god-belief in my mind.
> T2 : I know that there is god-belief in my mind.
>
> The atheist and the theist are not making statements about what exists
> in reality, only on what they believe.
No, someone who says "I think it is true that there are gods" is not
talking only about what's in his mind. He is restricting himself to a
true statement (that he thinks there are); but he certainly is not
saying nothing about 'what exists in reality'; he is saying that he
thinks that some gods do exist in reality (the only possible case in
which "there are gods" would be true).
> However, there are positions
> which pertain to knowledge about reality. Monotheistic religions, and
> strong-atheism (also called positive atheism) share this gradient. We
> can define them as follows :
>
> R : I know a god exists.
> P : I know no god exists.
> These statements concern what actually exists out there in reality.
> Agnosticism is part of that gradient : it claims that the kind of
> knowledge stated in propositions R and P is irrational.
Indeed, atheism does declare that claiming that 'knowledge' is
irrational; but it does not stop there, as the author claims. As
Huxley makes clear, an agnostic shall not profess to 'know *or*
believe' either "A god exists" or "No god exists," given (as is
apparently the case) no grounds for knowing or believing either one.
To an agnostic, professing T1 is as 'irrational' as professing R.
Similarly for the T1-analog of P (call it P2): "I believe no god
exists."
P2 is, as we've seen, the second conjunct of A3, which has already been
discussed at length (some might say 'excessive length').
> Thus,
> agnosticism is actually compatible with both atheism and theism. An
> agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in gods regardless of
> their lack of knowledge on the question.
IOW, who 'suspends judgement' on the 'god question' and therefore
believes A4.
> An agnostic theist is someone
> who believes in gods regardless of their lack of knowledge on the
> question.
Which, as we've seen is incompatible with Huxley's definition - to
believe in gods is to 'know or believe' in them, and by definition an
agnostic 'shall not' profess to 'know or believe' such a thing - he
must 'suspend judgement' on the question. However, it is fully
compatible with the author's definition, under which agnosticism means
only believing there's no knowledge to answer the question - and
'suspend[ing] judgement' apparently means nothing at all.
Which is yet another consequence of the definition-switching: it
defines 'atheistic theism' (something that had no place in agnosticism
as Huxley defined it) into existence. In this way, the author succeeds
in defining agnosticism in a completely opposite way than at the
beginning: as the belief that it's quite in order to profess to believe
a proposition on pure faith (ie, on no grounds at all).
That ends the formally definitional part of the article - though as
we'll see, there's a bit of defining left to go. In the next section,
the author begins to critique his strawman:
> Given these facts, why is agnosticism a fallacy ? While it parades as a
> "moderate" option which is most "reasonable", it is little more than an
> example of the cult of compromise.
>
> It's not because a debate is raging
> from both sides of an issue that both must be wrong. Or as Richard
> Dawkins eloquently writes :
>
> I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view
> are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie
> exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply
> wrong.
> "Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)
Where did this come from? Who has declared that, "because a debate is
raging, ... both [sides] must be wrong"? No answer, no cite (except
the one from Dawkins refuting that absurdity). That is a separate
strawman from the author's own definition-switching, but it is a direct
consequence of that switch: by redefining agnosticism as a 'position
... on the god-question' rather than as a process, the author has
eliminated the reason (that was fully given in Huxley's own definition)
why agnostics have any such position - which leaves him room to
speculate on other possible reasons instead.
> If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite
> unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no
> knowledge on the god question.
And where does the idea that 'we can have no knowledge on the god
question' come from? None of the author's cites have mentioned that
claim, not has he made any argument for it previously. There are only
two sentences, in the entire article so far, that could possibly
support it:
> The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge
> about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing,
> just like a-theism means not-belief in god.
Defining an agnostic as someone who believs that 'we can have no
knowledge about the god question' is certainly a definition 'that turns
aroung a lack of knowledge about the god question.' In addition, it
looks fully consistent with the author's etymology. Therefore, this
claim apparently must be in the 'modern definition' of agnosticism that
the author proposes to switch for Huxley's own, to wit: "Agnosticism
is the claim that we can have no knowledge of the god question."
(Indeed, IME, many of those who bash agnosticism assume that very
definition.)
The author's revised (or fully revealed) definition suffers from all
the same problems as his earlier attempt - it defines agnosticism about
anything but gods out of existence, and defines 'agnostic theism' into
existence'. But it goes further than that: it completely redefines a
simple statement of empiricism - don't profess to know or believe
anything without grounds - into an example of its opposite: a
metaphysical claim about the possibility of knowledge which is itself
based on no grounds.
>
> But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments
> of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. If any
> single argument is valid, then agnosticism must crumble. Many such
> arguments are available in the atheist literature, and it is
> disingenuous to deny them.
This does not refute the author's strawman agnosticism, of course - as
it's not illustrated by even one variant - but it does illustrate the
conceit and implausibility of claiming that no one can have no
knowledge of the god question. No person can have enough information
about what was true in the past, what is true now, and what will be
true in the future, to have 'grounds' for making such a claim. Rather,
it's just an irrational belief that agnostics happen to hold for no
reason: presumably, if the Rapture happened and the agnostic were
transported to heaven, he would *still* insist that it's impossible to
know one way or another.
Huxley himself pointed out the incompatibility with this 'position' of
unknowability and his own 'process' or 'method' (ie, agnosticism as he
defined it:
"I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."2 What I
am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing;
and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But
whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of
those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a
tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Which is the final problem with the author's switched definition: it
defines agnosticism as belief in a 'position' which the man who
admittedly coined the term quite clearly did not believe. IOW, the
author is no longer talking about Huxley's agnosticism at all, but
about a strawman that is clearly inconsistent with it.
> Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is
> self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we
> cannot claim it exists, or discuss it rationally.
>
> If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know
> something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and
> rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must
> inevitably lead to strong-atheism.
Impeccable logic, a reader might think; but where did the idea that we
'know nothing about the god-concept' come from? He'd be advised to
reread the 'modern definition': "Agnosticism is the claim that we can
have no knowledge of the god question." The reader might have thought
that meant we can have no knowledge of whether gods existed - not that
we cannot even know what the word 'god' means - but if so then he has
simply misread. The definition is quite explicit: "No knowledge,"
period. Therefore, agnostics believe definition that we cannot know
what the word 'god' means, or even whether it can mean anything - in
which case it is quite absurd for them to even use the word - much less
make it the only tenet of their entire 'position' (as the definition
also tells us they do).
> Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is
> necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an
> undefined object.
>
> Whatever exists in reality has attributes. If we
> admit that we have no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to
> define it, then it cannot exist. Thus assuming agnosticism is true
> leads to a contradiction.
Indeed, the absurdities start piling up at this stage. Since (by the
author's 'modern definition') agnostics believe that the word 'god'
cannot mean anything, they must also believe that any object it could
describe - any possible god at all - must have no properties at all.
IOW, the agnostic's conceived 'god' must not have the properties
theists attribute to their god - and so is irrelevent to theism. Nor
can it be any god that an atheist imagines - and so is equally
irrelevant to atheism. Indeed, it is even irrelevant to itself: an
agnostic, by the author's definition, cannot even know any grounds for
believing that his god is unknowable - he just has to
believe, for no reason and knowing he has no reason, that it is, so
there.
> Agnostics have to answer the following question, if their position is
> to make any sense at all :
>
> How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no
> knowledge about "god" ?
In other cases, an agnostic could note that this is a form of the
logical fallacy known as Compound Question, which involves asking two
questions in one - in this case
1) Do you believe you have 'no knowledge about "god"'?
2) How can you believe that and presume that "god" has a possible
meaning?
- and answer the first in the negative, while dismissing the second as
question-begging. However, he cannot do that here. After all, he
admits that he is an agnostic: therefore, he has to believe that he can
have
'no knowledge of the god question', including no knowledge of what the
word 'god' could already mean, by *(the author's) definition*.
Therefore he has to assert the contradiction (and admit his
irrationality, or repudiate agnosticism.
> To claim that "gods could exist" is possible, one must attribute some
> meaning to "god" in order for this proposition to be meaningful. To say
> that "gods cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that
> there can be no referent to "god", because the word "god" is
> meaningless.
>
> But the agnostic has no knowledge about "god" from which he can
> attribute it meaning.
By (the author's) definition, as an agnostic can have 'no knowledge of
the god question' at all: not just none about gods but none about what
the word 'god' could possibly mean.
> Therefore agnosticism contradicts itself on this
> crucial issue.
Indeed, the author's strawman agnostic cannot say anything about the
'god question' at all - not even state his own position that gods are
unknowable - without contradicting himself.
Which should properly end the example; but there is a relevant coda.
The author follows up his injury to Huxley's system with one final
insult to the man himself:
>
> A number of arguments can be proposed in favour of agnosticism. I will
> now examine the most important arguments.
>
> * Argument from the limits of human reason
>
> Based on Huxley's equivocation between a judicious use of reason and
> agnosticism, some thinkers have proposed that atheism oversteps the
> boundaries of human reason.
Spelled out in full, the first part of this sentence implies:
1) What Huxley called 'agnosticism' - "a man shall not say he knows or
believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe" -
is actually called 'a judicious use of reason'.
2) Agnosticism is clearly not 'a judicious use of reason' but something
else (presumably, as per the author's 'modern definition', the
completely unfounded belief that 'we can have no knowledge at all on
the god question.')
3) Huxley was aware of the difference, and therefore his definition was
pure 'equivocation.'
Thus Huxley, and presumably all other atheists, are exposed as secretly
in agreement with the author's straw definition, and proveably
'equivoating' if and when they try to deny it. Not only is their real
'position' both groundless and 'contradictory,' a logical mess that no
one, even them, could take eriously; they know all that, and have to
resort to 'equivocating' about what they believe.
By this point, the author has pretty much finished off his straw man;
it would be unseemly to stay to watch its final death-throes.
snip
Immortalist
definition. What of these stipulations;
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism,
strict agnosticism)-the view that the question of the existence of
deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped
to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism,
empirical agnosticism)-the view that the existence or nonexistence of
God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable,
therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
Apatheism-the view that the whole question of God's existence or
nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.
Apathetic agnosticism-the view that the whole question of God's
existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and
therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.
Ignosticism-the view that the concept of God as a being is
meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it
cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See
scientific method.
Model agnosticism-the view that philosophical and metaphysical
questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable
assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch
of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the
question of a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's
existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is
agnosticism is disputed.
Agnostic atheism-the view that God may or may not exist, but that his
non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least
partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.
RyanT
asking for empirical evidence. There is none, therefore there is no
particular strong reason to believe.
Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
actually do make a lot of sense.
Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
Personally I don't see any difference between agnositicism and
weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
essentially they both believe in the same thing.
Sir Frederick
is and means to be a human being that they are laughable primitives.
No "straw man" needed. Saturday Night Live, here we come!
Virgil
"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Nice!
fluidly unsure
> Very good article and prose debate arguing the pros and cons of
> definition. What of these stipulations;
>
That is why my beliefs have evolved through the years into what is
similar to the American school of Deism. From hard Atheism to Deism with
Agnosticism and Buddhism in between, I have seen the vast differences
between the seemingly similar belief systems.
This is where I'm at now. Somewhere between Agnostic and Theist, it
seems to me that Deist is the best description. (I usually claim I'm
part of the American camp to differentiate with the Deism from the
French Revolution).
fluidly unsure
> The easiest way to justify agnosticism is merely through the act of
> asking for empirical evidence. There is none, therefore there is no
> particular strong reason to believe.
Unfortunately, "empirical" is not always valued to as an "acid test".
Also, what is concidered "empirical" seems to be subjective to the
viewer. If you haven't noticed, the tint the eye sees can be altered by
the colors around it and a tone reacts the same way. How the human mind
handles the evidence is more important than how a machine analyses it.
(Analyzes the mathmatically pure harmonic scales in the examples given).
> Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
> chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
> God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
> actually do make a lot of sense.
A belief in God does not stipulate a belief in the Bible or anyother
holy book. No matter what some evangelists or radical x (christian,
islam, judaist, etc) claims.
People also make that leap-in-logic indirectly when they say that
anybody who doesn't believe in their vision is an atheist. I've seen
many examples; Christian/Islam/Judaism, Catholic/Protestant, and I think
Shiite/Sunni also.
> Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
> somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
> rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
> God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
> non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
That gives the Theists a foot-hold in the debate. (*Prove* that God
doesn't exist)
> Personally I don't see any difference between agnositicism and
> weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
> essentially they both believe in the same thing.
Sometimes the gray lines are to delicate to cut.
RyanT
fluidly unsure wrote:
> Unfortunately, "empirical" is not always valued to as an "acid test".
> Also, what is concidered "empirical" seems to be subjective to the
> viewer. If you haven't noticed, the tint the eye sees can be altered by
> the colors around it and a tone reacts the same way. How the human mind
> handles the evidence is more important than how a machine analyses it.
> (Analyzes the mathmatically pure harmonic scales in the examples given).
That's true, and that usually leads to complications in the argument.
But for practical purposes, most fundamentalists will merely credit God
for things that otherwise have very straightforward scientific
explanations. Someone might say that the wind is blowing because God
is sneezing. You might ask where and how God does this, but they won't
be able to provide any proof of such beyond mere speculation. On the
other hand, if you show an example of creating wind through pressure
changes, then you have an empirical, at least somewhat more beilevable
theory because it is something that's readily reproducable.
> A belief in God does not stipulate a belief in the Bible or anyother
> holy book. No matter what some evangelists or radical x (christian,
> islam, judaist, etc) claims.
>
> People also make that leap-in-logic indirectly when they say that
> anybody who doesn't believe in their vision is an atheist. I've seen
> many examples; Christian/Islam/Judaism, Catholic/Protestant, and I think
> Shiite/Sunni also.
Fundamentalists are really of the same breed, it's just that they're
adhering to different books. And most of the time they're not even
following what the book tells them to do anyway, since it's fairly easy
to point out passages that directly contradict the sorts of actions
they're doing and advocating.
But in essence, all of them believe that their ideas are rational and
founded in "reason". They will say that their ideas are the "voice of
reason", because they generated a moral construct for themselves that
makes sense to them logically. Problems arise when people don't buy
into their construct, and conflicts ensue.
> > Personally I don't see any difference between agnositicism and
> > weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
> > essentially they both believe in the same thing.
>
> Sometimes the gray lines are to delicate to cut.
In terms of actions, though, there's not much differentiation. Whether
you believe that humans will never understand God or that God can
eventually be explained or that you're not quite sure, the end result
is that all of them will base their actions without the need for
faith-based justification. Honestly, those grey lines are academic
definitions based on subtle differences, but you don't run into too
many people who would strongly label themselves as being as one or
another. It's either they believe, disbelieve, or are unsure and don't
feel strongly about it either way.
fluidly unsure
While I used the term "radical" I was basically referring to
"fundamentalist"
> But in essence, all of them believe that their ideas are rational and
> founded in "reason". They will say that their ideas are the "voice of
> reason", because they generated a moral construct for themselves that
> makes sense to them logically. Problems arise when people don't buy
> into their construct, and conflicts ensue.
>
>>> Personally I don't see any difference between agnositicism and
>>> weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
>>> essentially they both believe in the same thing.
>> Sometimes the gray lines are to delicate to cut.
>
> In terms of actions, though, there's not much differentiation. Whether
> you believe that humans will never understand God or that God can
> eventually be explained or that you're not quite sure, the end result
> is that all of them will base their actions without the need for
> faith-based justification. Honestly, those grey lines are academic
> definitions based on subtle differences, but you don't run into too
> many people who would strongly label themselves as being as one or
> another. It's either they believe, disbelieve, or are unsure and don't
> feel strongly about it either way.
>
Just as I recently thought of myself as against a "revealed religion".
Then I heard that some consider Islam to be non-revealed and bash
Hinduism as a revealed religion. I always considered the Quran to be an
attempt to show/reveal the only way to worship and the Vedas to contain
suggestions about a few of the many ways. Again some fine lines that
directly influences human life. (As long as the ability communicate
ideas and the idea of religion exists)
Turtoni
Atheist 1
Agnostic 2
Theist 3
Other 4
Man 5
Devil 6
God 7
------------
Total 28
Meaning we might want to shift to a 28 hour day:
http://dbeat.com/28/
Colin Day
But is religion a matter of intellect?
Colin Day aa #1500
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
George Dance wrote:
> Ironically, the example we'll be looking at is an anonymous article
> from http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html entitled
> "The agnostic fallacy".
>
I think you do a good job at exposing the flaws in that article.
While there is a derth of direct information about God and other gods
there is a great deal of knowledge about human religions and belief
systems and about the psychology and sociology of belief.
So taking as axiomatic that there is no empirical evidence for the
existence of God (and similar non corporeal entities) we can examine
human belief systems to test the likelyhood of the hypothesis "that God
is a human invention".
I would say the preponderence of evidence is overwhelming in support of
the idea that humans invented the gods (including God).
Conversly the idea that of all the tens of thousands of gods invented
by human cultures - one society of humans (ancient Jews) was so vastly
different from every other human society that they alone did not make
up mythical gods but happened to believe in a real one.
A real one, that from the standpoint of empirical support, is
identical to the thousands of false ones.
This seems to be literally incredible and so I am not shy of stating
that it is a reasonable belief that all gods (including God) are from
the same source - human imagination.
The fact that I cannot be absolutely certain of this is not a problem.
I dont think *absolute certainty* is necessary for belief - in fact I
believe *absolute certainty* outside of formal sytsems is a sign of
irrationality and even madness.
So in a nut shell I am saying that agnosticism (as defined by you) is a
reasonable first step in a rational process - but not, for me, the end
of it.
Mark.
Daniel T.
"RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The easiest way to justify agnosticism is merely through the act of
> asking for empirical evidence. There is none, therefore there is no
> particular strong reason to believe.
>
> Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
> chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
> God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
> actually do make a lot of sense.
>
> Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
> somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
> rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
> God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
> non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
So, we must grant that frug may exist? What about marnopul, may it also
exist? Any of a billion "undefined things" may exist?
Is it really so far out to decide that those things which haven't even
god a definition, don't exist?
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.
Turtoni
news:1131937709.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dance wrote:
>
>> Ironically, the example we'll be looking at is an anonymous article
>> from http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html entitled
>> "The agnostic fallacy".
>>
>
> I think you do a good job at exposing the flaws in that article.
>
> While there is a derth of direct information about God and other gods
> there is a great deal of knowledge about human religions and belief
> systems and about the psychology and sociology of belief.
>
> So taking as axiomatic that there is no empirical evidence for the
> existence of God (and similar non corporeal entities) we can examine
> human belief systems to test the likelyhood of the hypothesis "that God
> is a human invention".
> I would say the preponderence of evidence is overwhelming in support of
> the idea that humans invented the gods (including God).
>
> Conversly the idea that of all the tens of thousands of gods invented
> by human cultures - one society of humans (ancient Jews) was so vastly
> different from every other human society that they alone did not make
> up mythical gods but happened to believe in a real one.
Hope you don't mind me jumping in, but in what ways were the ancient Jews
vastly different from every other human society?
fluidly unsure
> In article <1131912905.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "RyanT" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The easiest way to justify agnosticism is merely through the act of
>> asking for empirical evidence. There is none, therefore there is no
>> particular strong reason to believe.
>>
>> Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
>> chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
>> God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
>> actually do make a lot of sense.
>>
>> Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
>> somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
>> rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
>> God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
>> non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
>
> So, we must grant that frug may exist? What about marnopul, may it also
> exist? Any of a billion "undefined things" may exist?
>
> Is it really so far out to decide that those things which haven't even
> god a definition, don't exist?
>
what was in the hole before. Or the quality of it tenants during his visit.
Turtoni
> news:1131937709.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> George Dance wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, the example we'll be looking at is an anonymous article
>>> from http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html entitled
>>> "The agnostic fallacy".
>>>
>>
>> I think you do a good job at exposing the flaws in that article.
>>
>> While there is a derth of direct information about God and other gods
>> there is a great deal of knowledge about human religions and belief
>> systems and about the psychology and sociology of belief.
>>
>> So taking as axiomatic that there is no empirical evidence for the
>> existence of God (and similar non corporeal entities) we can examine
>> human belief systems to test the likelyhood of the hypothesis "that God
>> is a human invention".
>> I would say the preponderence of evidence is overwhelming in support of
>> the idea that humans invented the gods (including God).
>>
>> Conversly the idea that of all the tens of thousands of gods invented
>> by human cultures - one society of humans (ancient Jews) was so vastly
>> different from every other human society that they alone did not make
>> up mythical gods but happened to believe in a real one.
>
> Hope you don't mind me jumping in, but in what ways were the ancient Jews
> vastly different from every other human society?
Mybad. I misread it. I see you're using it as an example to illustrate the
paradox in various religions laying claim to God.
Sir Frederick
>
>But is religion a matter of intellect?
>
>Colin Day aa #1500
Religion is based on the socialization of our
common behaviors and common subjective
experiences, which in turn are based on our
common genetic legacies that promote our
primate folk brain structures.
Religions and god stories are like languages,
complete with social and individual variations.
What is "intellect" a "matter of"?
Seeker
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote
> The "atheist", "agnostic", and "theist" are all in such errors on what it
> is and means to be a human being that they are laughable primitives.
> No "straw man" needed. Saturday Night Live, here we come!
You mean you know the meaning of life? Please share.
Sir Frederick
Consider a mold in a garbage dump. That's life.
There is no objective meaning.
We confabulate and practice meaning giving stories
to meet our needs for subjective meaning.
Deceit has its uses.
turtoni
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:pa1gn1l2p9ba5un00...@4ax.com...
Survival.
Seeker
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote
Yes but, agnostics don't pretend to know the meaning of human life, quite
the contrary, agnosticism is based on abstaining from drawing conclusions
where there is insufficient data.
Sir Frederick
How come the dinosaurs didn't do intellect (intelligence)
over 160 million years of survival?
Sir Frederick
Lots of luck!
Agnostics still live in the canonic medieval cultures that support
laughable models such as "personification", "mind", "aware", etc.
These practices of magic are deceitful, but so was an earth centric
universe.
Colin Day
I would say that intellect is a matter of cognizing the world,
which may or may not contribute to our lives and/or peace
with our neighbors.
But did Huxley mean this?
Colin Day aa #1500
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
RyanT wrote:
>>>> but you don't run into too
> many people who would strongly label themselves as being as one or
> another. It's either they believe, disbelieve, or are unsure and don't
> feel strongly about it either way.
Believe what? Define exactly what it is, without contradiction, that
you claim some do and some dont believe.
I dare you to, go on Ryan give a rational definition. fuck you talk
shit Ryan.
Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Come on Ryan, substaniate your claim, be the first human being in the
entire world, in the entire history of man to give an exact description
of what it is that YOU claim some believe and some dont believe.
Michael Gordge
Seeker
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are speaking in some kind
of code or riddle please translate. The word agnostic did not exist in
medieval times, it was coined in 1844. In it's current usage it is close in
meaning to the word "skeptic". It means simply the withholding of judgment
until sufficient evidence is produced.
Seeker
<m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote
> So in a nut shell I am saying that agnosticism (as defined by you) is a
> reasonable first step in a rational process - but not, for me, the end
> of it.
Agnosticism by definition is not the end of a rational process, it's an
ongoing process of waiting for more evidence, atheism however is an end,
just as theism is.
bri...@iinet.net.au
bucket load.
I have observed how a person uses his intellect after he has had an
epiphany.
An analogy would be how a persons approach to life changes when his
physical body has been subject to trauma.
It is amazing how post cardiac care patients improve their self
discipline regarding exercise.
Not so much a belief, more "a way of life".
BOfL
bri...@iinet.net.au
Mind over matter is an oxymoron.
BOfL
bri...@iinet.net.au
with Google groups...agggghhhhh...
BOfL
bri...@iinet.net.au
Regarding your madness point.
Have you ever considered there is a "part of us that knows" and a part
that believes?
I know a number of things that I dont believe. I can understand madness
would appear when the barriers are breached, which can be observed via
pathalogical breakdown.
Like many such phenomena, decrriptopns creep into our language, such a
the expression "unbelievable" when one has witnessed something
stimulating.
BOfL
bri...@iinet.net.au
Reminds me of lines of the classic"The Rockies May Crumble", Gibralter
May Tumble" ;-).
The beat goes on, despite apparent blockages !!!
BOfL
Turtoni
The dinosaurs didn't?
Sir Frederick
>"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
>news:9n5gn1dcf895l3ic1...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:26:59 -0500, "turtoni" <tur...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
>>>news:pa1gn1l2p9ba5un00...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:59:11 GMT, Colin Day <cd...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But is religion a matter of intellect?
>>>>>
>>>>>Colin Day aa #1500
>>>>
>>>> Religion is based on the socialization of our
>>>> common behaviors and common subjective
>>>> experiences, which in turn are based on our
>>>> common genetic legacies that promote our
>>>> primate folk brain structures.
>>>> Religions and god stories are like languages,
>>>> complete with social and individual variations.
>>>>
>>>> What is "intellect" a "matter of"?
>>>
>>>Survival.
>>>
>> How come the dinosaurs didn't do intellect (intelligence)
>> over 160 million years of survival?
>
>The dinosaurs didn't?
>
No dinosaur stone tools or pottery shards have been found.
Sir Frederick
Our present cultures are still medieval to this day. This despite any
technical developments.
Turtoni
Ah. Making a distinction in the levels of intelligence of the molds in the
garbage dump.
Turtoni
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:54:03 -0800, "Seeker" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote
>>> The "atheist", "agnostic", and "theist" are all in such errors on what
>>> it
>>> is and means to be a human being that they are laughable primitives.
>>> No "straw man" needed. Saturday Night Live, here we come!
>>
>>You mean you know the meaning of life? Please share.
>>
> Consider a mold in a garbage dump. That's life.
> There is no objective meaning.
Isn't the objective meaning to survive?
> We confabulate and practice meaning giving stories
> to meet our needs for subjective meaning.
> Deceit has its uses.
For the need to survive?
Turtoni
"Turtoni" <tur...@alt.philosophy> wrote in message
news:F7GdnZtuEqE...@comcast.com...
Something has to happen to survive, therefore survival is the bottom-line.
Sir Frederick
But, there is no apparent requirement that "something has to happen."
"Why there is something, rather than nothing." continues to insult
us with its mystery.
We are like human figures in a hyperdimensional painting : the figures
in the painting state of the painter : "You asshole, all this and meaninglessness
as well!" Just like a mold in the dump.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed."
- Benjamin Franklin
:-))))Snort!)
**************************************
Kate
holds that belief without evidence is bad. It's not really rational or
irrational, although it makes more sense to me, since morality is
really a decision process towards a goal and making decisions based on
hard evidence rather than feelings is a lot more effective.
Turtoni
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:59:53 -0500, "Turtoni" <tur...@alt.philosophy>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Turtoni" <tur...@alt.philosophy> wrote in message
>>news:F7GdnZtuEqE...@comcast.com...
>>> "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nb3gn1ltgjndgt7pe...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:54:03 -0800, "Seeker" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote
>>>>>> The "atheist", "agnostic", and "theist" are all in such errors on
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is and means to be a human being that they are laughable primitives.
>>>>>> No "straw man" needed. Saturday Night Live, here we come!
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean you know the meaning of life? Please share.
>>>>>
>>>> Consider a mold in a garbage dump. That's life.
>>>> There is no objective meaning.
>>>
>>> Isn't the objective meaning to survive?
>>>
>>>> We confabulate and practice meaning giving stories
>>>> to meet our needs for subjective meaning.
>>>> Deceit has its uses.
>>>
>>> For the need to survive?
>>
>>Something has to happen to survive, therefore survival is the bottom-line.
>
> But, there is no apparent requirement that "something has to happen."
True. But *"we"* know that something has to happen to survive. If nothing
happened we would eventually die. So we do things to survive. All the things
we do relate in some way to our need for survival. This is our something.
> "Why there is something, rather than nothing." continues to insult us with
> its mystery.
Perhaps we ask this question because of our basic instinct drive. If we knew
why then we could do something about it and incorporate into our need to
survive like they do with the religions.
> We are like human figures in a hyperdimensional painting : the figures
> in the painting state of the painter : "You asshole, all this and
> meaninglessness
> as well!" Just like a mold in the dump.
Good one. It's like we've crash landed and don't remember who or why we are.
I like the the mold in the dump metaphor.
Dutch
<bri...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1131965780....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Colin, my esponse was not to yoour Huxley question. Coming to grips
> with Google groups...agggghhhhh...
There is an option in there somewhere to include the previous text with
carats and all...
George Dance
Click 'show options' to the right of the message (if you can find it -
ofttimes it's buried under links to ads; if that's the case, try 'no
frame' and see if you can click it that way), and then 'Reply.' That
should do the trick.
George Dance
I would call that 'rational', as (to me) 'rational' means simply
believing, saying, or doing things for reasons, and that's what
'evidence' is: the reasons for one to believe, say, or do something.
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
Right.
I dont think you quite understand what I just said.
You follow the "agnostic principle" - and remain an agnostic (withold
having a *position* on the existence or non existence of God).
I follow the "agnostic principle" - and then move on from that to
atheism ( I do hold that God is non existent - I hold that to be a
reasonable/justifiable belief).
So while you never cease following the agnostic principle - and neither
do I - you dont move on to conclude that god (with reasonable
certainty) doesn't exist.
Mark.
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
RyanT wrote:
> The easiest way to justify agnosticism is merely through the act of
> asking for empirical evidence.
If God is non existent what empirical evidence would that leave?
If humans were in the habit of inventing mythical beasts like unicorns,
monsters and gods - what would the evidence of that look like?
Given honest answers to the above two questions what would prevent a
reasonable person from concluding that gods are imaginary?
> There is none, therefore there is no
> particular strong reason to believe.
>
> Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
> chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
> God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
> actually do make a lot of sense.
>
> Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
> somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
> rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
> God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
> non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
>
True - but you seem to imply that proving the non existence of God is
somehow necessary to rational atheism.
Why would you believe *that*?
> Personally I don't see any difference between agnositicism and
> weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
> essentially they both believe in the same thing.
Or not believe in the same nothing.
8-)
Mark.
Chris H. Fleming
RyanT wrote:
> The easiest way to justify agnosticism is merely through the act of
> particular strong reason to believe.
>
> Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
> chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
> God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
> actually do make a lot of sense.
>
> Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
> somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
> rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
> God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
> non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
>
> weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
> essentially they both believe in the same thing.
Agnostic is a subcategory of weak atheist that is not strong atheist.
In every definition I have heard of agnostic, the agnostic _lacks_
belief in god. Though the definition isn't worded that way, it implies
it. It is impossible to believe in god if you are uncertain if god
exists.
Every agnostic I have heard that denies being atheist either confounds
atheism with strong atheism or is dishonestly attempting to distance
themself from the word "atheist".
That's my understanding. I would love to be proven wrong though.
Seeker
<m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote
>>
>> > So in a nut shell I am saying that agnosticism (as defined by you) is a
>> > reasonable first step in a rational process - but not, for me, the end
>> > of it.
>>
>> Agnosticism by definition is not the end of a rational process, it's an
>> ongoing process of waiting for more evidence, atheism however is an end,
>> just as theism is.
>
> Right.
>
> I dont think you quite understand what I just said.
>
> You follow the "agnostic principle" - and remain an agnostic (withold
> having a *position* on the existence or non existence of God).
> I follow the "agnostic principle" - and then move on from that to
> atheism ( I do hold that God is non existent - I hold that to be a
> reasonable/justifiable belief).
I agree it's a reasonable belief, provided that the agnostic principle is
not lost, i.e. you remain skeptical, aware that metaphysical conclusions are
all tentative. In that case I think you really are still an agnostic, a weak
one.
> So while you never cease following the agnostic principle - and neither
> do I - you dont move on to conclude that god (with reasonable
> certainty) doesn't exist.
I believe that god *probably* doesn't exist.
The problem with atheism as I see it lies with how ideas manifest, the
tendency of ideas to progress and entrench themselves. Just as theism tends
towards absolutism, so does atheism, and I don't see any place for
absolutism is philosophy. I have read some atheist writings, and they were
more scathing towards agnosticism than towards theism, as if agnostics were
wishy-washy fence-sitters. Those people were as confident in the rightness
of their ideas as any religious zealot.
Richo
Seeker wrote:
> <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote
> >
> > Seeker wrote:
<snip>
> >> Agnosticism by definition is not the end of a rational process, it's an
> >> ongoing process of waiting for more evidence, atheism however is an end,
> >> just as theism is.
> > So while you never cease following the agnostic principle - and neither
> > do I - you dont move on to conclude that god (with reasonable
> > certainty) doesn't exist.
>
> I believe that god *probably* doesn't exist.
>
> The problem with atheism as I see it lies with how ideas manifest, the
> tendency of ideas to progress and entrench themselves. Just as theism tends
> towards absolutism, so does atheism, and I don't see any place for
> absolutism is philosophy. I have read some atheist writings, and they were
> more scathing towards agnosticism than towards theism, as if agnostics were
> wishy-washy fence-sitters. Those people were as confident in the rightness
> of their ideas as any religious zealot.
OK - I know of the kinds of people you are talking about and I too
dislike the zeolots and militant "angry" athests.
I do **occasionally** come up against anti-atheist agnostic bigotry -
heavy on the insufferable superiority . I dont include George in that
camp - nor youself now.
8-)
Mark.
Seeker
> True - but you seem to imply that proving the non existence of God is
> somehow necessary to rational atheism.
What's the difference between atheism and "rational atheism"?
David Jensen
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1132016815.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>RyanT wrote:
>> The easiest way to justify agnosticism is merely through the act of
>> asking for empirical evidence. There is none, therefore there is no
>> particular strong reason to believe.
>>
>> Theistic structures are often completely rational once you drink the
>> chalice and think as they do. If you believe in the proposition that
>> God does exist, then a lot of the biblical stories and passages
>> actually do make a lot of sense.
>>
>> Atheistic structures (if they're instistent on the absolute) are also
>> somewhat similar, and it seems like a lot of hardcore atheists seem to
>> rely on pure logic to bolster their claims. But we're talking about
>> God here, something we can't even define, so trying to prove the
>> non-existence of something undefinable is a futile task.
>>
>> Personally I don't see any difference between agnositicism and
>> weak-atheism. They might have dictionary different definitions but
>> essentially they both believe in the same thing.
>
>
>Agnostic is a subcategory of weak atheist that is not strong atheist.
>In every definition I have heard of agnostic, the agnostic _lacks_
>belief in god. Though the definition isn't worded that way, it implies
>it. It is impossible to believe in god if you are uncertain if god
>exists.
As far as I can tell, there are plenty of social Christians who are are
as agnostic as anyone else, but feel no need to upset the relatives or
neighbors.
Seeker
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132016815.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I would argue that every self-professed atheist who admits there there is
any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God is actually an
agnostic, not an atheist. I think God probably does not exist, that is an
a-theistic statement, but I don't believe that the question is provable at
all, so I remain agnostic. No, I don't classify God with unicorns.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>I would argue that every self-professed atheist who admits there there is
>any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God is actually an
>agnostic, not an atheist. I think God probably does not exist, that is an
>a-theistic statement, but I don't believe that the question is provable at
>all, so I remain agnostic. No, I don't classify God with unicorns.
Sigh. What's "God"?
It's part of the theist's worldview, not the atheist's and in spite of
the language agnostics use, most likely not part of theirs either.
All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
Nobody has been able to explain why we are supposed to start off from
something in the theist's worldview and be described one of two
alternatives that form both a false dichotomy and a bait'n'switch
between belief and its absence, and knowledge and its absence.
turtoni
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:tbiin1deiqs98glmq...@4ax.com...
Jesus whipped.
D-word
> Very good article and prose debate arguing the pros and cons of
> definition. What of these stipulations;
>
> Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism,
> strict agnosticism)-the view that the question of the existence of
> deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped
> to judge the evidence.
>
> Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism,
> empirical agnosticism)-the view that the existence or nonexistence of
> God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable,
> therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
>
>
> Apatheism-the view that the whole question of God's existence or
> nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.
>
> Apathetic agnosticism-the view that the whole question of God's
> existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and
> therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.
>
> Ignosticism-the view that the concept of God as a being is
> meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it
> cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See
> scientific method.
>
> Model agnosticism-the view that philosophical and metaphysical
> questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable
> assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch
> of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the
> question of a deity's existence.
>
> Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's
> existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is
> agnosticism is disputed.
>
> Agnostic atheism-the view that God may or may not exist, but that his
> non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least
> partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
The above is a validation of Orwell, it is obfuscation. (The
significance of the OPs Orwellian reference seems to have been lost in
the following discussion.)
What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
definitions? There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
these two terms.
Seeker
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:43:55 -0800, "Seeker" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I would argue that every self-professed atheist who admits there there is
>>any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God is actually an
>>agnostic, not an atheist. I think God probably does not exist, that is an
>>a-theistic statement, but I don't believe that the question is provable at
>>all, so I remain agnostic. No, I don't classify God with unicorns.
>
> Sigh. What's "God"?
I don't know, A Creator? A Divine Power?
> It's part of the theist's worldview, not the atheist's and in spite of
> the language agnostics use, most likely not part of theirs either.
Correct. God is not a part of my daily existence as far as I am concerned.
> All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
In practice atheists are frequently *anti*-theist. Agnostics are, "if you
want me to believe it show me some proof-ist"
> Nobody has been able to explain why we are supposed to start off from
> something in the theist's worldview and be described one of two
> alternatives that form both a false dichotomy and a bait'n'switch
> between belief and its absence, and knowledge and its absence.
Because "the" is what the definitions are about, it doesn't mean that it's
what *you* are about. It only needs to come up for you when you are asked
about it.
Seeker
> What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
> definitions? There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
> belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
> these two terms.
Depends what you mean by belief. People tend to imply "beyond reasonable
doubt" or something akin to it when they use the word, but they may not.
minus
(thank you by the way for pushing me to use the text function. I tried
before and it did not work, or probably I didn't)
It seems to me people often use the verb 'to believe' when they talk
about their official position. What the (or at least a part of them)
think it is correct to believe. I find my beliefs not only shift in
certainty over time - strength of belief issue which I think you are
describing above - but also that there are many voices in me and not
all of them believe in what I officially believe in. When something
comes up that raises doubt it is as if these parts come forward with
and *I told you so* attitude, or a sadder 'I knew it'. People often
speak about themselves as if they were (integrated) monads when in fact
my experience is a complexity that shifts over time.
There are very few things I usually believe %100 of the time. (I
realize the grammar is a bit awkward in that sentence, but that was as
close as I could get.)
Seeker
"minus" <underwear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132049660.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> "D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
>> > definitions? There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
>> > belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
>> > these two terms.
>>
>> Depends what you mean by belief. People tend to imply "beyond reasonable
>> doubt" or something akin to it when they use the word, but they may not.
>
> (thank you by the way for pushing me to use the text function. I tried
> before and it did not work, or probably I didn't)
No problem, my reasons were selfish however.. :>) congratulations
> It seems to me people often use the verb 'to believe' when they talk
> about their official position. What the (or at least a part of them)
> think it is correct to believe. I find my beliefs not only shift in
> certainty over time - strength of belief issue which I think you are
> describing above - but also that there are many voices in me and not
> all of them believe in what I officially believe in. When something
> comes up that raises doubt it is as if these parts come forward with
> and *I told you so* attitude, or a sadder 'I knew it'. People often
> speak about themselves as if they were (integrated) monads when in fact
> my experience is a complexity that shifts over time.
>
> There are very few things I usually believe %100 of the time. (I
> realize the grammar is a bit awkward in that sentence, but that was as
> close as I could get.)
Quite right, belief is *anything but* dualistic, for me it varies in
strength depending on which particular opinion I am examining at the moment,
or my mood (more than I might like to admit). I notice many people adopt
specific beliefs and find them locked in place pretty permanently, like our
friend Mike Gordge. Animal rights people are like this also.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:43:55 -0800, "Seeker" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I would argue that every self-professed atheist who admits there there is
>>>any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God is actually an
>>>agnostic, not an atheist. I think God probably does not exist, that is an
>>>a-theistic statement, but I don't believe that the question is provable at
>>>all, so I remain agnostic. No, I don't classify God with unicorns.
>>
>> Sigh. What's "God"?
>
>I don't know, A Creator? A Divine Power?
>
>> It's part of the theist's worldview, not the atheist's and in spite of
>> the language agnostics use, most likely not part of theirs either.
>
>Correct. God is not a part of my daily existence as far as I am concerned.
>
>> All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>
>In practice atheists are frequently *anti*-theist. Agnostics are, "if you
>want me to believe it show me some proof-ist"
It's slanderous little lectures like this from agnostics which are a
major cause of acrimony.
>> Nobody has been able to explain why we are supposed to start off from
>> something in the theist's worldview and be described one of two
>> alternatives that form both a false dichotomy and a bait'n'switch
>> between belief and its absence, and knowledge and its absence.
>
>Because "the" is what the definitions are about, it doesn't mean that it's
>what *you* are about. It only needs to come up for you when you are asked
>about it.
No. The definite article renders the definitions invalid and
unjustified.
George Dance
D-word wrote:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>
>
> The above is a validation of Orwell, it is obfuscation. (The
> significance of the OPs Orwellian reference seems to have been lost in
> the following discussion.)
>
> What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
> definitions?
Different people who opt for the same alternative for different
reasons.
> There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
> belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
> these two terms.
The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
one can::
1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
Bear
: The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
: one can::
: 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
: 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
: 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
#3 is what atheists do.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
George Dance
You won't find such a proof in my article, as it concluded the same
thing:
"ince an agnostic is restricted (given his knowledge) to 'suspending
judgement' - ie, to professing A4 - and since to profess A4 is to
profess A1 - and since A1 is 'the basic atheist belief' - it follows
that anyone who applies Huxley's definition correctly does profess A1:
IOW, that everyone 'agnostic' who properly applies that definition is
also professing atheism. The 'method' of agnosticism, consistently
applied, leads to the 'position' of atheism."
George Dance
Bear wrote:
> "George Dance" wrote
> : The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
> : one can::
> : 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
> : 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
> : 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
>
> #3 is what atheists do.
> --
> Bear
>
Some. Where P is "God(s) exist(s).", that's exactly what I do, and
what (I suspect) the majority of atheists do. There are some, though,
who would opt for 2 in that case, and those would be atheists as well
(as they do not believe "God(s) exist(s)." either).
George Dance
Wrt any proposition P,
one can::
1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
2) Hold P to be false (ie, believe not-P);
George Dance
Certainly; understanding a definition is not even a belief about
existence. For example, I understand this one: A "round square" is "a
geometric object containing four equal right angles and no angles."
> No. The definite article renders the definitions invalid and
> unjustified.
"The round square" is "the geometric object containing four equal right
angles and no angles."
Bear
: Bear wrote:
: > "George Dance" wrote
: > : The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition
P,
: > : one can::
: > : 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
: > : 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
: > : 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
: >
: > #3 is what atheists do.
: Some. Where P is "God(s) exist(s).", that's exactly what I do, and
: what (I suspect) the majority of atheists do.
Implicit atheists.
: There are some, though,
: who would opt for 2 in that case, and those would be atheists as well
: (as they do not believe "God(s) exist(s)." either).
Explicit atheists.
Bear
: The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
: one can::
: 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
: 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
: 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any
gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third
way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the
absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism
is not about belief in god but about knowledge - it was coined originally to
describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if
any gods exist or not.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
Antoon Pardon
One can identify as many possibilities as one whishes. With regard to
the question of atheims vs theism the distinction between (2) and (3)
is irrelevant. Both possibilities are a form of atheism.
--
Antoon Pardon
chris_h...@yahoo.com
Permit me to make an analogy to something more rational. I admit the
possibility that the Higgs Boson (an undiscovered subatomic particle)
exists. But I do not believe in the Higgs Boson. I do not believe we
will ever detect any Higgs Boson. But I admit it is _possible_ in some
sense - it is rational and consistent. I just don't think the universe
is made that way. My thoughts and beliefs in this matter are
consistent. Therefore one can be both atheist and agnostic.
I, as well as the OP, have proven (to some degree) from definition that
agnostic is a subcategory of weak atheist that is not strong atheist.
If I make the minor correction to your argument, then perhaps you would
argue that the weak atheist that is not a strong atheist is a
subcategory of agnostic.
And if we are both correct, then an agnostic is a weak atheist that is
not a strong atheist - the two categories being fully equivalent. I can
imagine no counter example to this, and I think it's probably a good,
logical working definition though it lacks a certain subjective
element.
I also think that a theist can admit that god might not exist, god
being an etherial, transcendent, metaphysical, invisible sky pixie and
all that. But I think theist can remain a believer despite this. I
admit it is possible that I am a schizophrenic hallucinating that he is
typing on a keyboard, but I do not believe that.
D-word
> >
> > > What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
> > > definitions? There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
> > > belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
> > > these two terms.
Seeker wrote:
> > Depends what you mean by belief. People tend to imply "beyond reasonable
> > doubt" or something akin to it when they use the word, but they may not.
This is where the discussion gets needlessly Orwellian. The word
"belief" is remarkably precise. It has few connotations.
Unfortunately people feel the need to attach all manner of baggage to
it. Simply put, a belief is, "something accepted as true." Anything
else is obfuscation, or "definition switching" as the OP refers to it.
For example.
A) I accept as true (I believe) that the sky appears blue but is in
fact colorless.
B) I accept as true (I believe) that the Einstein's cosmology is a
good starting point but might be missing a plank or two. [i.e., I am
open to what we don't know.]
1) A theist accepts as true the existence of a deity. (This is a
belief.)
2) An atheist accepts as true the non-existence of deities. (This is a
belief.)
3) An agnostic suspends judgement on the question, accepting as true
instead that neither position can be proven, or (for some) that neither
can be known. (This is a belief, but it pertains to a different
subject, the question of empirical knowledge.)
Personally, while I am disinclined to believe in anything metaphysical,
and strongly "doubt" (disbelieve/question) the existence of a deity, I
am governed by my first belief (that to pass judgment on that which
can't be proven or discerned by any means is illogical and foolish).
Huxley's definition needs no embellishment: "Agnosticism simply means
that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no
grounds for professing to believe."
terry
Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
>
>All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>
However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive form
of knowledge and claim to 'know something.' Language tricks (focussing
on the person rather than the belief) will not relieve you from the
need to defend your belief. "I'm not a theist" says "I believe there
is no god." Unless you want to divide *assented beliefs* from *held
beliefs.*
A *soft* agnostic simply says, "I do not know if there is or there
isn't." This is the truly neutral position and the only one which is
honest to the evidential paradigm of rationalism. Of course, the *hard
agnostic* (i.e. no one can know) is self-defeating, because it claims
to know something about which it states no one can know.
Terry
George Dance
Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 2005-11-15, George Dance schreef <george...@yahoo.ca>:
> >
> > D-word wrote:
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
> >>
> >>
> >> The above is a validation of Orwell, it is obfuscation. (The
> >> significance of the OPs Orwellian reference seems to have been lost in
> >> the following discussion.)
> >>
> >> What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
> >> definitions?
> >
> > Different people who opt for the same alternative for different
> > reasons.
> >
> >> There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
> >> belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
> >> these two terms.
> >
> > The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
> > one can::
> > 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
> > 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
> > 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
>
> One can identify as many possibilities as one whishes.
I'm sorry, but given two binaries (believe/not believe and true/false)
there are only three logical possibilities (as the fourth possibility,
Hold P to be both true and false, is not logical).
> With regard to
> the question of atheims vs theism the distinction between (2) and (3)
> is irrelevant. Both possibilities are a form of atheism.
So you're agreeing that 'being agnostic' (suspending judgement) on gods
implies atheism? And that 'agnostic theism' is an oxymoron?
Chris H. Fleming
> Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
> >
> However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive form
> of knowledge and claim to 'know something.'
Nice strawman. That is a strong atheist. Learn the definitions. A
strong atheist asserts that there is no god. A (weak) atheist lacks
belief in god. A (weak) atheist is defined as everyone who is not
theist, a-theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an a-theist.
> Language tricks (focussing
> on the person rather than the belief) will not relieve you from the
> need to defend your belief.
Lack of belief. You have confused his point, and in doing that you have
basically proved his point. His point is confusing and perhaps not
expresed well, but he did have a point. The point is basically pointing
out the false dichotomy and more importantly the underlying assumptions
of the debate.
"I'm not a theist" says "I believe there
> is no god."
Completely wrong. That is easily disprovable by a simple counter
example. Consider a person that has never heard of god. They do not
believe in god, therefore they are not theist. But they do not believe
there is no god as they have no comprehension of god, therefore they
are not strong atheists. There are other counter examples. An agnostic
doesn't know if there is a god. The Agnostic doesn't believe in god and
is not a theist. But he doesn't believe there is no god. He is
uncertain.
> Unless you want to divide *assented beliefs* from *held
> beliefs.*
Your original terms require some kind of definition if you want people
to understand what you are talking about. What is a belief that is not
held? And what does it matter if a belief is assented? Do you mean
beliefs with and without the agreement of others? Are you talking about
personal beliefs in context of other people's beliefs? What does that
matter? Truth is not democratic.
> A *soft* agnostic simply says, "I do not know if there is or there
> isn't." This is the truly neutral position
There is nothing inherently good about such neutrality. Neutrality
between magical thinking and scientific knowledge is magnitudes more
ignorant than bias towards scientific knowledge.
Secondly I would argue that ignorance is the most neutral position. But
sans brain injury or death, we cannot take that position.
> and the only one which is
> honest to the evidential paradigm of rationalism.
What meaning do those words have to you? What evidence? What reason?
You make a big claim and at the same time you didn't even know the
definition of atheism when you posted this.
But that is minor. I don't think you truly understand the stance of
strong atheism (which you do know the definition of).
Strong atheism is completely dependent on a person's definition of god
or class of gods. It is a conditional definition. As you seem to be
agnostic, you understand that god is not something that is readily
apparent in this world as the sun and the stars are.
When a person says they are a strong atheist, they are saying they do
not believe in Zeus, Jesus, Krishna, ... all the gods that are
_definined_.
If you are to be very agnostic and say there could be a god but even if
there is a god, you don't really know what god is, then there is no
strong atheist position to that. One cannot be a-(undefined belief). It
doesn't make sense. The strong atheist can at most say I do not believe
in these gods nor any similar gods. Nothing as such.
Or a more exagerated example, if you are to say "god is the
explaination of the universe and our existence. Do you believe in god?"
That isn't really a question about god as much as it is a question
about meaning? The discussion is completely convoluted at this point.
In otherwords, I think perhaps you push strong atheism into asserting
something that it really isn't asserting. That you are stretching the
strong atheist definition too thin because you don't have enough of a
god definition that it relies upon.
> Of course, the *hard
> agnostic* (i.e. no one can know) is self-defeating, because it claims
> to know something about which it states no one can know.
A statement can make a negative claim that invalidates the logic of
it's own accepted context, and still give useful information. The
contradiction is apparent, but irrelavant. This dates all the way back
to Nagarjuna, the Indian Buddhist philosopher or really even earlier
with the Jain. There is no shame in not knowing this, it is a logical
tripping point.
Colin Day
I would not agree. What if an someone doesn't have enough knowledge on
the issue to decide intellectually, but decides for nonintellectual
reasons to
believe in God? What you posted elsewhere has Huxley saying that one should
suspend intellectual belief in such matters. What about nonintellectual
belief?
Colin Day aa #1500
Christopher A. Lee
<chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>terry wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
>>
>> >
>> >All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>> >
>> However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive form
>> of knowledge and claim to 'know something.'
Perhaps Terry would like to show where "All an atheist is, is somebody
who isn't theist" says this.
>Nice strawman. That is a strong atheist. Learn the definitions. A
>strong atheist asserts that there is no god. A (weak) atheist lacks
>belief in god. A (weak) atheist is defined as everyone who is not
>theist, a-theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an a-theist.
Isn't it amazing how many of them feel they're qualified to lecture us
what our POV "really" is, after we've taken the trouble to correct
them?
But even strong atheists aren't claiming anything. It's a reaction to
the theists' claim - and a justified falsifiable conclusion based on
what the theists insist on telling us.
It is dishinest to reduce this to a belief or a claim as though it
were equivalent to the theists' initial unsupported claim
based on nothing but their religious belief.
>> Language tricks (focussing
>> on the person rather than the belief) will not relieve you from the
>> need to defend your belief.
And this is just plain wrong. And rude. Lying about "belief" and lying
by inventing "reasons" why we say what we do instead of having the
intellectual honesty or courtesy to address what we say.
>Lack of belief. You have confused his point, and in doing that you have
>basically proved his point. His point is confusing and perhaps not
>expresed well, but he did have a point. The point is basically pointing
>out the false dichotomy and more importantly the underlying assumptions
>of the debate.
>
>
>"I'm not a theist" says "I believe there
>> is no god."
He's not a mind reader.
>Completely wrong. That is easily disprovable by a simple counter
>example. Consider a person that has never heard of god. They do not
>believe in god, therefore they are not theist. But they do not believe
>there is no god as they have no comprehension of god, therefore they
>are not strong atheists. There are other counter examples. An agnostic
>doesn't know if there is a god. The Agnostic doesn't believe in god and
>is not a theist. But he doesn't believe there is no god. He is
>uncertain.
He's already been told that an atheist is simply someone who isn't
theist.
Even a strong atheist whose "belief" is over and above that.
Does he imagine we're lying about ourselves?
Part of the problem is that he is attempting to describe us according
to presumptions that really only apply to theists, as though they
applied to everybody.
And because our actual position doesn't even exist to him, anything we
say about is vanishes in a puff of cognitive dissonance.
Which is no excuse for him. Even if he doesn't understand it, he has
to grant that our POV isn't what he imagines.
It should be pretty obvious even to him that there is major dispute
between theists and atheists about what it means to be atheist. With
atheists telling him one thing and theists telling him another.
The conclusion shuld be obvious. After all, would he go into a black
bar in HArlem and tell the regulars what it means to them to be black?
Using bigoted stereotypes to justify it?
D-word
> D-word wrote:
> > There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
> > belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
> > these two terms.
>
> The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
> one can::
> 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
> 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
> 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
Yes, but this can be simplified.
1) P, and 2) Not P, represent beliefs.
3) Q, the suspension of belief, does not.
Therefore, all three conditions can be explained as a function of
belief or its absence. I agree that there are three logical
possibilities (the third being disbelief), but only two operative
concepts.
D-word
> Op 2005-11-15, George Dance schreef <george...@yahoo.ca>:
> > The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
> > one can::
> > 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
> > 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
> > 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
>
> One can identify as many possibilities as one whishes. With regard to
> the question of atheims vs theism the distinction between (2) and (3)
> is irrelevant. Both possibilities are a form of atheism.
No. Agnosticism is not a superset (or subset) of atheism. Unformed
belief does not imply belief. (It is often the case, but it is not
logically the case.)
bri...@iinet.net.au
doesnt need a creator?
Wouldnt it be a hoot if one of our time capsules was picked up by some
advanced society, they plugged in a dvd, and concluded "Just a random
coagulation of quarks"
How would "you" feel if it was your cabaret they were watching ?
:-))).
BOfL
Christopher A. Lee
>
>Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>
>However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive form
>of knowledge and claim to 'know something.' Language tricks (focussing
>on the person rather than the belief) will not relieve you from the
>need to defend your belief. "I'm not a theist" says "I believe there
>is no god." Unless you want to divide *assented beliefs* from *held
>beliefs.*
Where does "All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist" say any
or that, asshole?
Do you have trouble reading for comprehension?
>A *soft* agnostic simply says, "I do not know if there is or there
>isn't." This is the truly neutral position and the only one which is
>honest to the evidential paradigm of rationalism. Of course, the *hard
>agnostic* (i.e. no one can know) is self-defeating, because it claims
>to know something about which it states no one can know.
And your kind of agnostic is an in-your face liar.
>Terry
>
>
>
>
terry
Chris H. Fleming wrote in message
<1132097155.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>terry wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
>>
>> >
>> >All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>> >
>> However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive
form
>> of knowledge and claim to 'know something.'
>
>
>Nice strawman. That is a strong atheist. Learn the definitions. A
>strong atheist asserts that there is no god. A (weak) atheist lacks
>belief in god. A (weak) atheist is defined as everyone who is not
>theist, a-theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an a-theist.
Chris Fleming,
Trying to be careful to address this to the proper Chris, since the
other Christopher is incapable of a discussion without cursing attacks
in true childlike fashion.
Anyway, based upon your distinction between strong and weak atheist,
as described above, wouldn't that make 'most' athests to be taken as
'strong' atheists, since as you stated below it appears that a 'weak
atheist' must be truly ignorant of the knowledge about the claims of
god?
>
>
>> Language tricks (focussing
>> on the person rather than the belief) will not relieve you from the
>> need to defend your belief.
>
>
>Lack of belief. You have confused his point, and in doing that you
have
>basically proved his point. His point is confusing and perhaps not
>expresed well, but he did have a point. The point is basically
pointing
>out the false dichotomy and more importantly the underlying
assumptions
>of the debate.
>
>
>"I'm not a theist" says "I believe there
>> is no god."
>
>
>Completely wrong. That is easily disprovable by a simple counter
>example. Consider a person that has never heard of god. They do not
>believe in god, therefore they are not theist. But they do not
believe
>there is no god as they have no comprehension of god, therefore they
>are not strong atheists.
Chris, would this mean, in your opinion, that few within the
discussion about theism, could claim to be weak atheists? The fact
they are discussing the topic, and using your definitions, seems to
make them either theist, strong atheist, or agnostic. What say you?
>There are other counter examples. An agnostic
>doesn't know if there is a god. The Agnostic doesn't believe in god
and
>is not a theist. But he doesn't believe there is no god. He is
>uncertain.
True, but neither is he an a-theist. Therefore, he is not an example
of the use of a-thiest as described elsewhere. His neutrality is the
'non-theist' and 'non-atheist.'
[snip]
>
>
>> A *soft* agnostic simply says, "I do not know if there is or there
>> isn't." This is the truly neutral position
>
>
>There is nothing inherently good about such neutrality. Neutrality
>between magical thinking and scientific knowledge is magnitudes more
>ignorant than bias towards scientific knowledge.
I agree.
>
>Secondly I would argue that ignorance is the most neutral position.
But
>sans brain injury or death, we cannot take that position.
Agreed again. However, when dealing with 'metaphysical claims,' the
attempt to demand 'evidence,' via scientifc methodology, is ludicris,
for it attempts to compare apples to oranges. Thanks for the thoughts.
Terry
Christopher A. Lee
>
>Chris H. Fleming wrote in message
><1132097155.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>>terry wrote:
>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> >
>>> >All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>>> >
>>> However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive
>>> form of knowledge and claim to 'know something.'
This was a lie.The word for someone who lies, is "liar".
>>Nice strawman. That is a strong atheist. Learn the definitions. A
>>strong atheist asserts that there is no god. A (weak) atheist lacks
>>belief in god. A (weak) atheist is defined as everyone who is not
>>theist, a-theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an a-theist.
>
>Chris Fleming,
>Trying to be careful to address this to the proper Chris, since the
>other Christopher is incapable of a discussion without cursing attacks
>in true childlike fashion.
If you don't want to be treated as the whining liar you show yourself
to be, take notice of what you are told instead of arrogantly
lecturing me about what my POV "really" is.
Once again, how does anything in your bigoted and ignorant paragraph
follow from "an atheist is simply somebody who isn't theist"?
>Anyway, based upon your distinction between strong and weak atheist,
>as described above, wouldn't that make 'most' athests to be taken as
>'strong' atheists, since as you stated below it appears that a 'weak
>atheist' must be truly ignorant of the knowledge about the claims of
>god?
Another strawman.
It's hardly rocket science, but defining us as though your god were as
real for those outside your religion, as it is for those inside it,
will always describe us incorrectly in an emotionally prejudicial way.
No different than defining you in terms of your imaginary belief that
Zeus doesn't exist - when you wouldn't give Zeus a thought.
jfa...@earthlink.net
Seeker wrote:
> I would argue that every self-professed atheist who admits there there is
> any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God is actually an
> agnostic, not an atheist.
Since absolute certainty isn't justified in the real world,
I'd call any atheist who admited that he was absolutely
certain there wasn't a god, ignorant ( at least).
I think God probably does not exist, that is an
> a-theistic statement, but I don't believe that the question is provable at
> all,
There is nothing in the empirical world that is "provable."
> so I remain agnostic.
>No, I don't classify God with unicorns.
Shouldn't that be: I don't classify the unicorn with gods?
jfa...@earthlink.net
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:43:55 -0800, "Seeker" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I would argue that every self-professed atheist who admits there there is
> >any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God is actually an
> >a-theistic statement, but I don't believe that the question is provable at
>
> Sigh. What's "God"?
>
> the language agnostics use, most likely not part of theirs either.
>
Ask him to cite a source for this def.
>
> Nobody has been able to explain why we are supposed to start off from
> something in the theist's worldview and be described one of two
> alternatives that form both a false dichotomy and a bait'n'switch
> between belief and its absence, and knowledge and its absence.µ
jfa...@earthlink.net
D-word wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > Very good article and prose debate arguing the pros and cons of
> > definition. What of these stipulations;
> >
> > Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism,
> > strict agnosticism)-the v iew that the question of the existence of
> > deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped
> > to judge the evidence.
> >
> > Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism,
> > empirical agnosticism)-the view th at the existence or nonexistence of
> > God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable,
> > therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
> >
> >
> > Apatheism-the view that the whole question of God's existenc e or
> > nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.
> >
> > Apathetic agnosticism-the view that the whole question of God's
> > existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and
> > therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless se arch.
> >
> > Ignosticism-the view that the concept of God as a being is
> > meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it
> > cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See
> > scientific method.
> >
> > Model agnosticism-the view that philosophical and metaphysical
> > questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable
> > assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch
> > of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the
> > question of a deity's existence.
> >
> > Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's
> > existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is
> > agnosticism is disputed.
> >
> > Agnostic atheism-the view that God may or may not exist, but that his
> > non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least
> > partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>
>
> The above is a validation of Orwell, it is obfuscation.
But I take it you don't have an argument that supports
this accusation, right?
(The
> significance of the OPs Orwellian reference seems to have been lost in
> the following discussion.)
>
> What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
> definitions?
What propagates the seemingly endless stream of question-
begging epithets like "bastardized definitions"?
>There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
> belief, a duality.
Just like there are two kinds of people: those who need to
reduce things to two conditions and those who don't.
Everything else can be explained as a function of
> these two terms.
Well I can believe you when you say this. Or I can
disbelieve you. Or I can be undecided. Maybe you can
squeeze that into a "duality" but you can't make those
three distinct conditions mean the same as only two of
them. r
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
Seeker wrote:
> <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote
> > True - but you seem to imply that proving the non existence of God is
> > somehow necessary to rational atheism.
>
> What's the difference between atheism and "rational atheism"?
>
The obvious one. 8-)
You can believe X for rational or irrational or non-rational "reasons"
no matter what X is.
You can reject belief/ disbelieve in X for rational, irrational or non
rational "reasons".
[Actually I have non-rational (emotional, aesthetic, ethical)
objections to god belief.]
It is perfectly possible, for example, to believe that there are no
gods because a magical pixie named Lenny told you "gods don't exist" in
a dream and you firmly believe that magic pixies (especially when named
Lenny) never lie.
People are capable of believing anything.
I am interested in "what should I believe" - if I am to be a rational
being.
I use the term because (believe it or not) there is a great deal of
(pointless ) talk on alt.atheism about the atheism of new born babies
and rocks - that's not the atheism that interests me.
Mark.
Antoon Pardon
>
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2005-11-15, George Dance schreef <george...@yahoo.ca>:
>> >
>> > D-word wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The above is a validation of Orwell, it is obfuscation. (The
>> >> significance of the OPs Orwellian reference seems to have been lost in
>> >> the following discussion.)
>> >>
>> >> What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
>> >> definitions?
>> >
>> > Different people who opt for the same alternative for different
>> > reasons.
>> >
>> >> There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
>> >> belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
>> >> these two terms.
>> >
>> > The OP (me) actually identified 3 possibilities: Wrt any proposition P,
>> > one can::
>> > 1) Hold P to be true (ie, believe P);
>> > 2) Hold P to be false (ie, not believe not-P);
>> > 3) Not hold P to be either true or false (ie, suspend judgement on P).
>>
>> One can identify as many possibilities as one whishes.
>
> I'm sorry, but given two binaries (believe/not believe and true/false)
> there are only three logical possibilities (as the fourth possibility,
> Hold P to be both true and false, is not logical).
But one can hold P true because that was one's parents taught or
one can hold P true because of an emotional need or one can hold
P true for rational reasons. These are all different possibilities,
if you wish to differentiate.
>> With regard to
>> the question of atheims vs theism the distinction between (2) and (3)
>> is irrelevant. Both possibilities are a form of atheism.
>
> So you're agreeing that 'being agnostic' (suspending judgement) on gods
> implies atheism? And that 'agnostic theism' is an oxymoron?
No I don't agree that (3) is being agnostic. Being agnostic is a
seperate issue.
--
Antoon Pardon
Daniel T.
"D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Personally, while I am disinclined to believe in anything metaphysical,
> and strongly "doubt" (disbelieve/question) the existence of a deity, I
> am governed by my first belief (that to pass judgment on that which
> can't be proven or discerned by any means is illogical and foolish).
It cannot be proven or discerned by any means that margolup doesn't not
exist. According to your statement above, you must accept then the
possibility of its existence despite the fact that it is meaningless...
Am I wrong? If wrong, why?
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.
terry
Antoon Pardon wrote in message ...
But Antoon, if one holds beliefs within a non-congenial environment,
then usually they are not looked upon as holding the belief with
proper warrant. The proper rational warrant seems to be the category
of discussion, and thereby only 3 possibilites exist.
Certainly, the other reasons are valid for discussion, but they are in
another category of lacking rational warrant.
>
>>> With regard to
>>> the question of atheims vs theism the distinction between (2) and
(3)
>>> is irrelevant. Both possibilities are a form of atheism.
>>
>> So you're agreeing that 'being agnostic' (suspending judgement) on
gods
>> implies atheism? And that 'agnostic theism' is an oxymoron?
>
>No I don't agree that (3) is being agnostic. Being agnostic is a
>seperate issue.
>
If I'm understanding you correctly, :^), are you saying an agnostic is
a form of atheism? Thanks.
Terry
Colin Day
But why does religious belief require "proper rational warrant" in the
first place? And what would be "proper rational warrant" in such a case?
Colin Day aa #1500
terry
Colin Day wrote in message ...
Simply to seperate a true religious belief from fairy tale or make
believe assumptions. Say someone is under the influence of drugs and
has a spiritual encounter with a green alien who says, "I am God."
Because this experience was not in a proper rational state, the belief
of the truthfulness of the encounter does not enjoy warrant.
>And what would be "proper rational warrant" in such a case?
Warrant which takes place with the cognitive faculties functioning
properly within a congenial environment according to their design
which is aimed at producing true beliefs.
Terry
Seeker
"D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132074318.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > "D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >
>> > > What propagates the seemingly endless stream of bastardized
>> > > definitions? There are only two conditions: belief and absence of
>> > > belief, a duality. Everything else can be explained as a function of
>> > > these two terms.
>
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> > Depends what you mean by belief. People tend to imply "beyond
>> > reasonable
>> > doubt" or something akin to it when they use the word, but they may
>> > not.
>
>
> This is where the discussion gets needlessly Orwellian. The word
> "belief" is remarkably precise. It has few connotations.
The word belief may be fairly precise, but beliefs themselves are very often
and properly tentative.
> Unfortunately people feel the need to attach all manner of baggage to
> it. Simply put, a belief is, "something accepted as true." Anything
> else is obfuscation, or "definition switching" as the OP refers to it.
Beliefs are based on accumulation of and assessment of evidence, which can
change over time, as can the nature of our deliberations, so "belief" is
obviously temporal in nature, at least.
I may believe that person A is guilty of a crime based on the evidence, but
further evidence, such as DNA, may change my belief completely.
> For example.
>
> A) I accept as true (I believe) that the sky appears blue but is in
> fact colorless.
> B) I accept as true (I believe) that the Einstein's cosmology is a
> good starting point but might be missing a plank or two. [i.e., I am
> open to what we don't know.]
>
>
> 1) A theist accepts as true the existence of a deity. (This is a
> belief.)
> 2) An atheist accepts as true the non-existence of deities. (This is a
> belief.)
> 3) An agnostic suspends judgement on the question, accepting as true
> instead that neither position can be proven, or (for some) that neither
> can be known. (This is a belief, but it pertains to a different
> subject, the question of empirical knowledge.)
>
>
> Personally, while I am disinclined to believe in anything metaphysical,
> and strongly "doubt" (disbelieve/question) the existence of a deity, I
> am governed by my first belief (that to pass judgment on that which
> can't be proven or discerned by any means is illogical and foolish).
Your language in that paragraph indicates strongly that you use belief in
degrees, as most people do.
> Huxley's definition needs no embellishment: "Agnosticism simply means
> that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no
> grounds for professing to believe."
I admire simplicity also, but (non)beliefs are based on a process of
evaluation of evidence (grounds), These evaluations are necessarily
subjective, and new information may become available, so may change. It is
incorrect to say that we have "no grounds" to believe in a diety, surely the
fantastic nature of reality gives us pause, but we have *further*
overwhelming grounds to conclude otherwise, that is the sum of our rational
deliberations.
Seeker
<bri...@iinet.net.au> wrote
> So you are intellectually comfortable with the view that creation
> doesnt need a creator?
What do you mean by "creation"? The word seems to have been chosen in order
to imply a specific conclusion.
Christopher A. Lee
It's part of the language-based thought control their religion exerts,
and it's amazing how many people don't realise this.
Even the most common definitions of "God" presume its existence, by
their use of the definite article.
chris_h...@yahoo.com
> Chris H. Fleming wrote in message
> <1132097155.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> >terry wrote:
> >> Christopher A. Lee wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
> >> >
> >> However, by claiming there is 'no god' you are stating a positive
> form
> >> of knowledge and claim to 'know something.'
> >
> >
> >Nice strawman. That is a strong atheist. Learn the definitions. A
> >strong atheist asserts that there is no god. A (weak) atheist lacks
> >belief in god. A (weak) atheist is defined as everyone who is not
> >theist, a-theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an a-theist.
>
>
> Chris Fleming,
> Trying to be careful to address this to the proper Chris, since the
> other Christopher is incapable of a discussion without cursing attacks
> in true childlike fashion.
>
> Anyway, based upon your distinction between strong and weak atheist,
> as described above, wouldn't that make 'most' athests to be taken as
> 'strong' atheists, since as you stated below it appears that a 'weak
> atheist' must be truly ignorant of the knowledge about the claims of
> god?
I can understand how you might think that but no.
I am in physics and I make the analogy about how I feel about string
theory or the higgs boson. Both are consistent theories that people are
looking for proof of. Personally I do not believe in either. But I do
not believe that they do not exist. They could exist. But I lack belief
in them. That is my stance and it is consistent. So I have proved
existance of other kinds of weak atheists.
I would agree that for many people, the difference is completely
irrelivant. There are many atheists that do not know the difference nor
care to.
> >> Language tricks (focussing
> >> on the person rather than the belief) will not relieve you from the
> >> need to defend your belief.
> >
> >
> >Lack of belief. You have confused his point, and in doing that you
> have
> >basically proved his point. His point is confusing and perhaps not
> >expresed well, but he did have a point. The point is basically
> pointing
> >out the false dichotomy and more importantly the underlying
> assumptions
> >of the debate.
> >
> >
> >"I'm not a theist" says "I believe there
> >> is no god."
> >
> >
> >Completely wrong. That is easily disprovable by a simple counter
> >example. Consider a person that has never heard of god. They do not
> >believe in god, therefore they are not theist. But they do not
> believe
> >there is no god as they have no comprehension of god, therefore they
> >are not strong atheists.
>
>
> Chris, would this mean, in your opinion, that few within the
> discussion about theism, could claim to be weak atheists? The fact
> they are discussing the topic, and using your definitions, seems to
> make them either theist, strong atheist, or agnostic. What say you?
I have no idea. What I can say is that I used to think nearly all
atheists were strong athests, but I have been suprised to find out that
there are many weak atheists that are not strong atheists. And many
self professed weak atheists seem to be strong atheist with respect to
the biblical gods. While many self professed agnostics seem to not be
strong atheist with respect to biblical gods, but only weak atheist.
Perhaps there should be new terminology invented to split this
difference - a difference which cannot be explained fully without being
verbose.
> >There are other counter examples. An agnostic
> >doesn't know if there is a god. The Agnostic doesn't believe in god
> and
> >is not a theist. But he doesn't believe there is no god. He is
> >uncertain.
>
>
> True, but neither is he an a-theist. Therefore, he is not an example
> of the use of a-thiest as described elsewhere. His neutrality is the
> 'non-theist' and 'non-atheist.'
See you are doing it again. You are using different definitions. We
must all use one set of definitions and work from there or we will
never get anywhere.
The accepted definition of atheist is "not a theist". If you are not a
theist, then you are an atheist.
The agnostic is never a strong atheist, but quite generally unless you
make a really weird definition the agnostic is a weak atheist. If you
are uncertain, then you do not believe, then you are not theist, then
you are a-theist. For an agnostic not to be a weak atheist, then the
agnostic would have to have a strange definition like "I am agnostic,
one second I believe and one second I don't". You would have to
fluctuate between the dichotomy, attempt to straddle the dichotomy or
something odd like that.
> [snip]
> >
> >
> >> A *soft* agnostic simply says, "I do not know if there is or there
> >> isn't." This is the truly neutral position
> >
> >
> >There is nothing inherently good about such neutrality. Neutrality
> >between magical thinking and scientific knowledge is magnitudes more
> >ignorant than bias towards scientific knowledge.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
> >
> >Secondly I would argue that ignorance is the most neutral position.
> But
> >sans brain injury or death, we cannot take that position.
>
>
> Agreed again. However, when dealing with 'metaphysical claims,' the
> attempt to demand 'evidence,' via scientifc methodology, is ludicris,
> for it attempts to compare apples to oranges. Thanks for the thoughts.
I think metaphysical claims can be useful without being real or actual.
So I think it's dangerous to approach them from a certain viewpoint. I
think people can confuse themself into a stupor. For instance I enjoy
reading about religion, but I have read some philosophy of religion and
I think those people have thought themselves into a stupid box. They
seem to be to a philosopher what a chiropractor is to an MD. Personally
I take the ignostic stance and ask for relevance. Relevance demands
existance (of some kind), though not visa versa (so it's not perfect).
And you are extremely welcome. Try not to mind the angry atheists. They
are too accustomed to people saying similar things to what you have
said for no other reason than to annoy them, and not in an honest
attempt to seek truth.
Colin Day
And what religion enjoins its adherents to have warranted belief
as opposed to faith?
>
>>And what would be "proper rational warrant" in such a case?
>
>
>
> Warrant which takes place with the cognitive faculties functioning
> properly within a congenial environment according to their design
> which is aimed at producing true beliefs.
>
>
And why should beliefs be aimed at truth? Why not something else,
such as salvation or social harmony?
Colin Day aa #1500