Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi Rrhain, I thought your read my posts Nope.As Catholic Scientist and Straggler have demonstrated, and as Onifre has argured, it is impossible to know what your opinion will be without knowing the concept.Thus the default position is necessarily an agnostic one - don't know one way or the other - because you can't know (unless you are psychic). Rather self-evident that you can say you don't know what is being talked about, and therefore cannot know if it is true false or indifferent. To claim that it is true or false would be to make an assumption completely unsupported by any evidence at all, and thus be an invalid claim.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ,Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

Do you know what they are talking about with not being able to not know if a concept exists or not if you don't know what the concept is?Help. I can't make any sense of it Honestly. I'm baffled as to why its even being discussed.I feel like I'm missing something. Any ideas?It seems blatantly ovious that if you don't know what something is, then you don't know it it exists or not.

At least in my argument it was in regards to tha claim that athiest are pseudo-skeptics, and that atheism is a negative position.I brought up the point in that thread, that we have no idea what supernatural is or what anyone means by god, so how can I claim to be a believer or a disbeliever?There is no point in weighing in on the matter unless what is being talked about can be defined.It has been my position that athiesm is in direct regards to concepts of god(s) for which we have information on (ie. mythology, Abrahamic, etc.), not, as I stated in the pseudo-thread, ambiguous, unknowable forces.If I don't know what we are talking about how can anyone say I'm an athiest toward it?I'm not for or against, or even neutral ... until you define what we are talking about, I'm nothing at all. Not far right, far left or in the middle - we have not established what we are talking about, so even agnostic is irrelevant.I believe what Straggler means is something like what I'm saying above. How can you be a believer, a disbelieve or neutral (agnostic) for something that hasn't been defined? The best bet would simply be to ask, what are we talking about? And not take any position at all.I think that's what he means.- Oni

Hi Briterican, thanks for the reply. Curiously, this is not about how atheist, theist and agnostic positions are defined, but the logic of the arguments presented.

quote:

---

This is for Briterican, from How do I deal with a creationist family member?, Message 65 We have this claim:

​

I tried to explain why this was a fallacy, why these two conclusions are not on equal footing, and in the process I (ill-advisedly) put forward the idea that my "disbelief" was more firmly founded in logic and reason than their "belief".

---

What you are being asked to defend is your claim that one argument is more logical than the other.For reference on definitions, we can use the (flawed) "Dawkins scale" as a reference to some general positions:

quote:

---

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

​

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

​

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

​

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

​

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

​

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

​

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

---

Ignoring the inherent mathematical problem/s of calculating probabilities when the number of possibilities is unknown, we can refer to this scale as a reference of relative atheistic, agnostic and theistic beliefs.In this regard, the "A" position is modeled on the "1" category, concluding that god/s are true because there is no evidence contradicting this claim (whether this is actually true or not is irrelevant to the logical validity of the form of the argument). Likewise, the "B" position is modeled on the "7" category, concluding that god/s are not true because there is no evidence contradicting this claim, and the "C" position is modeled on the "4" category, concluding that there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether god/s are true or not true. You have fallen into the trap of letting your preexisting opinion and bias about the subject (atheist\agnostic\theist) interfere with your analysis of the logic validity of the argument, just as Phage0070 did. See my reply in Message 289:

quote:

---

Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others:

• person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
• person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
• person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.

---

By your argument (like Phage0070) B and C are logical, and A is not - we don't need to worry about the relative value of B and C at this point - being only concerned with the validity, or invalidity, of the form of the arguments).Note that the validity\invalidity of an argument does not address whether the argument is true or not, just that the conclusion follows from the premises in valid arguments (and is true iff* the premises are true) but that the conclusion does not follow from the premises for the invalid arguments (and can be true or false irrespective of the invalid argument).Now let Y = notX to see if the same conclusions are reached:

• person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
• person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
• person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.

How say you now? By your previous argument B and C are logical and A is not.Curiously, A(X) = B(Y) = theistic position, B(X) = A(Y) = atheistic position, and C(X) = C(Y) = agnostic position.So you have said that one form of argument is logical in one case and not logical in the other, which is a contradiction: either A or B is false (and we don't know which from the form of the argument).By comparing the form of the arguments, either "A" and "B" must either both be true or both be false. Fairly obviously, god/s cannot logically both be true and false at the same time, and therefore both "A" and "B" arguments must be invalid arguments because they result in false conclusions.This problem does not exist for "C" and therefore it is a logically valid form of argument, and it results in valid conclusions when the premises are true. Now, let's expand the list and look at possibilities first, and see if we can agree on the logical form of these arguments:

quote:

---

Message 307: Now see if you can determine which of these positions is logically valid and which is not:

• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

---

In these cases, "D" is modeled on the "3" category of theistic agnostic ("Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'), claiming that god/s may possible be true due to the lack of contradicting evidence, and "E" is modeled on the "5" category of atheistic agnostic ("Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.') claiming that god/s may possible be not-true.How do you rate these arguments now: Remember, that because we are looking at the validity of the form of the argument, that "X" can be replaced by "Y" == not"X" and the argument will be just as valid. We can talk about this in the next round, once we have sorted out the logical validity of the A(~1), B(~7), C(~4), D(~3) and E(~5) arguments, noting that only in Dawkins scale categories "2" and "6" are the positions dependent on "probabilities" to distinguish them from the other positions.Enjoy.* in logic and math "iff" is used as an abbreviation for "if and only if" Edited by RAZD, : englss

---

Hi Catholic Scientist, Simple: what you are seeing is the effect of cognitive dissonance of people unwilling to admit that the agnostic position is logically valid, and that the agnostic is the natural default position.Thus you see conflation of "total lack of evidence" with the inability to know on a position that is not described, and arguments about the "total lack of evidence" for cases where, instead, the position is that the evidence available in not sufficient to form a logical conclusion.Enjoy.

---

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Yeah, so I don't know if it exists or not.

---

You don't know if cheese exists or not?See, this is the point: You might very well know if it exists or not, but you can't make any statement regarding it until someone tells you what "it" is. You can't even say, "I don't know," because you are not in a position to make a declaration regarding your opinion: You don't have enough information to say.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How on earth can one claim "I don't know" about something if that something hasn't been defined?

---

​

Because I can't claim that I do know. If I do 'not know', then I don't know.

---

You don't know if cheese exists or not?You can't claim anything because you don't know what is being discussed. Your opinion might be that it does exist. It might be that it doesn't. It might be that you don't know. But until you know what "it" is, you cannot say anything at all on the subject.

quote:

---

Does it have a name? What do I refer to it as?

---

If you know what "it" is, then it's called "I don't know."But if you don't know what "it" is, then there is no statement that can be made of any kind. Thus, there is no "knowing" or "not knowing" axis at all.

quote:

---

Unless, there is some neutral ground between not knowing and knowing that I'm unaware of. You say there is. What it is?

---

You're missing the point. If you don't know what "it" is, it is nonsensical to talk about "knowing," "not knowing," or anything in between. Because if you do make such a statement, we end up with the ridiculous result that you have found yourself in, claiming you don't know if cheese exists.

quote:

---

If I don't know what the other person is talking about then I lack the knowledge of whether or not it exists.

---

Incorrect. If the other person is talking about cheese, then of course you have knowledge of whether or not it exists. For you to claim "I don't know" puts you in the ridiculous position of saying you don't know if cheese exists.You're at a party. You're talking to someone. Some friends are having a discussion near you, but you aren't paying attention. Suddenly, you are pulled out by someone tapping you on the shoulder and asking, "What do you think?"If you say, "I don't know," your friends will laugh at you, "What do you mean you don't know if cheese exists?"Instead, you respond, "What are you talking about? Tell me what you're talking about and then I'll tell you what I think."Until you are told what the subject is, it is impossible for you to make a claim as to what your position is. You have a position and it isn't in question, but you can't divulge it even to yourself until you are told what on earth is being discussed.

quote:

---

My lack of knowledge of whether or not it exists means that I don't know if it exists unless there is some neutral ground between not knowing and knowing that I am unaware of. You said of course there is. What is it?

---

If you know what is being talked about, it's called, "I don't know."If you don't know what is being talked about, then the entire concept of "knowing," "not knowing," or anything in between is nonsensical because you have no basis upon making a claim.If you insist you don't know, you wind up in the ridiculous position of having to defend why you say you don't know if cheese exists.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

I thought your read my posts

---

I thought you remembered your own arguments.You have not defined what "god" is and yet you insist that people must be agnostic about it when the reality is that no opinion of any sort, even agnosticism, can be logically justified.Ya gotta tell us what you're talking about, RAZD.

quote:

---

As Catholic Scientist and Straggler have demonstrated, and as Onifre has argured, it is impossible to know what your opinion will be without knowing the concept.

---

Straggler and Onifre, yes. Catholic Scientist, no. He thinks he can proclaim "I don't know" when he doesn't know what "it" is and thus finds himself in the ridiculous position of having to justify why he claims he doesn't know if cheese exists.And then there's you, who insists that we must be "agnostic" over something you have refused to define. Instead, it has been our argument to you that your claim is nonsensical. You can't even be agnostic over something that hasn't been defined for you.That's our argument to you, RAZD. Are you changing your argument?

quote:

---

Rather self-evident that you can say you don't know what is being talked about, and therefore cannot know if it is true false or indifferent.

---

Nice try, but that's our argument to you, RAZD. You're the one insisting that we must be "agnostic" in some sort of faux impartiality. Instead, your entire premise is nonsensical: One cannot have any opinion, not even your precious "I don't know," regarding something that hasn't been defined.Ya gotta tell us what you're talking about, RAZD.

quote:

---

To claim that it is true or false would be to make an assumption completely unsupported by any evidence at all, and thus be an invalid claim.

---

Indeed, but to claim that you don't know is also an assumption completely unsupported by any evidence at all and you find yourself in the ridiculous position Catholic Scientist is in, having to justify why he claims he doesn't know if cheese exists.I've got a concept in mind. Do you think it exists? I know what it is and I'm pretty certain that you won't say, "I don't know," once you know what it is. But I'm not going to tell you what it is.So what's your position regarding the existence of what this concept is referring to?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Curiously, this is not about how atheist, theist and agnostic positions are defined, but the logic of the arguments presented.

---

Indeed, but you have conveniently ignored the most salient point: You have based your argument on a premise that there is no evidence when the reality of the situation is that there are literally mountains of evidence.We have a model that works without these chocolate sprinkles you keep insisting we consider. Why? Where is your evidence that they are required? So far, all the evidence we have indicates that they are not needed and don't exist. That's how we got the model in the first place: We took all the evidence that we have and created a system that is consistent with everything we have seen and has been pretty good at predicting what we will see when we haven't encountered it yet.Where is your evidence that there is something wrong?Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles?You insist there is no evidence while ignoring the fact that you're drowning in it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD, I have a challenge for you.Let's see if you can go for a whole month without accusing anybody of "cognitive dissonance" or some variant on that phrase.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Well exactly. When you say "I don't know" you are not talking about the same concept I am. Concept X was always cheese in my mind. If I had defined what we were talking about you would have given a very different answer. Thus the concept needs to be defined to get a truthful and meaningful answer regarding belief. You have kind of proved my point. OK. Lets try again.You ask me if god exists. You know what you mean by "god" in some sense but you won't tell me. I say "I don't know" because you haven't defined "god" to me. You take this as agnosticism towards your concept of god.But I am not agnostic towards your concept of god. Any more than you are agnostic towards cheese. Getting me to say "I don't know" is simply a silly word game. Let's try again. I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists?Are you really declaring your agnosticism to my private concept? Or is "I don't know" simply the result of me refusing to tell you what the hell concept X is? There has to be a concept to apply opinion and reasoning to. If you or RAZD won't tell us what you mean by "god" then any statement of "I don't know" is no more or less indicative of agnosticism towards that concept of god than was your declaration of "I don't know" indicative of your agnosticism towards cheese.

Still resolutely claiming that there is no evidence I see. Still utterly unable to explain how this "absence of evidence", this remarkable vacuum of all human knowledge can possibly exist Message 207The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. If it were not for personal conviction it would have been abandoned long ago. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural.Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is a complete vacuum of knowledge and a black hole of understanding. Apparently there is an "absence of evidence".Open your eyes. What you see might amaze you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Wrong. As demonstrated by CS's proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. Message 415. Why don't you have a go and see if your declarations of agnosticism fare any better?I am thinking of a concept. I know what it is. But I am not going to tell you. Do you believe concept X exists?

It is. If the concept doesn't exist then a position on it cannot exist either. Obviously and as you have been pointing out for quite some time now.But the situation here is a bit more complex because I think there is a concept. RAZD and CS do know (at least vaguely) what they believe in. But they won't say.Hence the relevancy of the cheese example with regard to falsely derived and misleading statements of "I don't know".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thanks for the reply, Onifre. You can't, and since you don't know either way then you're agnostic. Even granting pointlessness, you still do not know if the concept exists or not. If atheism isn't the negetive position but is simply the lack of belief, if you lack a belief in some ambiguous force, then your an atheist to it. Whatever the relevance, you quite literally do not have the knowledge of whether or not it exists. That is agnostic by definition. Well thank you for the explanation. I think I understand the position better now... but now I think its just plain wrong Whatever the point, or relevance, or how good of a bet it is, if you do not know if a concept exists or not, then you are agnostic to that concept. If you don't know if it exists because you don't know what it is, then you're still agnostic whether you're willing to admit it or not. You do, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not it exists, don't you?

I could've guessed you'd say that But I don't think they're honestly feeling uncomfortable about this. I think its simple debate tactic.Thanks RAZD.

---

ABE: Except for Straggler, he's going nuts