An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

I was pointing out a problem with the argument presented, not merely with the choice of words.

quote:

---

I was pointing out a problem with the argument presented, not merely with the choice of words

---

However, if you understand the argument it is quite clear that it does NOT apply to money or mathematics in any sense that would be problematic. Which is why for there to be a problem you would have to show an analogy. So again, all you are doing is arguing that the argument could be misunderstood, which would be primarily an issue of the wording.

Analogies never prove anything. They can be useful as illustrations, but do not constitute proof.

quote:

---

Analogies never prove anything. They can be useful as illustrations, but do not constitute proof.

---

In this case showing a valid analogy would indicate that the argument had a genuine problem.
And since you have changed the subject, I take it that you concede that all you did was point out a minor problem in the wording of Straggler's argument.

You do, of course, have the right to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

quote:

---

You do, of course, have the right to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

---

In this case the conclusion is warranted by your evasiveness and complete failure to offer any reasonable defense of your argument. In fact I would say that it is the most charitable conclusion I could come to.

I don't have anything to suggest whether there could be sufficient evidence or not, but we can stick to god concepts for which there couldn't. No, I'm claiming that the claim that there is zero objective evidence for god is itself unevidenced. How do you know that there isn't objective evidence for god out there? Because you haven't seen it?Although, for "inherantly unknowable" gods, there would have to be some amount of knowability for there to be objective evidence. No, you can't. If we know its an invented concept then it isn't irrefutable. Its not totally irrelevant... If a concept is irrefutable then you cannot rationally believe that it has been refuted (regardless of how much lack of certainty you want to have) But if we have sufficient evidence to show that its invented, then it isn't irrefutable, is it? If its irrefutable, then how can you rationally consider it refuted?

What stuff am I making up? Be specific. No it was to your post here - Message 151

quote:

---

As far as I know, nobody is making serious claims about immaterial pink unicorns, undetectable pixies or the easter bunny.

---

So what is the difference between "because some entities are believed in" and those about which "serious claims" are made? And as I pointed out in that thread your position on this may be very socially appealing but it is hardly evidentially consistent is it? Unless of course belief/"serious claims" are evidence? So you are saying that the unknowable, irrefutable undetectable IPU is obviously a human invention? If so I agree. That is my point. My 3 year old son might "seriously claim" the existence of the Easter bunny. The magical Easter bunny can be as irrefutable and unknowable as a concept as any god concept you can define.Yet we can all agree that anything but atheism towards the actual existence of the Easter bunny would be a sign of insanity in any normal adult. Why? Because the evidence favouring human invention makes any inherent undetectability, unknowability or irrefutability that this concept has been imbued with utterly irrelevant in assessing it's existence or not. THE POINT
The point is that where there is sufficient evidence of human invention howls of "unknowability" or "irrefutability" are in themselves no inherent protection.Now which part of that do you actually disagree with?

You asked "But why is disblief in one unknowable irrefutable entity justified whilst not being justified in the case of another equally unknowable and unjustifiable entity?" which seemed to be imputing made up stuff. Well, okay, I see where you are getting that. But I disagree. Not taking the IPU seriously is not expressing disbelief. Both belief and disbelief result from active decision making. Not taking something seriously does not require such decision making. I don't agree with that. WTF is that all about. What kind of protection do you suppose is needed?You seem to be taking a crude simplistic physicalist position. Yet you are expressing that position on the Internet which is as social-cultural construct.There are lots of human inventions (social-cultural constructs) that we use. Some of them are quite important. I previously mentioned money (not the coins and bills, but that abstract thing that the coins and bills stand for), and I mentioned mathematics. One way streets are a social-cultural invention. Parliament (the institution, not the building) is a social-cultural construct. Presumably Guy Fawkes was atheistic with respect to parliament. It seems entirely reasonable that a Chinese tourist visiting London might be agnostic with respect to parliament.

Then just answer one question: Do you believe that belief in religion or the supernatural has a biological function that was selected by nature being that most human beings in human history are driven towards it? What is irrational about not having enough evidence in either direction to make a declaration in either direction? Why do I have to choose? I understand the purpose. I find it a vacuous argument because it is actively trying to persuade people not to believe in God. I mean, that's the goal, no need to beat around the bush. It has now gone from mere disbelief if supernaturalism to taking on its own identity -- where a lack of belief in something is applauded as something inherently good and something that should be modeled after.

quote:

---

There is a reason why it is a logical fallacy. You are leaning upon your own incredulity to make the case for you.

---

You freely admit that the FSM and IPU are concoctions intended to be ridiculous in order to equivocate God _______ (<----- agnostic). I agree, because we have something to actually discuss. See the difference between something specific versus a concept so vast it could mean anything? As much as the bible says that the bible and God are synonymous, that very well might not be the case. If we were to be arguing specifically about the God of the bible in relation to infallibility, that is something that could be refuted logically. In that case, I would lean closer to your position of atheism. But the bible doesn't encapsulate the concept of God, it doesn't own the name of God, which means the concept of God is left open to interpretation.Because it is so open, it would only be fair to remain open as well. Sure, the IPU could exist. That means I am agnostic towards the IPU as well. Satisfied? I think there is ample evidence to suggest that many conceptions about "God" (insert concept -----> here ________) are fabrications. But it is also entirely possible that God reveals himself to the faithful, and only so much for a specific reason. I will go so far to say that I have had some very surreal experiences, which may largely attribute to my stance on God. There were a couple of instances that I could not explain rationally.The other thing that makes me question is the illogical hatred towards that which doesn't exist. In a sense, atheists make me question the reality of God more than theists do, as ironic as it might sound. I don't understand. Can you expound?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

No I don't think I would make that specific argument as such. But to answer your question in the spirit I think it was intended - I do think that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that humanity has a strong natural proclivity to invoke the "unknowable" to explain the unknown. There is also a strong proclivity to imbue mindless physical acts with anthropomorphic explanations for "why". It isn't sufficient for a volcano to just erupt and wipe out your village because of mindless physical processes. Instead we are inclined to ask "why" in a very human sense and invoke anger, appeasement and other such human attributes to some unknowable being. In addition there is also a great deal of evidence to suggest that humanity seeks to maintain the "unknowability" of these deep-seated beliefs by squeezing them into ever narrower gaps as our knowledge progresses. Until we reach the ultimate god of the ultimate gap - the god(s) of deism. I have tried to start this sort of conversation with RAZD numerous times to no avail. See here for example - Message 499 (and other places I can point you to if you are genuinely interested in discussing that) Really? I mean really beyond simple non-certainty (which I also adhere to) are you really agnostic? How about a magical irrefutable Santa or the undetectable Easter bunny? Before you accuse me of mockery - No mockery is not the intention. The point is to show you a concept so blatantly the product of human invention that any assertions of unknowability are just irrelevant. Thus demonstrating that evidence not assertions of "unknowability" should be the deciding factor for any given claim. That in fact beyond excluding certainty "unknowability" has no role in the conversation. I don't hate what I don't think exists!!! That would be insane. I argue with deists/theists for the exactly same reason you are argueing with me here or the reason you argue with people you know are going to disagree with you about gun control, hate laws or anything else. Largely I am here for my own entertainment. Call me a massochistic loon if you will.... When I suggest that assertions of "unknowability" have little bearing on whether something is likely to exist or not it seems to upset some people a great deal. Why?Simply defining or asserting a concept (e.g. the IPU, god, Santa or any other undetectable entity) to be inherently unknowable has absolutely no bearing on whether we need be agnostic about that concept. Beyond accepting that absolute certainty is rationally impossible.Instead we need to weigh up the evidence in favour of the concept actually existing and the evidence that the concept in question is nothing more than a product of human invention. In the case of Santa or the Easter bunny we agree that the human invention conclusion is clearly superior. In the case of the IPU most sane people would also agree with that. In the case of the concept of god it is less clear but relevant evidence does exist.But what cannot be disputed is that when discussing the existence of god it is the relative merits of the evidence available that need to be examined. It is clear that any assertions of unknowability are just a pointless and irrelevant side issue designed to obfuscate and immunise cherished beliefs from rational analysis.The asserted unknowability of god is no more relevant to assessing the likelihood that god exists than the asserted unknowability of Santa is to assessing whether or not Santa really exists.And that upsets people.

Wow. Even if we agree to accept a smidgen of uncertainty on the basis of such a concept being inherently irrefutable are you seriously saying that you don't disbelieve in the actual existence of the magical and undetectable Easter Bunny? We could show them evidence that parliament exists.I am reaaly looking forward to your explanation regarding the Easter Bunny. Are you agnostic towards the concept of a fat jolly magical santa who rides round on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer too?Please say yes........ What does that have to do with anything? Are you making the alarming and unforgivably stupid interpretation that I am saying that anything invented by humans does not exist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It can exist as an idea, much as many other things that we consider to exist are ideas (parliament and the internet are examples).While I don't personally have any use for the Easter Bunny as an idea, I don't see the point of labeling people as "insane" for wanting to consider that idea to be useful. If it is not part of their culture, then what you show them might have no relevance to them. They would see that you showed them stuff, but they might be puzzled as to why you would think that was evidence that parliament exists.

Heh: "whether or not we can know something has no bearing on whether or not we can know something"... Which requires the concept to be fairly well defined...The is arument fails for god because on one end you mistake a part for the whole by saying that all the gods so far have been shown to be imagination so its more likely that all of them are, and on the other end you take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence by saying that since we haven't seen any evidence for gods then there must not be any at all. One point to unknowability is that it makes disbelief irrational because if you could rationally disbelieve then it would be knowable.In Message 117, you missed mwr's point (as I understood it).You glossed over it, and charge him with the same thing you do everyone else, and re-ask all the same questions you always do. That is a piss poor "exploration". He's talking about:

quote:

---

Parliament (the institution, not the building) is a social-cultural construct.

---

So no, you couldn't show him that. What you can show him is practically the same as showing them a whole bunch of churches as evidence that god exists.The Chinese tourist could make your same argument against the existence of Parliament. But I doubt you would accept that that means that I must rationally disbelieving that it exists.

The analogies get better and better! Do go on with them.All things can exist as ideas, but the idea of the Easter Bunny is that it is, in fact, a bunny as well as an idea, and your other examples have an existence outside the mind. Straggler's point seems to be that gods and the Easter Bunny appear to exist only as ideas, or figments of the imagination, as I'd put it. He is just making the often made point that the evidence suggests that men make gods, not the other way around.On agnosticism:For an example of a god, we could use one of the many currently believed in by your compatriots. This is the one true Christian God who created everything, and will condemn to hell all those who voted for Obama.Agnosticism, as defined by Huxley, would emphasize that we cannot know with certainty the existential state of this god. I agree. How could we?So, I'm agnostic towards this god.But Huxley's agnosticism was about lack of certain knowledge, not about opinion or belief or the assessment of evidence.The evidence in relation to this god suggests to me that it is the parochial invention of a modern subculture loosely based on an earlier parochial invention by a middle-eastern tribe, and does not exist (except, for those amongst us who like to state the obvious, as an idea or figment of the imagination).So, I'm atheistic towards this god, as most people in the world are, atheism towards described gods always being the norm.I wonder if some of those on this thread who describe themselves as agnostics in the colloquial sense of uncommitted/neutral would take an uncommitted/neutral position on this particular god?I doubt it, if they're honest.