Can you simply be Agnostic?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Well I presume that is your retort on most occasions when Christians bring something reasonable to the table.

As Cerebral says, that's certainly not "something reasonable".

As I implied above, it's a amateur-theater-level bladder-on-a-stick plot device which was dreamed up in order to demonstrate the "reasonableness" of the conclusion you've already decided. And even then, it's still a terrible plot device, since it "proves" the reasonableness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well. Sheesh, this is embarrassing!

Good heavens, I seem to remember you describing yourself as a "skeptic" a few days back -- you'll never even get out of your skeptical starting blocks with this kind of silly language game! :rolleyes:

deise go deo

liamw wrote: »

So God is all around us, he loves us all, he allows victims of earthquakes to survive, on a daily basis he helps kids make home runs.. but it's OK to presume he just skipped through those first few billion years or twiddled his thumbs until humans finally had evolved (I also don't understand where the cut-off was here.. i.e. what defines a fully formed human in god's eyes).

It's great to have it both ways with god isn't it. Use human logic for anything that might support his existence but just say he's omnipotent and his actions are beyond our comprehension when it doesn't suit.

I am not the one that is imposing a definition of what god is or does here, so please do not try to show up a definition of a god that I have not put forward. I have not attributed anything to god.

Again, your argument makes the assumption that time would be a constraint for god, that god would have to 'twiddle his thumbs for a few billion years. I don't see any reason why you would make that assumption.

Current evidence and scientific studies indicate that consciousness evolved without the need for any supernatural influences.

If you are going to suppose that a soul evolved in primates, you have to first accept that a supernatural entity can evolve by natural processes (oxymoron) and secondly tell me what happens to a being with a 'partially evolved' soul (can they go to heaven?). At what point did this magical 'soul' become 'full' or 'completed'?

If you are saying that science indicates that consciousness developed without the need of a magic trick then again you are just arguing against your self, I have not suggested there was need of an unexplainable divine intervention.

Let me be clear, I am not supposing anything, just questioning the basis on which it is dismissed.

CerebralCortex

deise go deo wrote: »

I am not the one that is imposing a definition of what god is or does here, so please do not try to show up a definition of a god that I have not put forward. I have not attributed anything to god.

Again, your argument makes the assumption that time would be a constraint for god, that god would have to 'twiddle his thumbs for a few billion years. I don't see any reason why you would make that assumption.






If you are saying that science indicates that consciousness developed without the need of a magic trick then again you are just arguing against your self, I have not suggested there was need of an unexplainable divine intervention.

Let me be clear, I am not supposing anything, just questioning the basis on which it is dismissed.

Science indicates that conciousness is an entirely natural phenomenon with no need for a complementary soul.

deise go deo

Dades wrote: »

An atheist holds a belief (or lacks belief) about the non-existence of gods. Very different to declaring knowledge. Most here would be agnostic atheists in that we lack belief in gods but cannot know for certain.

Well thats the thing, I was involved in a thread here some time ago arguing that very point. The thread was spurred by someone declaring in AH that god does not exist, as a statement of fact.

My line of argument was that you cannot state 'God dose not exist' because that is a statement of fact, facts need evidence to support them, and as there is nothing to show that god does not exist, then God not Existing is not fact but a belief someone has.

They went on to say that not only is gods non existence Fact, but unless you 'Know' god does not exist, you cannot be an atheist.

So the question is, is the definition of an Atheist that they gave, ie someone who knows god does not exist, a valid one?

CerebralCortex

deise go deo wrote: »

Well thats the thing, I was involved in a thread here some time ago arguing that very point. The thread was spurred by someone declaring in AH that god does not exist, as a statement of fact.

My line of argument was that you cannot state 'God dose not exist' because that is a statement of fact, facts need evidence to support them, and as there is nothing to show that god does not exist, then God not Existing is not fact but a belief someone has.

They went on to say that not only is gods non existence Fact, but unless you 'Know' god does not exist, you cannot be an atheist.

So the question is, is the definition of an Atheist that they gave, ie someone who knows god does not exist, a valid one?

Atheism is a statement of belief.

deise go deo

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Science indicates that conciousness is an entirely natural phenomenon with no need for a complementary soul.

Well that just raises questions, how did they asses the need or lack there of, for a soul. Surely if you are going to test something like that you need to know what it is you are testing for, It not like they could employ any kind of scientific method to a study like that.

Was there a control group with no soul who's consciousness was unaffected by their lack by comparrision to the group who had a soul, that showed a soul was not needed for consciousness?

It boggles the mind that any serious scientist would make such a claim. But then perhaps the study was into consciousness its self, and the conclusion was that the generation of a consciousness is explainable as a natural process, and the bit about the soul was added in later on?

deise go deo

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Atheism is a statement of belief.

Fair enough, I have no problem with someone believing god does not exist, I just have a problem with someone claiming to 'know' something they clearly can not.

CerebralCortex

deise go deo wrote: »

Fair enough, I have no problem with someone believing god does not exist, I just have a problem with someone claiming to 'know' something they clearly can not.

But you can know the logical inconsistencies of a posited god. When someone says they don't know the mean just that.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No if God is the explanation then it is so. The evidence would be such that I would have to say that probability was high that it exists, it doesn't so I can't come to that conclusion. I have to settle with here is the evidence therefore what is probable. It doesn't go both ways, one of us is being rational the other isn't. This is why I'm an agnostic atheist. This is why I want to know if you read the article because articulates exactly what you're doing.

It's obvious that I think your decision to be an atheist is irrational.
It's obvious that you think my decision to be a Christian is irrational.

Tell us something we don't know! :pac:

CerebralCortex

Thankfully though one of us came to the rational conclusion.

yawha

deise go deo wrote: »

Fair enough, I have no problem with someone believing god does not exist, I just have a problem with someone claiming to 'know' something they clearly can not.

Indeed. But Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with knowing God doesn't exist. That would be being Gnostic in relation to the non existence of God. The vast majority of Atheists are Agnostic Atheists.

The whole point of this thread is that I'm proposing that one cannot just be Agnostic alone, and that statements of belief and statements of knowledge are separate and different things.

Dades

deise go deo wrote: »

I am not the one that is imposing a definition of what god is or does here, so please do not try to show up a definition of a god that I have not put forward. I have not attributed anything to god.

Again, your argument makes the assumption that time would be a constraint for god, that god would have to 'twiddle his thumbs for a few billion years. I don't see any reason why you would make that assumption.

I think the issue most people have is with the gods of religion. Deism isn't something worth arguing against as it doesn't speculate on any particular truth or assign characteristics to deities.

However from a human monotheistic pov, the idea that God is outside of time and therefore doesn't have to follow timelines doesn't really fit with his interactions with humans that follow a very definitive timeline and a course of action over days/years/centuries of time.

"God" is very human-like in terms of his chronology so explaining what he was doing spending 13 billion years making humans out of gravity and particles by saying he is "outside of time" comes across as wholly unconvincing.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

It's stating the obvious. Yes, these interactions are real, but they are severely limited to say the very least. Our discussion is limited in the sense that it would no doubt be much better in person. One can only learn so much about an individual over the internet.

Why do you need to learn anything about me in order to have a discussion (not that I think that an online discussion actually prohibits you from learning something about me)? Moderated semi anonymous discussions can be better a lot of the time than personal discussion - no intimidation, no superficial judging a book by its cover etc. You are trying to create an issue that doesn't exist.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've read your posts throughout this discussion, you just aren't appreciating that it is simply the wrong way to deal with this issue. I patently think your approach is simply wrong, that is disagreement and not ignoring your posts. Anyone can clearly see that this approach is wrong, which is why I suggested that it might be more productive to back theistic evolutionist groups such as The Biologos Foundation because they are probably more equipped to inform people about evolution from a faith perspective than atheists are.

Firstly, given that you cant explain why I'm wrong and are simply relying on assertions that I am (I've yet to see why you think YECs aren't dishonest for using the same debunked arguments for 150 years?) I think its pretty obvious why I think you are ignoring my points. You read them yes, but then throw them out without logical explanation because you dont like their implications.
Secondly. theistic evolutionists are more likely to mess up the explanation of evolution by bringing in unnecessary complications about god. This has nothing to do with evolution contradicting god, but that evolution doesn't need to god in order for it to be explained, I dont hear anyone suggesting that theistic physicists would best at explaining gravity to them.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't disregard them I just understand them for what they are in that they are just simply inferior to real life conversation. Real life discussion with a person is worth about 1000 times more than a text based web discussion.

Assertion with no logic or evidence.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your scrutiny can only be based on the internet based encounters you have. My assessment is based on talking face-to-face with some YEC's that I know. I think the stance of merely ridiculing is destined to fail. That stands up to logic too in terms of common decency towards one another.

Who is advocating a stance of simply ridiculing them? The research is still online, they can enter forums and ask questions and at the very least, educate themselves on what evolution actually says and how and why the scientific method works. Its the ones who dont do that that get the ridicule, which, as trolls, they deserve.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think there are clear advantages to people who believe and trust in God doing this in comparison to atheists. In that some YEC's may see evolution as some form of 'atheistic agenda' or the basis of an 'atheistic worldview'. Indeed looking through some of Ken Ham's material this comes across quite strongly. One can't make similar accusations against Christians who truly believe and trust in God but nonetheless think that biological evolution is reasonable.

Supporting argument by association is weak. Evolution is right or wrong based on its own evidence and research, not on who does it. Even if you get YECs to accept evolution this way, you build walls around their intellect, walls which block out any knowledge unless given by a fellow theist. Its just swapping one empty authority for another.

Jakkass wrote: »

So we're back to square one then

When you take you head out of the sand then maybe we can move on. Honestly, it looks like you are trying not to understand what the graph represents at this stage.

Jakkass wrote: »

Now I suspect you haven't been reading my posts :pac:

I think the graph is wholly inadequate if it is incredibly unlikely that anyone can be in fullness an agnostic.

Again, did you do junior cert maths? Why do you think a graph has to have an even number of points at each and ever area it describes in order for it to work?

Jakkass wrote: »

I still think in practice there is a certain buffer zone in the middle of the graph where people are more likely to identify as only agnostic even if they may technically fall into the other quadrants. I would suggest placing a circle in the middle of the graph if it were to be truly accurate or indeed based on identity.

None of this actually responds to my point that you quoted. I dont think you even read it, as its exactly why I think you are wrong here: in practise, I dont believe that people can stop themselves from make spontaneous beliefs, it would evolutionarily disadvantageous to early humanoids to not be able to make choices in ignorance, and I think that even though people are getting better at not letting spontaneous beliefs dictate everything they do (its not as common that someone has to make a life or death decision in total ignorance of the facts), they are still unavoidable.

Mark Hamill

deise go deo wrote: »

Why is Billion Years in Bold? What relevance would time scale have on it?

The relevance is that it has no relevance. God didn't need to wait 14 billions years, so why would he bother to wait 14 billion years.

deise go deo wrote: »

Is that not the general assumption made by evolution? Things will just appear from time to time?

Nope, not even close. I think quantum mechanics says something about spontaneous creation of sub atomic particles, evolution has nothing to do with that, it describes a biological process of mutation, natural selection and reproduction.

deise go deo wrote: »

Also, on a separate note.

In terms of the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic. My own perception is that an Atheist holds that god does not exist, as fact, where an Agnostic does not know this and is open to the possibility of god existence.

Would that be correct?

No, read the thread. I'm atheist and I'm open to god existing (as most atheists would be).

Mark Hamill

deise go deo wrote: »

I am not so sure about a connection being so far fetched, Humans have clearly diverged from other species, If the question is what makes us special in comparrision to other species, and when did this come about, then the clear physical difference between us and animals is we developed self awareness, and with it, the ability to think symbolically, with that, our own mortality came to hold meaning for us as beings thus bringing a spiritual aspect to our lives previously absent.

And why is self awareness so special? We arent the only animal to show it and it pretty much dissappears (along with the ability to think symbolically and spiritually) if you lobotomise someone. All the evidence points to it being purely biological.

oldrnwisr

deise go deo wrote: »

Well that just raises questions, how did they asses the need or lack there of, for a soul. Surely if you are going to test something like that you need to know what it is you are testing for, It not like they could employ any kind of scientific method to a study like that.

Was there a control group with no soul who's consciousness was unaffected by their lack by comparrision to the group who had a soul, that showed a soul was not needed for consciousness?

It boggles the mind that any serious scientist would make such a claim. But then perhaps the study was into consciousness its self, and the conclusion was that the generation of a consciousness is explainable as a natural process, and the bit about the soul was added in later on?

The question that scientists have attempted to answer is what causes or explains human consciousness. They have formulated different theories as to the development of human consciousness with some such as John Eccles [1] arguing that consciousness is a function of the development of the mammalian neocortex while Stephen Budiansky argues that human consciousness should only be framed in human developmental terms given the general incomparability of animal abilities [2]. Nowhere in any of these theories, however, have scientists found some flaw in the theory which necessitates the introduction of a soul. This is how science operates by not introducing any more assumptions than are necessary, whether you call it Ockham's razor or methodological reductionism or common sense it's up to you.

The original western philosophical definition of a soul was simply a synonym for alive. It wasn't until Thomas Aquinas that there was a view introduced that the soul was something separate from the body and immortal.


[1] Eccles, J., Evolution of Consciousness, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 89, pp. 7320-7324, August 1992
http://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7320.full.pdf+html

[2] Budiansky, Stephen. If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness. 1998. The Free Press, NY.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-06364-000

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained this many times on Boards. This is from the infamous megathread on the Christianity forum:

Philosophically it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between temporal and infinite existences. If Christians claimed that God had a temporal existence then yes we would definitely be in trouble. All things which are caused have a finite age.

Where does it say the initial "hot" energy dense state of the universe, that spaceless and timeless singularity that expanded with the big bang, is temporal?

Jakkass wrote:

I find it very reasonable that an omnipotent and omniscient creator created the world rather than nothing

Well of course you do, the universe comes from nothing? Preposterous!....Although I must ask who gave you this idea that the universe came from nothing? Its not the scientific understanding. I only ever hear it from theists who use it as an excuse to belief in god, but that would imply that its a strawman, and that couldn't be the case, could it?

Mark Hamill

deise go deo wrote: »

Well that just raises questions, how did they asses the need or lack there of, for a soul.

If you can explain each aspect biologically or physically, then you dont need magic. Is this not painfully obvious?

deise go deo wrote: »

Surely if you are going to test something like that you need to know what it is you are testing for, It not like they could employ any kind of scientific method to a study like that.

Lobotomise someone and see how they act. Give people a whole load of mind altering drugs and see how they act. Its very evident that our minds are subject to whatever chemical pressures we put on our brain.

deise go deo wrote: »

Was there a control group with no soul who's consciousness was unaffected by their lack by comparrision to the group who had a soul, that showed a soul was not needed for consciousness?

How can you make a control group with no soul and then test for what makes a soul or whether it even exists? How can you decide who goes into the control group?

deise go deo wrote: »

It boggles the mind that any serious scientist would make such a claim. But then perhaps the study was into consciousness its self, and the conclusion was that the generation of a consciousness is explainable as a natural process, and the bit about the soul was added in later on?

Science doesn't actually allow for the supernatural in its research, its counter productive (what caused "X"? Answer = magic, well our job is done). By virtue of doggedly trying to explain everything naturally, we can see if they can be explained naturally. So far, there is no gap in our understanding of the brain that requires a soul to account for a persons consciousness or personality, here is a nice resource showing the lobes of the brain, their functions and what happens if they are damaged.

pH

deise go deo wrote: »

Fair enough, I have no problem with someone believing god does not exist, I just have a problem with someone claiming to 'know' something they clearly can not.

The problem is, that by so tightly defining the word 'know', so you can say that above, you pretty much are just saying that you can't know anything.

Yet there are all kinds of things I'll quite happily say I know don't exist, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy for two, God for three.

And here's the problem, you can take the deeply philosophical position that one cannot know that any of these don't exist, but it seems an intellectual dead-end that pretty much just crosses the word know out of the dictionary with a note "You cannot know anything - please don't use this word any more"

On the other hand, and here is where I have a problem, there are those (and I'm not sure if you're one?) who quite happily posit that you can know that Santa doesn't exist, but cannot know that God doesn't - and here you're both having your cake and eating it so to speak.

deise go deo

Dades wrote: »

I think the issue most people have is with the gods of religion. Deism isn't something worth arguing against as it doesn't speculate on any particular truth or assign characteristics to deities.

However from a human monotheistic pov, the idea that God is outside of time and therefore doesn't have to follow timelines doesn't really fit with his interactions with humans that follow a very definitive timeline and a course of action over days/years/centuries of time.

"God" is very human-like in terms of his chronology so explaining what he was doing spending 13 billion years making humans out of gravity and particles by saying he is "outside of time" comes across as wholly unconvincing.

I don't see why, If a god was to interact with humans it would have to be chronologicly. God may exist outside the constraints of time, but Humans do not.

To phrase it more clearly, god would not bound by the constraints of time, but can interact with it as he sees fit.

And of course the whole 14 billion years twiddeling his thumbs idea would kind of suggest that if a god created the Universe, then the only thing he put in it of any interest to him is us. That is a little self centred for me.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

What I would find more peculiar is finding a way to account for the existence of all things without a Creator.

Jakkass wrote: »

Philosophically it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between temporal and infinite existences. If Christians claimed that God had a temporal existence then yes we would definitely be in trouble. All things which are caused have a finite age.

So when you say all things you just mean things that had a start? Surely that is easier than imagining an all powerful intelligent being that just exists?

deise go deo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you can explain each aspect biologically or physically, then you dont need magic. Is this not painfully obvious?

I am not suggesting you need Magic, I don't believe in a god that does magic tricks. I believe in a god that created the natural world, its laws and patterens. That things are explained based on evidence does not mean that god therefore had no hand in setting them in motion.

I believe in God the creator, not a god of the gaps.

CerebralCortex

deise go deo wrote: »

I am not suggesting you need Magic, I don't believe in a god that does magic tricks. I believe in a god that created the natural world, its laws and patterens. That things are explained based on evidence does not mean that god therefore had no hand in setting them in motion.

I believe in God the creator, not a god of the gaps.

So you're a deist then?

liamw

deise go deo wrote: »

Well that just raises questions, how did they asses the need or lack there of, for a soul. Surely if you are going to test something like that you need to know what it is you are testing for, It not like they could employ any kind of scientific method to a study like that.

Was there a control group with no soul who's consciousness was unaffected by their lack by comparrision to the group who had a soul, that showed a soul was not needed for consciousness?

It boggles the mind that any serious scientist would make such a claim. But then perhaps the study was into consciousness its self, and the conclusion was that the generation of a consciousness is explainable as a natural process, and the bit about the soul was added in later on?

You're entirely missing the point. Replace the word 'soul' in the above with 'magic yogurt' and you will get the point.

There is absolutely no reason to assert the existence of a soul, or in fact to assert that humans are 'special' (supernaturally) in any way compared to other species.

You talk about self-awareness... do you not realise you are fallling into the same trap that humans have for millenia? Just becuase something may not be fully and completely understood by today's science does not mean you should suppose a supernatural element.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism simply doesn't correspond to common sense as far as I see it,

I really have to read the thread properly as there have been so many posts
since I last looked at it but Jakkass you have to understand that this just
isn't a good argument:


Non-euclidean geometry (i.e. General Relativity) does not correspond to
common sense;

Euclidean geometry does correspond to common sense
but does not accurately describe the world;

Real analysis does not correspond to common sense;

Calculus does correspond to common sense
but leads to a lot of logical fallacies;

Epsilon-delta limits in Real Analysis certainly do not correspond to common sense;

Normal limits do correspond to common sense
but use logically inconsistent ideas to stand;

Quantum mechanics does not correspond to common sense;

Classical mechanics does correspond to common sense
but leads to logical fallacies, e.g. ultraviolet catastrophe;

Molecular thermodynamics does not correspond to common sense;

Classical thermodynamics does correspond to common sense but basically
relies on witchcraft without it's molecular bedrock, note the parallel :P;

The real cause of thunderstorms does not correspond to common sense;

The idea that gods are unhappy ergo causing thunderstorms does
correspond to ideologically constrained common sense;

The workings of plate tectonics do not correspond to common sense;

God causing volcanoes does correspond to common sense
but does not accurately describe the world;

Modern genetics does not correspond to common sense;

Need we go into this one?;

I mean, common sense was always known to be biased & in many ways
predicated on the particular path taken throughout our evolutionary
history. It simply isn't any argument other than an emotionally biased one
that relies on common sense when the proposition under question lies in
a more objective realm.

Hopefully you realize the point I'm making, I mean I'd love to rely on my
common sense but I have come to terms with the fact that my common
sense is seriously flawed at times. You have to pick & choose carefully
the times when common sense is relevant & the question of religion is
simply too big, too important, too serious to be merely confined to the
subjective perspective of common sense so I don't think common
sense is a justifiable reason to make a final judgement on anything
that important.

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I really have to read the thread properly as there have been so many posts
since I last looked at it but Jakkass you have to understand that this just
isn't a good argument:l

Common sense may not be fully reliable, but it is the best faculty I have available to me in determining which is more likely, God existing or indeed God not existing.

If I were to become an atheist (which is extremely unlikely I reckon but lets entertain it for a moment) I would have to be convinced that it was logical to believe in God's non-existence. Nothing presented thus far would lead me to this conclusion, nothing presented thus far to me would lead me to think that it is sensible, therefore I remain a Christian.

That's the way it works, and that's the framework which we argue in even if it is flawed, precisely because it is the best faculty available to me in order to do this.

deise go deo

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So you're a deist then?

Catholic;)

CerebralCortex

deise go deo wrote: »

Catholic;)

Could have fooled me the way describe your beliefs.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Common sense may not be fully reliable, but it is the best faculty I have available to me in determining which is more likely, God existing or indeed God not existing.

If I were to become an atheist (which is extremely unlikely I reckon but lets entertain it for a moment) I would have to be convinced that it was logical to believe in God's non-existence. Nothing presented thus far would lead me to this conclusion, nothing presented thus far to me would lead me to think that it is sensible, therefore I remain a Christian.

That's the way it works, and that's the framework which we argue in even if it is flawed, precisely because it is the best faculty available to me in order to do this.

Great blog post on how the god hypothesis is not consistent with logic which you claim to be on the side of. Sorry for all the links but I'm a terrible articulator and writer of my own ideas so I let more competent people do that for me.

deise go deo

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Could have fooled me the way describe your beliefs.

Well the whole softly softly approach of the church since Vatican II means that I learn more about Catholic doctrine from debates like this than I ever did at home or at school. But so far I have not come across anything about the Church's teachings that would contradict my own beliefs.