Agnosticism is not Athiesm

Zillah

pH wrote:

The God doesn't require worship, nor does he expect us to live by any standards, nothing exists after death

I think thats the point at which you diverge from most people's views. Those who subscribe to a wishy washy God tend to subscribe to an equally wishy washy afterlife.

pH

From a yesterday's Independent.

The A-Z of Atheism

Agnostic Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of a creator, a creative cause or an unseen world, believing them either unknown or unknowable. See also: Wanting all the options


The rest is not bad too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2074321.ece

Valmont

Before reading the athiesm/agnosticism forum, I considered myself an athiest. Then after reading the 'most logical belief' thread, I think I jumped ships but then I wasn't sure and now this alatrist 'non-worship' thing seems good but I think I'll just consider myself as standing to the side for the whole religion god thing.

I go about my day to day business for all manners and purposes as someone who does not believe in a God/Gods. I don't follow a religion, I don't fear any reprisals from a higher power for anything bad I might have done. I don't really buy the whole creationism thing. So looking at my behaviour, I would consider myself as someone who is pretty sure that God doesn't exist but I don't deny the existence of God and I agree with the agnostic viewpoint.

Basically I don't have a clue what to ism I am after reading the various arguments for each one here (very clever arguments at that) but I know for sure that I am a 100% non-worshipper.

I think it is important that we don't lose sight of the fact that despite our isms we are all (I think) non-worshippers.

I really enjoy the technical debates here and I always follow them with interest even though I get rather confused at times.:D

Tar.Aldarion

Alatrist +1.

Dades

Valmont wrote:

Basically I don't have a clue what to ism I am after reading the various arguments for each one here (very clever arguments at that) but I know for sure that I am a 100% non-worshipper.

Well said. Comments that are written and the arguments that are made here don't change what any of us believe. They just fuel the "labelling" debate, which is what we're left with in the absence of a god.

bonkey

pH wrote:

From a yesterday's Independent.

The A-Z of Atheism

Agnostic Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of a creator, a creative cause or an unseen world, believing them either unknown or unknowable. See also: Wanting all the options


The rest is not bad too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2074321.ece

I'm perpetually amused and oft-times amazed by the presistent negative light in which agnostics are cast in.

It would seem to me that theist and atheist alike generally join in agreement about agnostics, with said agreement generally being in the "bloody fence-sitters" direction.

I've thought about this quite a lot and can only come up with one conclusion:

For the vast majority taking part in the debate, it is more important to show the otehr side to be wrong than to make a compelling case for one's own correctness. After all, its apparently a binary situation, right? Either there is, or is not, a God. And if we can amke a compelling argument as to why the other side is wrong, then we must be correct by default.

Theists explain calmly and rationally why those atheists have missed the point. Atheistrs, likewise, concentrate more on explaining why theism makes no sense than on why atheism is correct.

Unfortunately, agnosticism isn't open to this line of attack. How can you argue that one is wrong to say "its ultimately unproven" when, well, it is ultimately unproven? One can't....so a different line of attack is needed.

The result? Don't even try and explain why agnosticism is wrong...just make it out to be a non-position...the weak fence-sitter who wants to believe in both sides.

I find it strange. If there are two competing hypotheses about something in science, but neither has reached the status of theory, it is not considered a poor, weak, wants-both-to-be-true stance to simply admit that the jury is still out and that the answer is as yet unknown. But move into the realm of discussing theism/atheism, and all of a sudden its a bad thing to say that the jury is out.

pH

bonkey wrote:

I'm perpetually amused and oft-times amazed by the presistent negative light in which agnostics are cast in.

It would seem to me that theist and atheist alike generally join in agreement about agnostics, with said agreement generally being in the "bloody fence-sitters" direction.

I've thought about this quite a lot and can only come up with one conclusion:

For the vast majority taking part in the debate, it is more important to show the otehr side to be wrong than to make a compelling case for one's own correctness. After all, its apparently a binary situation, right? Either there is, or is not, a God. And if we can amke a compelling argument as to why the other side is wrong, then we must be correct by default.

Personally, I find the agnostic argument, as proposed by Huxley, unintelligible and ultimately very uninteresting. I also consider it useless as a term as it covers both the wishy-washy theists who are in two minds about their beliefs, and those who are clearly atheists but due to being enamoured with arguing and philosophy will argue the position all night.

The other side to this is if you view this all as a philosophical debate or more a court of public opinion.

Dawkins has found that this is NOT a debate, and I think this is the central confusion that the OP has. Humour, satire and personal attacks are not part of a structured philosophical debate, but are very much part of the war in changing public opinion. Tearing up and mocking your opponents cherished beliefs are very much fair game, and a valid technique (used by all sides).

So I guess what I'm saying is that this isn't a debate with rules where the philosophers in here can smugly say 'Ooh, Ad-hominen', tut tut and shake their heads knowingly.

You can see from politics today that sound-bites do work. No one wants long winded polemics, it's all about 'Read my lips - no more taxes' and 'Governerators'. This is the world the fence-sitter comments come from.

bonkey

pH wrote:

Personally, I find the agnostic argument, as proposed by Huxley, unintelligible and ultimately very uninteresting.

So "uninteresting" is more of a reason to attack and denigrate a position than "wrong"? I ask because both a theist and atheist should agree that the agnostic is wrong...but you don't see agnosticism often attacked for being wrong, but merely for being anything but wrong.

I also consider it useless as a term as it covers both the wishy-washy theists who are in two minds about their beliefs, and those who are clearly atheists but due to being enamoured with arguing and philosophy will argue the position all night.

Theist covers sheep who believe because its they were raised that way and have never questioned anything, as well as those who've genuinely questioned their beliefs, educated themselves on the issues, and come up with the answer that they feel is correct for them.

Atheist is also no different. It covers those who reject the existence God for the most trivial, ill-though-out reasons, just as much as those who hold an informed, reasoned position.

Surely this should mean that theist and atheist are equally useless as terms?

The other side to this is if you view this all as a philosophical debate or more a court of public opinion.

Dawkins has found that this is NOT a debate, and I think this is the central confusion that the OP has.

I agree that its not a debate. Thats fundamentally why agnosticism just gets the backhanded denigration.

Humour, satire and personal attacks are not part of a structured philosophical debate, but are very much part of the war in changing public opinion. Tearing up and mocking your opponents cherished beliefs are very much fair game, and a valid technique (used by all sides).

With respect, I don't believe they are used by all sides. Agnostics tend not to get involved in this self-aggrandized war for public opinion, particularly not in telling either side that they are fundamentally wrong (given that their position prevents them from saying this)

You can see from politics today that sound-bites do work. No one wants long winded polemics, it's all about 'Read my lips - no more taxes' and 'Governerators'. This is the world the fence-sitter comments come from.

Indeed - the world where fact is less important than perception. The type of world that allows a religious perspective to effectively challenge a scientific one....on science's turf.

Its just funny to see the atheists embracing this notion, whilst fundamentally arguing that the entire issue is one where fact should trump perception, where rationality is king.

Do as I say...not as I do, eh?

In my opinion, the current groundswell of more vocal atheism is not significantly taking any "believers" from the religious field. Rather, it is simply gaining support from those who may have been nominally religious but in reality atheist up to now. The increased vocalness of the debate, if anything, is merely entrenching sides rather than really convincing anyone.

I believe that if it really is a battle to win public opinion, the battle will be won by those who find a new strategy, rather than those who rely on the tired old "soundbitism" that is admittedly fun but ultimately of limited effect.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

The result? Don't even try and explain why agnosticism is wrong...just make it out to be a non-position...the weak fence-sitter who wants to believe in both sides.

It is a non-position.

The only issue I have with agnostics is why do agnositics take this non-position with the question of God yet most seem perfectly happly take certain positions towards equally unprovable events hundreds of times a day with little after taught (eg a train is not going to fall on my head).

An agnostic rarely goes through life being agnostic to anything other than God, otherwise they would probably go insane

We make judgements every mintue about what we accept and what we don't accept. The question of if what we accept can be scientifically shown to be true to a high standard is normally something to consider only after the inital decision has been made. Our decision might be wrong, or might evolve, but I know of no one who refuses to make a decision at all in the first place, either way, until after they have been presented with proof something will or will not happen ("I'm not leaving my house until I know for certain I will not be shot in my garden").

I'm an atheist. My position might be wrong, but I've make a judgement given the question. I personally feel it is quite a well thought out judgement. But the important factor is that it is not a judgement that I hold with any greater significance or weight than the judgement that my bus will eventually come tonight, or that when I get home my housemate will probably be out with her boyfriend. I might be wrong about all these judgements at all, but its not like I'm refusing to make them until I have checked with Dublin Bus, or rang my house mate.

It just seems a bizare position to take, and I don't really understand why the question of God is so special to warrent such a strict logical approach that is not used in any other area of personal belief. It is almost as if the agnoistic is saying "Oh my, this is such an important decision! What if I pick atheism and I'm wrong!"

Agnostics don't walk around refusing to make a judgements on everything unprovable, just God. Which is fair enough, I don't have any real problem with someone doing that. But it does seem a little strange, and where the idea that both atheists and theists feel agnositics are simply hedging their bets. To me the question "Why are you agnoistic?" seems more interesting that "Is there a god?"

Valmont

Always a fan of Wicknights shrewdness:D

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

It is a non-position.

I believe that the answer to the question of God is fundamentally unknowable. I am an agnostic and I believe that statement fits quite well with agnosticsm. That is a postion not a non - position.

Wicknight wrote:

The only issue I have with agnostics is why do agnositics take this non-position with the question of God yet most seem perfectly happly take certain positions towards equally unprovable events hundreds of times a day with little after taught (eg a train is not going to fall on my head).

An agnostic rarely goes through life being agnostic to anything other than God, otherwise they would probably go insane

This is a ridiculous argument and an argument that you never seem to tire of no matter how many times people answer you. The question of God, the origins of the Universe and the quest for meaning are intrinsic to human nature. Wondering if a train is going to fall on your head is idiotic .. wondering about God is not. A guy 2000 years ago makes a claim that he is the son of God .. he supposedly performs miracles, millions of people follow his teaching and die for their belief. All of these people having the same mental capacities as me and you. His claims demand attention as do the claims of other religions if for no other reason than that billions of people subscibe to some sort religion. Sometimes these claims of religions can be tested and debunked but most of the time they cant. Taking a position that says we cant test the claims so I am not going to make a judgement is entirely sensible. If billions of people around the world were claiming that a train fell on their heads then I would give that claim my full attention. If the claim could be tested then I would make a judgement .. if it couldnt be tested then I wouldnt make a judgement .. simple.

Playboy

Also .. people who subscribe to this evolutionary psychology model of why religion arose in our society might as well believe in religion. Evolutionary Psychology to a large degree is not falsifiable and its claims while seemingly more rational cannot be proven true. I am also agnostic about that and many other things not just God.

Zombrex

Valmont wrote:

Always a fan of Wicknights shrewdness:D

lol

yeah apologies to all reading my last post, including Bonkey. Was in a bad mood in work and that post came across more of a nonsensical grumpy rant than anything else.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I believe that the answer to the question of God is fundamentally unknowable.

Everything is fundamentally unknowable, particularly knowing if something doesn't exist or isn't going to happen.

Playboy wrote:

Wondering if a train is going to fall on your head is idiotic

An atheist would argue that so thinking about sky gods invented 4000 years ago by men living in a desert.

You cannot prove that it isn't going to happen, though you are certain it isn't going to happen. You are basing that certainty on something that is fundamentally unknowable. Which was my original point. You, like everyone, do this all the time, every second of every day. You make decisions about things you cannot possible know for sure.

To an atheist like myself saying there is no God makes as much sense as saying a train is not about to fall on my head. I actually don't know either of those statements are true. But based on my understanding of both trains and humans I can say that neither of them are particularly likely.

Playboy wrote:

If billions of people around the world were claiming that a train fell on their heads then I would give that claim my full attention.

That would have little bearing on the odds or likelihood of a train falling on your head.

I understand what you are saying, that millions of people believe in religion so it therefore has some kind of weight as something we should seriously consider, where as a falling train doesn't.

But I would totally reject that idea because it is far more likely that millions of people believe in religion because of the way our brain works, not because there is weight to the idea. This is the same as saying it is very unlikely a train will fall on your head because you understand what would have to happen for a train to fall on your head.

The point to remember is that most atheists are coming from a default religious culture. They have considered the millions follow this religion, maybe there is something behind it. But they have come to the conclusion that no actually there is another reason why millions follow religion, and it isn't because God exists.

You know a train is not going to fall on your head because you understand the process that would be needed to get a train over your head in the first place, and to drop it on you. You can therefore assess that such a process happening is very unlikely to the point that you can dismiss it.

The same holds for most atheists (the ones I know at least).

It is not a great mystery that billions of people create and sustain religion. It can be explained by the way we view the world, the way our brains seek answers in a framework familiar to ourselfs. Understanding this explains in a natural way how religious ideas can develop without having any connection to an actual supernatural force.

This is the same as knowing the process of how a train would have to be put over you head before it can fall on you, and equally how you can say that isn't going to happen.

We could both be wrong, there could be something you don't know about flying trains and there could be a God. But while the truth behind both statements are fundamentally unknownable, to me both are equally unlikely.

robindch

> His claims demand attention as do the claims of other religions if for no other
> reason than that billions of people subscibe to some sort religion.

That's the issue -- billions of people have religious views of one kind or another upon which they base decisions they make in the real world. From the mundane (whether to allow themselves beer) to the significant (Ronald Reagan's environment secretary who said that the environment didn't need to be looked after, since the "end times" were a-comin').

> Sometimes these claims of religions can be tested and debunked but
> most of the time they cant.

I think that's where you are wrong. Not only can most religious claims be tested, but the very basis for religious belief itself can be investigated too. And in neither case is a very charming picture painted.

And even if you did test and debunk everything about religion, there'd still be plenty religious people out there with beliefs ring-fenced from the intellectual pressure of inquiry -- "blessed is he who believes, and hasn't seen". With a line like that as an axiom of thought, there's little use in even trying.

Tar.Aldarion

Um Wicknight, you are having problems seperating an 'Earthly' god and a being that could be defined a god under modern criteria, by a lot of people. It could easily exist. It could easily not.
If something created the universe and is quite powerful etc, is that not a god?
etc etc

aidan24326

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Um Wicknight, you are having problems seperating an 'Earthly' god and a being that could be defined a god under modern criteria, by a lot of people. It could easily exist. It could easily not.
If something created the universe and is quite powerful etc, is that not a god?
etc etc

Tar, maybe something did create the universe, and is very powerful etc., that's a possibility we can't dismiss outright.

But why call this entity god? You could call it whatever you liked really. What we can say is that such an entity would certainly bear no likeness to the god of religions, that god who hears your prayers and all of that stuff.

But even if there is some incredibly sophisticated being that created the universe then it isn't really helpful to call that entity 'god', as this is not the definition of a god that most religious people hold to, and it only confuses matters.

Imagine if it could now somehow be proved that the universe did have some creative force behind it, you can imagine all the religious types jumping on that immediately, be the christian, muslim or whatever else. 'See we told you atheist fools, of course there is a god'.

Well maybe, but it might not dawn on some of them that a god of this sort would not be reconcilable with their religious worldviews. It would not mean there's an afterlife, it would not mean your prayers are heard, it would not mean the god entity takes any interest in us etc.

Tar.Aldarion

I know this, let's take a Christian.
S/he believes in their god, which would have created the universe and have his super dooper powers. He interacts with us, he has a flowy white beard.
Now take away the he interacts with us bit and just be left with a he created the universe bit, he has all the powers*, but does not interact with us.
A lot of people would call that god.
The matter has to get confusing, because everybody defines 'god ' differently.
To me, there can be no such thing as a god, to somebody else a lot of things could be a god.
Read this page of definitions, read dictionaries, read encyclopedias...
The definition variation is huge.
As you have put it in your scenario, there can be a god, doesn't mean that it matters that it is not the one they believed in, one exists to them.


*Even a robe.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

It is a non-position.

The only issue I have with agnostics is why do agnositics take this non-position with the question of God yet most seem perfectly happly take certain positions towards equally unprovable events hundreds of times a day with little after taught (eg a train is not going to fall on my head).

An agnostic rarely goes through life being agnostic to anything other than God, otherwise they would probably go insane

Utterly untrue.

People are agnostic about many major matters, every day. It may be true that you have a position on absolutely everything (no offence intended!), but that is not the case for most.

Do you regard OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence to be definitively proven? Do you think the Prince of Wales was Jack the Ripper? Is nuclear power worse or better than coal in the long run? Should we tax and spend, or let people make completely free choices where their money goes? Would Ireland have been better off if it had remained part of the UK? Should you be sterner or kinder to your children? Is charity better than welfare? Does the Trojan War represent events accurately?

And so on. The point is that even outside science there are thousands of quite large question to which people will return an answer of "not sure, jury's still out, couldn't rightly say, I guess we'll never know". History, politics, ethics, literature, myth, are all full of such questions - and science? Science is absolutely stuffed with them.

While some of these questions are soluble, many of them are simply not - the jury will always be out, and people are smart enough to know it.

The claim that it's "only God that people are agnostic about" doesn't pass even basic evidential tests. Utter bosh.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

But even if there is some incredibly sophisticated being that created the universe then it isn't really helpful to call that entity 'god', as this is not the definition of a god that most religious people hold to, and it only confuses matters.

Who, in this case, are "most people"? Are you certain this is not just the Abrahamic idea of God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If something created the universe and is quite powerful etc, is that not a god?
etc etc

The question is "What makes that a god?"

This is the problem, the term "god" has been diluted so much so it has lose nearly all context.

- Does your god above deserve or expect to be worshipped?

- Does your god above communicate with us on any level offering support and strength?

- Does your god above decide things like morality, or what is sinful, or how humans should live their lives?

- Does your god decide things like human fate, or destiny, or possess the ability to observe or alter the future?

- Does your god create an afterlife for us and bring us to this creation after we die, if we worship it?

etc etc....

If it doesn't, they why is it a "god" over simply an intelligent extra-terrestrial entity?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The claim that it's "only God that people are agnostic about" doesn't pass even basic evidential tests. Utter bosh.

I see your point, and I admit it is better than mine (see my post about grumpy nonsensical rant )

The point I was trying to get across (not very well) was more about questions that don't have an answer. It is possible to know if OJ killed his wife. It is possible to know if the Prince of Wales was Jack the Ripper. We choose not to make specific judgements on these issues because we recognise that while there is an answer we don't possess it, and the negative effects of a wrong judgement out weight the negative effects of no judgement at all (If OJ is innocent and he is condemned as guilty that is worse than if he is guilty and let go)

The point about predicting unlikely future events such as a train falling on you, is that there is no answer, there is only judgement. The same is true with god. God is defined in such a way that if he doesn't exist you will never know he doesn't exist, in which case there is no answer. Most agnostics, while claiming to be agnostic, do take the judgement that god doesn't exist in the way they choose to live their lives. "Functioning atheists" as coined on this forum. I know of very few agnostics who go the other way and live their lives a functioning theists.

I suppose the reason atheists like myself get frustrated with the agnostic position is that they feel it is a bit like seeing OJ standing over his dead wives body holding a gun and covered in blood shouting "Take that bitch", but still saying "We didn't see him shoot her, we don't know he killed her". That is technically the correct response, it is the fair response, and in that case not making a judgement is better than making the wrong one.

But one can't help saying "Oh come on!"

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

The point about predicting unlikely future events such as a train falling on you, is that there is no answer, there is only judgement. The same is true with god. God is defined in such a way that if he doesn't exist you will never know he doesn't exist, in which case there is no answer. Most agnostics, while claiming to be agnostic, do take the judgement that god doesn't exist. "Functioning atheists" as coined on this forum. I know of very few agnostics who go the other way and live their lives a functioning theists.

So let me see if I get this straight...

You accept that there are questions to which there are no answers....but maintain that for at least one of these questions "we cannot determine the answer to any degree of certainty" is a non-position.

Most agnostics, while claiming to be agnostic, do take the judgement that god doesn't exist

This doesn't contradict the concept of agnosticism.

It just means that agnostics make a clear distinction between what they know and what they are willing to judge/guess/believe.

Isn't it funny, though, that you can recognise that most agnostics are willing to take a judgeemnt, but still maintain that their acklnowledgement of the fundamental inability to ever know the answer is a non-position.

One could just as easily say that people who believe they are atheists but recognise that they are making a jdugement call are, in fact, functioning agnostics. Similarly, those who think there is a God, but aren't certain because we can never be...they're functioning agnostics too, even if they clasify themselves in the theist branch.

I'm an atheist. My position might be wrong, but I've make a judgement given the question.

You accept you could be wrong. You accept the definitive answer is unknowable. You have your judgement as to which answer you tend to put more credence in.

You're arguably an agnostic tending towards an atheistic viewpoint. Only when you become certain in the correctness of your answer can you be truly atheist, surely?

Dades

Would it be fair to say that atheism presupposes that "gods" are interventionist?

That seems to be in line with what any declared atheist here is saying. I'm not content to allow god to be anything unknowable. If it's unknowable how can we call it after something that had a very definite meaning for thousands of years.

Or do agnostics feel that atheists don't have the right to define god with respect to their beliefs?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Would it be fair to say that atheism presupposes that "gods" are interventionist?

That seems to be in line with what any declared atheist here is saying. I'm not content to allow god to be anything unknowable. If it's unknowable how can we call it after something that had a very definite meaning for thousands of years.

Or do agnostics feel that atheists don't have the right to define god with respect to their beliefs?

To some extent, this is the case. If the atheist defines God as the Abrahamic God, and says he is atheist in this respect, fine - but he has done little more than the Abrahamic theist.

It's rather too much like the joke about the Ulster atheist being asked "are you a Catholic atheist, or Protestant?".

Essentially, the claimed "atheism" of many in the West is as parochial as the theism - we are atheist about our local god, and ignorant of others. We claim that a God must be interventionist and so forth to qualify, but that is a local definition.

So, to take Wicknight's questions:

The question is "What makes that a god?"

This is the problem, the term "god" has been diluted so much so it has lose nearly all context.

- Does your god above deserve or expect to be worshipped?

- Does your god above communicate with us on any level offering support and strength?

- Does your god above decide things like morality, or what is sinful, or how humans should live their lives?

- Does your god decide things like human fate, or destiny, or possess the ability to observe or alter the future?

- Does your god create an afterlife for us and bring us to this creation after we die, if we worship it?

etc etc....

If it doesn't, they why is it a "god" over simply an intelligent extra-terrestrial entity?

The answer is, because people X have determined it to be so. There are Gods no-one worships - several pantheons had them. There are Gods who did not communicate or intervene (Ptah, the Egyptian creator. for example), gods who decided nothing, gods who created nothing, etc etc - if we dig, we will find examples of almost all. There are even Gods that were recognised as being somehow extinct - Kronos and the rest that the Olympians displaced. The Lares and Penates - Roman Gods of the household - were insignificant outside the particular house.

So, I don't think that we can claim that only a god fitting the Abrahamic mould can be a God....not, and keep our logical trousers up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

The answer is, because people X have determined it to be so. There are Gods no-one worships - several pantheons had them. There are Gods who did not communicate or intervene (Ptah, the Egyptian creator. for example), gods who decided nothing, gods who created nothing, etc etc - if we dig, we will find examples of almost all. There are even Gods that were recognised as being somehow extinct - Kronos and the rest that the Olympians displaced. The Lares and Penates - Roman Gods of the household - were insignificant outside the particular house.

So, I don't think that we can claim that only a god fitting the Abrahamic mould can be a God....not, and keep our logical trousers up.

Perhaps the term "interventionist" is too narrow.

The gods you describe above, from the extinct ones to the Abrahamic one, have one thing in common to an atheist (and more than likely an agnostic) - they are man made. What makes a god? Any single defining characteristic given to it by man. Perhaps this is what defines the gods of atheism...

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Perhaps the term "interventionist" is too narrow.

The gods you describe above, from the extinct ones to the Abrahamic one, have one thing in common to an atheist (and more than likely an agnostic) - they are man made. What makes a god? Any single defining characteristic given to it by man. Perhaps this is what defines the gods of atheism...

Ouch. Well, that really does beg the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

So let me see if I get this straight...

You accept that there are questions to which there are no answers....but maintain that for at least one of these questions "we cannot determine the answer to any degree of certainty" is a non-position.

No my point is that humans make judgements for questions that have no answers all the time, and that we are more likely not to give judgements to questions only if we know there is actually an answer that we are unaware of.

I was trying to show that comparing OJ Simpsons guilt to the question of God is not really comparing the same thing. It is possible to know if OJ Simpson is or is not guilty. If God doesn't exist it is impossible to know this. It is likely that it is impossible to know if he does exist, depending on how he is defined in the first place.

bonkey wrote:

This doesn't contradict the concept of agnosticism.

Nor athiesm, which is why for a lot of agnostictics here who claim agnosticism seem to be simply "functioning atheists" who recognise they don't know for sure.

Which is really atheism for all purposes.

I know of few agnostics on this forum, who could be described as functioning theists, people who accept the likelihood of God existing is high enough to seriously consider it a possibility worth basing their view of the universe on.

bonkey wrote:

Isn't it funny, though, that you can recognise that most agnostics are willing to take a judgeemnt, but still maintain that their acklnowledgement of the fundamental inability to ever know the answer is a non-position.

No, my point is that by making this judgement they are not actually agnostic, they are either theist or atheist. It is refusing to make the judgement in the first place that makes you agnostic.

Which is why I said most "agnostitics" here seem to actually be atheists, albet atheists who recognise that they might be wrong (as most logical atheists should)

bonkey wrote:

One could just as easily say that people who believe they are atheists but recognise that they are making a jdugement call are, in fact, functioning agnostics.

True, but then you get back to the point that it only logically correct outlook on life is to be agnostic to everything, since we can never know for sure anything. But that isn't really how it works in the real world.

bonkey wrote:

You accept you could be wrong. You accept the definitive answer is unknowable. You have your judgement as to which answer you tend to put more credence in.

You're arguably an agnostic tending towards an atheistic viewpoint.

No, because there is nothing beyond the judgement. That was my point. The answer is unknowable. The thing that decides if you are theist or atheist is the judgement.

If you define theist or atheist as people who actually know the answer then no one is or has ever been an theist or atheist, since no one knows the answer (suppose you might if you die, but only if the answer is yes).

Therefore an agnostic is not someone who recognises they doesn't know the answer, since no one knows the answer, and it would be rather silly to pretend otherwise. An agnostic is someone who refuses to make a judgement in the first place.

Once you have made the judgement you fall on either side based on what that judgement is.

bonkey wrote:

Only when you become certain in the correctness of your answer can you be truly atheist, surely?

But how can anyone ever be certain? The answer is unknowable. Neither a theist nor an atheist can be certain. And this holds for most things, not just God.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The answer is, because people X have determined it to be so.

But, as I said, the concept "god" becomes rather meaningless. If 1000 Aztecs worshipped the first Spanish settlers as gods does that mean they were actually gods and gods exist?

One of the reasons I'm an atheists is that the concept of "god" doesn't seem to exist outside of some very fuzzy human definition that can change completely from culture to culture. How could such a ridiculously altering definition actually correspond to something existing in reality.

It is like asking do "heroes" exist. They don't outside of the term humans bestow on other humans for certain undefined attributes. Likewise humans can bestow the term "god" on anything, but what that actually means is undefined beyond that actual culture that bestowed it.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

No my point is that humans make judgements for questions that have no answers all the time, and that we are more likely not to give judgements to questions only if we know there is actually an answer that we are unaware of.

But humans also refuse to make judgements for questions that have no answers all the time. Just because we sometimes do one (i.e. make a judgement) doesn't mean that we always must.

I was trying to show that comparing OJ Simpsons guilt to the question of God is not really comparing the same thing.

That depends on how you look at it....

It is possible to know if OJ Simpson is or is not guilty.

Actually, No, its not. The evidence is inconclusive as a result of how it was gathered. Even if OJ were to come out tomorrow and say "yes, it was me, I did it", the best you could do is believe OJ's admission of guilt. You still don't know whether or not he comitted murder.

If God doesn't exist it is impossible to know this. It is likely that it is impossible to know if he does exist, depending on how he is defined in the first place.

And it may also be impossible to ever fully determine with certainty whether or not the universe will re-collapse or expand infinitely. Some scientists hold positions on that. Others say that the jury is still out, but that they tend towards one position or another.

Nor athiesm, which is why for a lot of agnostictics here who claim agnosticism seem to be simply "functioning atheists" who recognise they don't know for sure.

Or, atheists are functioning agnostics.

Which is really atheism for all purposes.

Well no, its not. Its suggesting that theism/atheism may in fact be orthogonal to agnosticism, rather than they being three related categories.

I know of few agnostics on this forum, who could be described as functioning theists, people who accept the likelihood of God existing is high enough to seriously consider it a possibility worth basing their view of the universe on.

What does who you know matter? This isn't a popularity contest or a democracy. All that matters is whether or not someone can be agnostic and be a "functioning theist" just as well as they can be "functioning atheist".

No, my point is that by making this judgement they are not actually agnostic, they are either theist or atheist. It is refusing to make the judgement in the first place that makes you agnostic.

Then we don't share a definition of what agnosticism is.

I've often noted that self-proclaimed atheists will defend what atheism means to them as the right definition, but are plenty quick to not afford the same courtesy to agnostics, rather insisting that their defintion of this must also be the correct one.

Which is why I said most "agnostitics" here seem to actually be atheists, albet atheists who recognise that they might be wrong (as most logical atheists should)

Those who recognise they might be wrong are agnostic.

True, but then you get back to the point that it only logically correct outlook on life is to be agnostic to everything, since we can never know for sure anything. But that isn't really how it works in the real world.

Not so. Its a question of how you define knowledge and "knowing for sure". If you set a standard, like say that necessary to form a scientific theory, then we can say that we know for sure that gravity will be around tomorrow. However, there is no known standard by which one can say for sure that God does or does not exist.

Alternately, if you wish to take the strictest sense of "knowing for sure" then the very term itself is meaningless. We cannot ever know anything for sure...so what would be the point in defining a term which is the state of such surity being absent?

The answer is unknowable.

Thats almost a textbook definition of the base position of many forms of agnosticism.

If you define theist or atheist as people who actually know the answer then no one is or has ever been an theist or atheist, since no one knows the answer (suppose you might if you die, but only if the answer is yes).

If you ask JC over on the Creationism thread whether or not he knows God exists, what do you think his answer will be? Ask BrianCalgary the same - given that he asserts he's had a vision from God, I'm pretty sure the answer will be the same.

They are firmly theist. There is no uncertainty for them. They know God exists. Similarly, I know people who hold equally intractable positions, knowing God doesn't exist.

These people are not agnostic. None of them acknowledge the basic uncertainty / unknowability that you and I clearly agree on.

An agnostic is someone who refuses to make a judgement in the first place.

Based on who's definition, as a matter of interest? Your own? Or some established one? I ask because most established ones I've seen allow this as one form of agnosticism, but do not claim it is the only form.

But how can anyone ever be certain?

Ask JC. He's certain.

That you ask the question suggests you're really an agnostic at heart

The answer is unknowable.

If you check the Wiki entry for agnostic, you'll find that this is a central tenet of agnosticism. It seems you hold it quite strongly.

Neither a theist nor an atheist can be certain.

They can believe they are. In their minds they can be. Just as in yours, you're pertty certain that you've taken the right position.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But, as I said, the concept "god" becomes rather meaningless. If 1000 Aztecs worshipped the first Spanish settlers as gods does that mean they were actually gods and gods exist?

See my answer to Tar. I would be atheist in respect of such "deities", since I would under no circumstances consider them Gods.

Wicknight wrote:

One of the reasons I'm an atheists is that the concept of "god" doesn't seem to exist outside of some very fuzzy human definition that can change completely from culture to culture. How could such a ridiculously altering definition actually correspond to something existing in reality.

Same way as any other culturally defined concept - like, say, morality. Do you claim morality doesn't exist because it varies from culture to culture?

Wicknight wrote:

It is like asking do "heroes" exist. They don't outside of the term humans bestow on other humans for certain undefined attributes. Likewise humans can bestow the term "god" on anything, but what that actually means is undefined beyond that actual culture that bestowed it.

Sure. That's why a case by case basis is the only rational approach, although blanket dismissal is easier.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Ouch. Well, that really does beg the question.

What question would that be?

If you ask JC over on the Creationism thread whether or not he knows God exists, what do you think his answer will be? Ask BrianCalgary the same - given that he asserts he's had a vision from God, I'm pretty sure the answer will be the same.

That's not a fair comparison. Seeing something, or evidence of something is proof enough for someone to know it's existence is real. Not seeing something isn't enough to know it isn't there. What do they say - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Not being able to say you know gods don't exist doesn't make atheism disappear in a puff of smoke. It's a belief (or disbelief) first and foremost. Atheists don't believe they do - some with stronger conviction than others.

If a god can be a cosmic cloud or anything beyond our understanding, than we all have to be agnostic. But if a god can be defined in any realistic way then there is no obstacle to making a judgement on it's existence.

Perhaps the people who argue that agnosticism is the only tenable option are the ones that deliberately push the boundaries of what can realistically be called god, so that it must be the case?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

See my answer to Tar. I would be atheist in respect of such "deities", since I would under no circumstances consider them Gods.

Ok, but to which god are you agnostic towards? And why are you atheist to some gods and agnostic to others?

Scofflaw wrote:

Same way as any other culturally defined concept - like, say, morality. Do you claim morality doesn't exist because it varies from culture to culture?

Morality doesn't exist beyond the minds of the humans that define it. That was my point. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the concept of gods exist solely in the human imagination, defined by humanity.

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure. That's why a case by case basis is the only rational approach, although blanket dismissal is easier.

But what do you rationise? As I asked above what concept of "god" are you agnostic towards, seeing as you seem to be stating you are atheist towards most of them. And why are you atheist towards these and agnostic towards that one?

In the same way that I can say "I don't accept that any of those people you have claimed are heroes are actually heroes, and in fact I think the concept of a hero is stupid" equally I can simply say I am atheist to the idea of what ever someone might say is a God. And this goes back to what someone means when they say something is a "god".

You seem to be saying that while you know Paul Harry and Billy are not heroes, you are open to the idea that someone might be a hero, some where. But then the question becomes how do you define what is or is not a hero.

So the question would be how do you define "god", and why would you classify that possible entity a "god"

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Who, in this case, are "most people"? Are you certain this is not just the Abrahamic idea of God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes I suppose I was being biased towards the Abrahamic definition of god, understandable since it's the one we're most familiar with, and since islam and christianity are practised by a sizeable chunk of the world's population.

The Atheist wrote:

If a god can be a cosmic cloud or anything beyond our understanding, than we all have to be agnostic. But if a god can be defined in any realistic way then there is no obstacle to making a judgement on it's existence.

Well according to that we'd all have to be agnostic, as right now we don't seem to have any idea how to define god. This is proven by the countless number of different 'definitions' around. The definition becomes whatever someone wants it to be.

Perhaps the people who argue that agnosticism is the only tenable option are the ones that deliberately push the boundaries of what can realistically be called god, so that it must be the case?

Well like I said (and I think it's something we all agree on) the definition of 'god' is now so vague and so diluted as to be almost meaningless.
It's seem clearer to me every day that the very notion of there being a god, certainly any god worth bothering about, is definitely a human invention.

But the 'worth bothering about' leads me to scofflaws position of 'no gods worth worshipping'. I can say that I think there probably aren't any at all, nothing that couldn't better be described as a supremely intelligent extra-terrestrial entity, and maybe none of those either for all we know. But that's just my personal view. It would appear nigh on certain that there aren't any worth praying to.

Is the whole concept of god just a very powerful meme? I notice even some people here have granted elevated importance to religion and to the notion of a god because it's something that very many people believe.

However it's pretty easy for religious beliefs to spread when one takes into account that you're indoctrinated with these beliefs at an early age and that the whole meme comes with a pretty tempting package of a guardian in the sky, support when you need it, an explanation of where we came from and why we're here and the clincher at the end, a blissfully happy afterlife once you're dead. All reinforced with the fear factor of eternal damnation should you stray from the flock.

That might again be biased to the abrahamic religions, but every religion has it's enticements in one way or another.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

But humans also refuse to make judgements for questions that have no answers all the time. Just because we sometimes do one (i.e. make a judgement) doesn't mean that we always must.

I know, i concede that point. My previous post from yesterday was rather rash.

bonkey wrote:

Actually, No, its not. The evidence is inconclusive as a result of how it was gathered.

Sorry, my point wasn't clear. I don't mean the avaiable evidence. I mean it would be possible to know if OJ did it by actually being there and seeing he did it.

bonkey wrote:

Or, atheists are functioning agnostics.

But what do you do as a functioning agnostic?

As an atheist I wonder should I be worship a god. I don't construct ideas of the universe around the possibility that god might exist. I don't wonder if what I'm doing right now might displease a god if exists, etc etc

bonkey wrote:

Well no, its not. Its suggesting that theism/atheism may in fact be orthogonal to agnosticism, rather than they being three related categories.

Well the question is do you consider a particular god might exist when making any decisions or shaping any of the views you have towards the universe?

If not then what is the difference between the way you function and the way an atheist functions in how they live their lives and how they view the world around them?

bonkey wrote:

All that matters is whether or not someone can be agnostic and be a "functioning theist" just as well as they can be "functioning atheist".

All that matters to whom?

bonkey wrote:

Then we don't share a definition of what agnosticism is.

I think that is clear.

The point I was making is that logically we should be agnostic to everything. That is the correct position to take from a logical stand point. I no more know that God does or does not exist as I know the universe will still be here tomorrow or that I won't walk up as a donkey. I don't know any of these things will or will not happen for certainty. At least to the certainty that you are talking about.

But that isn't how the real world works. I make a judgement that the world will be here tomorrow, otherwise I would probably go out and get very drunk with a load of strippers. I can do even thought I do not actually know for sure that the world will be here tomorrow.

Likewise I can state "God does not exist". I actually don't know this, any more than I know the world will still be here tomorrow. It is the judgement that makes me an atheist, not that I actually know, because I actually don't know anything to that level of certainty that I could state "God doesn't exist"

So then the question is what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. If the atheist has to admit that while he does not think God exist, he cannot actually know that (or anything) for sure, especially if God doesn't actually exist, then what does the agnostic do? If he also states that he does not think God exists but he cannot actually know for sure does that not make him for all purposes an atheist?

To me the agnostic does not get to the judgement phase. They stop before that happens. Which is fair enough. As Scofflaw points out plenty of people refuse to make judgements on things, and I concede that original point.

But it is when someone does make the judgement but still says they are agnostic that the definitions become blurry. If being agnostic simply means you have made a judgement but you realise you don't know for sure and could be wrong that doesn't make a huge amount of sense, since all we do is make judgements and we can never know anything for certain.

bonkey wrote:

I've often noted that self-proclaimed atheists will defend what atheism means to them as the right definition, but are plenty quick to not afford the same courtesy to agnostics, rather insisting that their defintion of this must also be the correct one.

Fair point.

bonkey wrote:

Those who recognise they might be wrong are agnostic.

I would totally disagree with that definition, as with a question that has no way of knowing the certain answer (as with most things) it makes little sense to not recognise you might be wrong, with anything.

Going on your previous point you seem to be defining atheists are people who refuse to accept they can ever be wrong. That is nonsense. I perfectly happily accept I might be wrong about god but based on my understanding of the world around us have made a judgement that god does not exist. So far I've not been shown wrong (i'm waiting for the lightning bold as we speak) but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong.

bonkey wrote:

Not so. Its a question of how you define knowledge and "knowing for sure". If you set a standard, like say that necessary to form a scientific theory, then we can say that we know for sure that gravity will be around tomorrow. However, there is no known standard by which one can say for sure that God does or does not exist.

Well you have just defined your standard to say that gravity will be around tomorrow "for sure", yet refused to define a standard for God. You can assume that atheists have already defined a standard for that question, and concluded that he doesn't exist. They don't know for certain that he doesn't, any more than you know for certain that gravity will be around tomorrow.

bonkey wrote:

so what would be the point in defining a term which is the state of such surity being absent?

That is the question atheists ask agnostics all the time. You define such a high standard of "certainty" for this question, and yet use a less standard for something like "will gravity exist tomorrow".

What would it take to reach a standard where you would decide that god does not actually exist?

bonkey wrote:

If you ask JC over on the Creationism thread whether or not he knows God exists, what do you think his answer will be? Ask BrianCalgary the same - given that he asserts he's had a vision from God, I'm pretty sure the answer will be the same.

Thinking you know something is not the same as actually knowing it. Neither JC nor BC know God exists.

bonkey wrote:

Similarly, I know people who hold equally intractable positions, knowing God doesn't exist.

Well those people (and JC and BC) are simply being silly. They cannot really "know" God does or does not exist. That doesn't make them agnostic, because they have made a judgement that he does or does not exist. And it is in the judgement, and the consequences of that judgement that the meaning of those terms comes out.

bonkey wrote:

Based on who's definition, as a matter of interest? Your own?

In the context of this discussion it is my definition of "agnostic", since there seems to be a large hole in the definition you are using (it is largely unworkable, and I don't think you actually hold to it, you just define different standards to be met for a truth value depending on the question - see the bit about gravity)

bonkey wrote:

Ask JC. He's certain.

Well that is very silly of him. And thinking you are certain is not the same as being certain.

bonkey wrote:

That you ask the question suggests you're really an agnostic at heart

But if we follow that definition of agnostic then the only sensible attitude is to be agnostic to everything (which I suppose technically we are).

But that is a totally unworkable definition. You are not agnostic to if gravity will be there tomorrow. You would claim I' sure that you are pretty certain gravity will be there tomorrow and this would be based on a judgement. It would be very silly for you not to consider that you might be wrong, but that doesn't mean you don't make the judgement in the first place.

bonkey wrote:

If you check the Wiki entry for agnostic, you'll find that this is a central tenet of agnosticism. It seems you hold it quite strongly.

Well it defines agnostic as view that the truth value for certain things inherientily unknowable. That is true (bu'dum!).

But depending on the standard you set for true/false that holds for everything Which is why it becomes a rather unworkable definition, as to accept its consequences you would have to say you are uncertain about everything.

This bit from the Wiki page sums it up rather well

Critics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know God(s) exists -- only to believe it. Under this asserted distinction between the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started suffering from terminological ambiguity.

Plenty of theists accept they don't "know" God exists to what ever standard of knowledge you wish to define, and equally plenty of atheists accept they don't (and cannot) know God doesn't exist. It seems rather pointless to classify them both as agnostics, since the consequences of these beliefs are very different. It is the judgement, a belief, and how they view the world based on that belief that defines them as theists and atheists.

Equally it makes very little sense in the context of common usage of the term, to say that someone is both theist and agnostic, or atheist and agnostic.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry, my point wasn't clear. I don't mean the avaiable evidence. I mean it would be possible to know if OJ did it by actually being there and seeing he did it.

Yes, but you have picked one out of a list that includes, for example, counter-factuals (what if Ireland had remained in the UK?), which can never be answered either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scoff, I think your OJ scenario is a good analogy, well done for coming up with it. However you've got the wrong suspect, your agnosticism towards God is equivalent to being agnostic as to whether Adolf Hitler murdered Nicole. I can't prove that he hadn't been kept in cryogenic suspension since 1945 and was in LA on that day and killed them, but saying I'm agnostic to that is pure rubbish.

Now before you come back and say 'Well millions believe in God, and NO ONE believes Hitler killed Nicole', well yes fine, but the weight of numbers of those who believe something is in no way evidence for that belief.

The weight of numbers behind religion means that it is something worth looking at and coming to an opinion on (I wouldn't spend any time investigating Hitler's involvement in the Simpson murders though).

Also this 'weight of numbers' argument applies to personal intervening Gods, which you declare yourself atheistic to, I would hazard a guess that the numbers behind this 'wishy-washy God' that you profess to being agnostic to are rather small in comparison.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, but you have picked one out of a list that includes, for example, counter-factuals (what if Ireland had remained in the UK?), which can never be answered either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is true, but sometimes it seems like you agnostics pretend there is no evidence against the idea of god existing.

As pH says you would probably not be agnostic to the idea that Hitler killed Nicole Simpson, despite the fact that you don't actually know he didn't. Based on your understanding you would probably say for certain he didn't do that.

So it comes down to what you use to come to that conclusion. As Playboy said "No one thinks a train is going to fall on them, that is idiotic". But why is it idiotic? Its idiotic because most people know how a train works, and how much it weighs and are unaware of any way to get it over their head, or anyone who would want to do such a thing. Therefore they can make a judgement as to if there is a train over their head about to fall on them, and be able to say "no there isn't" Technically they should be agnostic about that fact, at least until they have looked up to check. But functionally they are 100% "atheist" to that fact.

As I asked bonkey what would be the standard you would need to make a judgement that god doesn't exist? I accept that these standards of truth will be different for each decision. You would want to have a very strict standard for saying "OJ did it" because it is very important you don't get that wrong, possibily a lesser one for "gravity will still exist tomorrow"

So, speaking as an agnostic, what would make you make a judgement call on the question of God?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That is true, but sometimes it seems like you agnostics pretend there is no evidence against the idea of god existing.

Not quite. There is plenty of evidence against the simplest types of interventionist God - the lack of intervention. Against the more sophisticated type of interventionist god we have little evidence, since the intervention is supposed to be subtle - or, worse, to be the background against which we measure.

As to the general idea of gods - well, what evidence can you have against a concept?

A point I have made several times is that dismissal of the Abrahamic God does not somehow invalidate the very notion of god(s). The conceptualisation of gods varies enormously from culture to culture, and from person to person. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is - and no one concept is more worthy than the next. That being the case, the only actual way to atheism per se is a positive assertion of the non-existence of gods, which I would imagine you would have little emotional difficulty making.

Wicknight wrote:

As pH says you would probably not be agnostic to the idea that Hitler killed Nicole Simpson, despite the fact that you don't actually know he didn't. Based on your understanding you would probably say for certain he didn't do that.

I would say the probability is so tiny as to be ludicrous, given the convoluted chain of events required....certainly I would invest nothing in such a theory.

Wicknight wrote:

So it comes down to what you use to come to that conclusion. As Playboy said "No one thinks a train is going to fall on them, that is idiotic". But why is it idiotic? Its idiotic because most people know how a train works, and how much it weighs and are unaware of any way to get it over their head, or anyone who would want to do such a thing. Therefore they can make a judgement as to if there is a train over their head about to fall on them, and be able to say "no there isn't" Technically they should be agnostic about that fact, at least until they have looked up to check. But functionally they are 100% "atheist" to that fact.

Functionally, people act as if events of far greater probability will also not occur. The chance of a seagull crapping on my head is, over a lifetime, quite high, but I do not as a result wear a hat.

Wicknight wrote:

As I asked bonkey what would be the standard you would need to make a judgement that god doesn't exist? I accept that these standards of truth will be different for each decision. You would want to have a very strict standard for saying "OJ did it" because it is very important you don't get that wrong, possibily a lesser one for "gravity will still exist tomorrow".

Curiously, I would put that the other way way round. I don't much care about OJ, but I care about gravity. For gravity I have a theoretical basis, plus a mass of scientific observation, plus my own experiences, all of which suggests 100% reliability. I would operate to the same standard with something important to me (like a webserver).

For OJ, on the other hand, I have a few bits of hearsay evidence (reported through the media, who I understand to be more interested in sensation than accuracy), plus a load of opinions from all sorts of people. I have never met any of the protagonists, and have virtually no understanding of the case.

Wicknight wrote:

So, speaking as an agnostic, what would make you make a judgement call on the question of God?

I'm not sure why you think I'm an agnostic...I have several times rejected the label. I have made a judgement call on the Abrahamic God, and have reserved judgement on those gods I do not understand very well.

For me to positively accept that such-and-such a god exists, I would need the same as per gravity - and currently what I have is more similar to the OJ case.

For me to positively assert that such-and-such a god does not exist, I would need to see one of the following: (a) logical contradictions that make it impossible for that god to exist; (b) evidentiary contradictions - that the evidence should contradict stated characteristics of the god.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

pH wrote:

Scoff, I think your OJ scenario is a good analogy, well done for coming up with it. However you've got the wrong suspect, your agnosticism towards God is equivalent to being agnostic as to whether Adolf Hitler murdered Nicole. I can't prove that he hadn't been kept in cryogenic suspension since 1945 and was in LA on that day and killed them, but saying I'm agnostic to that is pure rubbish.

Now before you come back and say 'Well millions believe in God, and NO ONE believes Hitler killed Nicole', well yes fine, but the weight of numbers of those who believe something is in no way evidence for that belief.

The weight of numbers behind religion means that it is something worth looking at and coming to an opinion on (I wouldn't spend any time investigating Hitler's involvement in the Simpson murders though).

Also this 'weight of numbers' argument applies to personal intervening Gods, which you declare yourself atheistic to, I would hazard a guess that the numbers behind this 'wishy-washy God' that you profess to being agnostic to are rather small in comparison.

I believe you are guilty of committing a catagory error in your analogy tbh. The question of God or a gods existence is a very different question. Existence and action are fundamentally different problems conceptually. In your Hitler/Nicole analogy the issue is with time and place, Hitler could potentially kill Nicole if they were in the same place at the same time, we are only left to question whether they could be in the same place at the same time. This is quite different to the questions of a god's existence where we are trying to assertain the 'could' nevermind something as simple as 'time or place'. Do you know what I mean?



Oh and Wicknight, it's perfectly possible to hold most of existence to be unknowable and still get along fine in life. Just because I can't hold the existence of gravity as being objectively true I can conjecture it to be so and act accordingly. Conjectures don't need any proof and if proven wrong, I can simply toss it aside and replace it with a better one without ever having to claim that I knew anything.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

A point I have made several times is that dismissal of the Abrahamic God does not somehow invalidate the very notion of god(s).

But what is the "very notion of god(s)". I think that is the problem we are having here. If that isn't defined properly then how can you know you do or do not believe that such a concept is valid

Scofflaw wrote:

The conceptualisation of gods varies enormously from culture to culture, and from person to person. I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is

It is not that I don't like it, it is to me simply evidence that the concept itself is fundamentally nonsense.

For example if some culture in America believes that a concept "bob" is a big flying bird that lives in the mountains and breaths fire, and another culture in Africa believes that "bob" is a small mountain lizard that lives in swamps and sometimes drives a 4x4, to me that is evidence that "bob" is actually a pretty meaningless concept for applying to real world definitions. "Bob" is simply a term that these human cultures can give to anything.

So again it comes down to what is meant by "god"

Scofflaw wrote:

That being the case, the only actual way to atheism per se is a positive assertion of the non-existence of gods, which I would imagine you would have little emotional difficulty making.

You are right

I would state that "god" is simply a fuzzy made up human concept (like "hero"), that has little bearing on any proper classification of the real world. And if anything in the real world does happen to resemble the description of one particular human concept of god then this is more a coincidence than anything else.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Oh and Wicknight, it's perfectly possible to hold most of existence to be unknowable and still get along fine in life. Just because I can't hold the existence of gravity as being objectively true I can conjecture it to be so and act accordingly.

But then you are judging it to be true, at least so far as the basis for further judgements based on this initial judgement.

It would be, scientifically speaking, silly for you to assert you know anything for certain, including gravity. But as you say that doesn't stop you making a judgement on something, and then basing further judgements on this.

I am perfectly open to the idea that I might be wrong about God. I think it very unlikely, but I recognise that I cannot know the answer to that question. That doesn't stop me being an atheist. I reject bonkey's idea that someone who judges that there is no god but who is open to the possibility that they might be wrong is actually an agnostic. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong about everything I believe, as everyone should be. That doesn't stop me believing these things and taking actions accordingly. It comes down to judgements and the rational behind these judgements. Really there is no truth, simply degrees of assessment and the logic behind these assessments.

To me an atheist is someone who judges that God does not exist. A theist is someone who judges that God does exist. And an agnostic is someone who, for what ever reason, has not made that initial judgement. No matter what judgement is made all should recognise, as simply a default state, that they can be wrong, not only about God but about anything.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But what is the "very notion of god(s)". I think that is the problem we are having here. If that isn't defined properly then how can you know you do or do not believe that such a concept is valid

Virtually any "definition" we can come up with will be a straw man.

Wicknight wrote:

It is not that I don't like it, it is to me simply evidence that the concept itself is fundamentally nonsense.

For example if some culture in America believes that a concept "bob" is a big flying bird that lives in the mountains and breaths fire, and another culture in Africa believes that "bob" is a small mountain lizard that lives in swamps and sometimes drives a 4x4, to me that is evidence that "bob" is actually a pretty meaningless concept for applying to real world definitions. "Bob" is simply a term that these human cultures can give to anything.

So again it comes down to what is meant by "god"

I would state that "god" is simply a fuzzy made up human concept (like "hero"), that has little bearing on any proper classification of the real world. And if anything in the real world does happen to resemble the description of one particular human concept of god then this is more a coincidence than anything else.

Well, again, how does this not apply to morality? I know you've pointed out that morality is a human invention, but that does not mean it is not real. you are hiding a definition of God in what you're saying - that god must be independent of human beings, and cannot be invented by them.

In addition, it would be perfectly possible for someone to say that because virtually every culture has something that is recognisable as a god (the differences are not as big as you pretend, with your straw lizards), that is proof that all these cultures are trying to describe something real, but poorly understood.

Take the process of reproduction. At different times and places, the maddest ideas have been accepted - but there is a real process that all these peoples were trying to describe. They just did it badly. Would you, simply because they described it badly in different ways, claim that "reproduction" is simply a made-up concept that can apply to anything? If so, what about weather? Death?

Again, your claim fails basic tests. I understand what you mean, but you cannot simply dismiss God as "an invention" simply because the concept of God so evidently is - because everything human is a human concept.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

nesf wrote:

I believe you are guilty of committing a catagory error in your analogy tbh. The question of God or a gods existence is a very different question. Existence and action are fundamentally different problems conceptually.

I don't believe I am, surely Newcomb's Paradox shows the equivalence of existence and action when Free Will and determinism are taken into account in non- euclidean curved space-time? Or are you saying that the existence of Schrödinger's cat, is not dependent on any temporal actions (or vice versa - does the existence or otherwise of the cat influence the actions available to it?)

Oh, is my utter disdain for philosophy showing? ... and anyway ...
He started it! (*points at Scofflaw*)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Virtually any "definition" we can come up with will be a straw man.

Does that not demonstrate that fundamentally the concept of "god" is nonsense and not worth believing in?

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, again, how does this not apply to morality?

It does apply to morality. Morality is a fuzzy made up concept. Whether or not something is moral or not has little meaning outside of the human judgement that something is or is not moral.

The difference between the concept of morality and the concept of god is that with the concept of god humans are attempting to describe something that exists in the natural world, or at least is supposed to exist.

"God", while really being an abstract human construct like "hero" or "beautiful" is pretending to be a real world description, like "chair" or "blue" As such it is really a nonsense concept.

Scofflaw wrote:

you are hiding a definition of God in what you're saying - that god must be independent of human beings, and cannot be invented by them.

I'm not hiding that at all, I thought it was a given. If not then the discussion of what is "god" has taken an even further turn into the absurd, because "god" can then be anything that humans bestow the title onto, from an alien life to my ball point pen.

Scofflaw wrote:

In addition, it would be perfectly possible for someone to say that because virtually every culture has something that is recognisable as a god that is proof that all these cultures are trying to describe something real, but poorly understood.

It would be prefectly possible for someone to say that but I see little reason to believe it is true, and quite a lot to believe that it isn't. We don't seem to be able to even tie down a common thread connectioning these concepts, beyond the choice to use the word "god" to describe them.

Scofflaw wrote:

(the differences are not as big as you pretend, with your straw lizards),

You yourself pointed out that the differences between "gods" in different cultures were quite large -

There are Gods no-one worships ... There are Gods who did not communicate or intervene ... gods who decided nothing, gods who created nothing, etc etc - if we dig, we will find examples of almost all. There are even Gods that were recognised as being somehow extinct - Kronos and the rest that the Olympians displaced. The Lares and Penates - Roman Gods of the household - were insignificant outside the particular house.

Scofflaw wrote:

Take the process of reproduction. At different times and places, the maddest ideas have been accepted - but there is a real process that all these peoples were trying to describe.

That is because you have picked a process you already know is real. If we picked a process that turned out not to be real or have any basis in reality we would find centuries of humans speculating about something that could and can never actually happen. Turning lead to gold for example.

I mean if someone said that for hundreds of years humans tried to turn lead to gold suggests that there was some basis in reality for this practice this would not true. It is explained far better by saying that gold was a valuable metal and these people simply wanted to get rich.

SonOfPerdition

"It must be remembered that all of these positions are relative to a given definition of "God." Someone may be one type of agnostic relative to one definition but a different type of agnostic (or a theist or an atheist or a noncognitivist) relative to another definition. I leave the reader with these questions: Are there definitions of "God" with regard to which you are an atheist or agnostic on the matter of God's existence? If so, can you locate yourself on the above lists with regard to each of those definitions? And are there definitions of "God" with regard to which you are a theist and perhaps even ones with regard to which you are a noncognitivist? If you are a rational person, then I think you should be willing to say yes to all of these questions."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html

An interesting read.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Does that not demonstrate that fundamentally the concept of "god" is nonsense and not worth believing in?

Not really. It indicates that we have to do what you want to do, which is limit the concept of god to some specific agreed definition, which is almost certain to fail to include everything human beings have called a god.

Wicknight wrote:

It does apply to morality. Morality is a fuzzy made up concept. Whether or not something is moral or not has little meaning outside of the human judgement that something is or is not moral.

The difference between the concept of morality and the concept of god is that with the concept of god humans are attempting to describe something that exists in the natural world, or at least is supposed to exist.

"God", while really being an abstract human construct like "hero" or "beautiful" is pretending to be a real world description, like "chair" or "blue".

Agreed.

Wicknight wrote:

As such it is really a nonsense concept.

Disagreed.

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not hiding that at all, I thought it was a given. If not then the discussion of what is "god" has taken an even further turn into the absurd, because "god" can then be anything that humans bestow the title onto, from an alien life to my ball point pen.

Well, life is like that - untidy(!). You are using the Abrahamic concept of God, - virtually no atheist on this board will have any issues in dismissing such a god-concept.

Wicknight wrote:

It would be prefectly possible for someone to say that but I see little reason to believe it is true, and quite a lot to believe that it isn't. We don't seem to be able to even tie down a common thread connectioning these concepts, beyond the choice to use the word "god" to describe them.

You yourself pointed out that the differences between "gods" in different cultures were quite large -

There are Gods no-one worships ... There are Gods who did not communicate or intervene ... gods who decided nothing, gods who created nothing, etc etc - if we dig, we will find examples of almost all. There are even Gods that were recognised as being somehow extinct - Kronos and the rest that the Olympians displaced. The Lares and Penates - Roman Gods of the household - were insignificant outside the particular house.

Clearly there is an element of agreement, since all use the English translation "god". There must, therefore, be something recognisable to an English speaker about all of them, despite the various cultures involved - we simply haven't established what it is.

Wicknight wrote:

That is because you have picked a process you already know is real. If we picked a process that turned out not to be real or have any basis in reality we would find centuries of humans speculating about something that could and can never actually happen. Turning lead to gold for example.

That's right - and that's why we cannot use your criteria of cultural variation to distinguish between the real and the unreal.

Wicknight wrote:

I mean if someone said that for hundreds of years humans tried to turn lead to gold suggests that there was some basis in reality for this practice this would not true. It is explained far better by saying that gold was a valuable metal and these people simply wanted to get rich.

I accept the point - but it still does not aid us in distinguishing between the real and the unreal using the criterion of human invention. Also, we can transmute lead into gold!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Not really. It indicates that we have to do what you want to do, which is limit the concept of god to some specific agreed definition, which is almost certain to fail to include everything human beings have called a god.

But is that not the point of lanugage, limiting a word or concept to an agreed definition so as it can be understood as the same thing by multiple parties. If "god" can mean anything that humans wish to bestow it upon then does it actually mean anything? How can it relate to something specific if what it relates to can be quite different with no common thread or theme. As I said, the concept becomes nonsense. And if there is a common thread or theme between the different definitions of a "god" then what is it?

Scofflaw wrote:

Disagreed.

Well it makes it a nonsense concept for defining or classifying something that is supposed to exist in reality. As I said a few posts ago, if something does exist out there, then a far better concept that "god" is needed to classify this entity.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, life is like that - untidy(!). You are using the Abrahamic concept of God, - virtually no atheist on this board will have any issues in dismissing such a god-concept.

Ok, but then what concept of "god" do people have trouble dismissing?

And does it really make much sense to classify both the abrahamic god as a "god" and these other concepts as they can be quite dissimilar? It goes back to what the hell we are talking about when we say "god"

Scofflaw wrote:

Clearly there is an element of agreement, since all use the English translation "god". There must, therefore, be something recognisable to an English speaker about all of them, despite the various cultures involved - we simply haven't established what it is.

Well that is a rather unfounded assumption working on the idea that this choice was logical, ie that the term god was considered and then picked.

Judging by the way "god" seems to be used for the most wishy-washy definitions on this forum and others, particularly by new-age spiritual hippy types, it seems that the word "god" is picked initially because of its historical importance as a powerful concept, and then tried to fit around what ever concept is being discussed, no matter how irrelivent the concept to previous definitions of "god".

So you end up with "god" being applied to things like the "life-force that flows between us all"? I mean what the hell does that have to do with any of the previous traditional definitions of the word "god" found in other religions?

It seems that the term "god" is just picked because it sounds good. If you ask the person why is such and such a "god" you will end up with a lot of humming and hawing until eventually the argument comes around to why these idea cannot use the term "god", conversations I've found myself in many a time. Its like people get offended when you say "should you really use the term 'god'", which again in my view supports the idea that they are using the term not because it accurately fits what they are talking about, but because it is a powerful term and they wish to give importance to their concept by associating it with the term 'god'

Scofflaw wrote:

That's right - and that's why we cannot use your criteria of cultural variation to distinguish between the real and the unreal.

Well you can't use it to prove that something is definately unreal. But equally it isn't support, as lots claim, that there is something fundamentally real about the concept of "god". That isn't necessary for a wide range of cultures to come up with the idea, even independently. Just as the lead-to-gold searchers were motivate by the common idea of greed, it is possible (and in my view far more plausable) that a common human trait produces the need to create the concept of gods in culture.

The idea that because lots of cultures have come up with the idea of a "god" that there must be something fundamentally real behind the concept is bogus, wishful thinking on the part of theists looking to find evidence for their particular god.

Scofflaw wrote:

but it still does not aid us in distinguishing between the real and the unreal using the criterion of human invention.

True, but there are interesting parrallels (in my opinion). The reason so many people, throughout history and often independently of each other, came up with the idea of turing worthless material into valuable material is not because there was some truth behind the process, but because they wanted there to be some truth behind the process. This is the common link, the greed of humanity, the wish to become rich quickly and easily.

To me (and I know you will probably disagree or say that such a theory is unprovable) cultures developed the concepts of "gods" for similar human reasons, formed not because they were actually attempting to understand something real, but because they wanted something like a god to exist, to give some better understand of the world, and to make it easier for them (the reasons for religion are long and complicated). Just as the lead-to-gold alchamests wanted it to be possible because they wanted to get rich.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But is that not the point of lanugage, limiting a word or concept to an agreed definition so as it can be understood as the same thing by multiple parties. If "god" can mean anything that humans wish to bestow it upon then does it actually mean anything? How can it relate to something specific if what it relates to can be quite different with no common thread or theme. As I said, the concept becomes nonsense. And if there is a common thread or theme between the different definitions of a "god" then what is it?

As said, we probably need to discuss that - although previous attempts at definition foundered, I seem to recall.

Wicknight wrote:

Well it makes it a nonsense concept for defining or classifying something that is supposed to exist in reality. As I said a few posts ago, if something does exist out there, then a far better concept that "god" is needed to classify this entity.

Except that as observed, humans can be very bad at classifying reality, particularly when it is not being done scientifically.

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, but then what concept of "god" do people have trouble dismissing?

Well, no-one was able to put a hole in my deist god-concept, despite its reasonable worshipability.

Wicknight wrote:

And does it really make much sense to classify both the abrahamic god as a "god" and these other concepts as they can be quite dissimilar? It goes back to what the hell we are talking about when we say "god"

Well, people do classify them all that way. Of course, we can claim they're simply wrong to do so, because such-and-such a god doesn't fit our definition, but then all we're doing is dismissing our own conception of a god - that's why I said all our definitions are likely to be straw men (also, as atheists, we are likely to introduce flaws).

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is a rather unfounded assumption working on the idea that this choice was logical, ie that the term god was considered and then picked.

Judging by the way "god" seems to be used for the most wishy-washy definitions on this forum and others, particularly by new-age spiritual hippy types, it seems that the word "god" is picked initially because of its historical importance as a powerful concept, and then tried to fit around what ever concept is being discussed, no matter how irrelivent the concept to previous definitions of "god".

So you end up with "god" being applied to things like the "life-force that flows between us all"? I mean what the hell does that have to do with any of the previous traditional definitions of the word "god" found in other religions?

It seems that the term "god" is just picked because it sounds good. If you ask the person why is such and such a "god" you will end up with a lot of humming and hawing until eventually the argument comes around to why these idea cannot use the term "god", conversations I've found myself in many a time. Its like people get offended when you say "should you really use the term 'god'", which again in my view supports the idea that they are using the term not because it accurately fits what they are talking about, but because it is a powerful term and they wish to give importance to their concept by associating it with the term 'god'

Er, I didn't drag in the New Age "wishy-washy" stuff - I was only considering traditional deities. Having said that, most New Agers are pretty much deists, with a double helping of codswallop.

Wicknight wrote:

Well you can't use it to prove that something is definately unreal. But equally it isn't support, as lots claim, that there is something fundamentally real about the concept of "god". That isn't necessary for a wide range of cultures to come up with the idea, even independently. Just as the lead-to-gold searchers were motivate by the common idea of greed, it is possible (and in my view far more plausable) that a common human trait produces the need to create the concept of gods in culture.

The idea that because lots of cultures have come up with the idea of a "god" that there must be something fundamentally real behind the concept is bogus, wishful thinking on the part of theists looking to find evidence for their particular god.

True, but there are interesting parrallels (in my opinion). The reason so many people, throughout history and often independently of each other, came up with the idea of turing worthless material into valuable material is not because there was some truth behind the process, but because they wanted there to be some truth behind the process. This is the common link, the greed of humanity, the wish to become rich quickly and easily.

To me (and I know you will probably disagree or say that such a theory is unprovable) cultures developed the concepts of "gods" for similar human reasons, formed not because they were actually attempting to understand something real, but because they wanted something like a god to exist, to give some better understand of the world, and to make it easier for them (the reasons for religion are long and complicated). Just as the lead-to-gold alchamests wanted it to be possible because they wanted to get rich.

The problem with this analogy is that gods are an explanatory concept, which lead-to-gold isn't. People wanted to explain life the universe and everything, and came up with the concept of gods based on a poor understanding of causation. Lead-to-gold doesn't come about by the same route, so it isn't really a good parallel - those of reproduction, or, say, spontaneous generation, or phlogiston, would be better.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

As said, we probably need to discuss that - although previous attempts at definition foundered, I seem to recall.

Agreed, we will end up in circles until god or deity is defined enough that we can say we do or do not believe sure an entity exists (or we are agnostic about it). I'm perfectly happy to accept definitions that are external, so long as some universal definition can be arrived at.

As it stands I reject as being highly unlikely to the point of certainty the idea that humans have ever managed to define a deity that actually exists, though I accept that this is rather unknowable statement.

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, I didn't drag in the New Age "wishy-washy" stuff

I know, I was just using that as a point. You are anything but wishy-washy Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

The problem with this analogy is that gods are an explanatory concept

Yes I see the point you are making. But at the same time this has become less and less the way the concept of god is used these days as science, or at least a scientific frame of mind, as come to replace religion for explaining the natural world. The question of god has become quite abstract to the point there it is far beyond testing.

If it was simply a question of saying "God makes it rain by snapping his fingers in the clouds, but if we figure out another process that can do this we have shown god doesn't exist" it would be easy. We can easily show that a certain type of god doesn't exist, or at least that this statement that he makes it rain is not true. But as this has happened time and time again over the last 1000 years or so, the concept of god has retreated back into areas that are largely untestable. From being an entity that constantly controls and interacts with the world causing weather and diease and various other things in clear obvious fashion (like say the Viking gods), modern ideas of gods are very abstract. God can now exists outside our universe, outside or space time, and it is therefore untestable if he actually does do this. God can still interact with our universe, but does so in such a way that he uses his own laws of nature, and as such we cannot tell the difference between that and a natural process.

"God" is being narrowed down and down and pushed further and further into the untestable. It is obvious to us that the older gods don't actually exist, because if they did based on their descriptions, it would be clear to us they did.

To be honest this again is more reason (to me at least) to reject the idea all together. If god as to be defined as being untestable to still be taken seriously then that is, in my view, changing the goal posts a bit too much.

It all makes you want to throw up your hands, claim this is all nonsense, and become an atheists