Agnosticism is not Athiesm

Playboy · 18-12-2006 08:45PM

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 · 18-12-2006 08:54PM

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 · 19-12-2006 12:48AM

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 · 19-12-2006 01:04AM

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 · 19-12-2006 01:28AM

> 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 · 19-12-2006 01:35AM

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 · 19-12-2006 03:24AM

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 · 19-12-2006 03:34AM

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 · 19-12-2006 08:37AM

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 · 19-12-2006 08:40AM

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 · 19-12-2006 11:00AM

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 · 19-12-2006 11:37AM

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 · 19-12-2006 12:01PM

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 · 19-12-2006 12:02PM

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 · 19-12-2006 12:30PM

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 · 19-12-2006 12:52PM

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 · 19-12-2006 12:59PM

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 · 19-12-2006 01:04PM

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 · 19-12-2006 01:09PM

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 · 19-12-2006 01:43PM

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 · 19-12-2006 01:46PM

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 · 19-12-2006 02:29PM

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 · 19-12-2006 04:20PM

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 · 19-12-2006 04:23PM

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 · 19-12-2006 05:07PM

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 · 19-12-2006 06:59PM

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 · 19-12-2006 09:20PM

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 · 19-12-2006 09:50PM

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 · 20-12-2006 01:21AM

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 · 20-12-2006 02:51AM

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.

Agnosticism is not Athiesm

Comments