Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 49 of 179 (554525)
04-08-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
04-07-2010 11:16 PM


Or Not?
The atheist, however, seems to have decided that one proposition is more likely than the other.
The theist, however, seems to have decided that one proposition is more likely than the other.
Hey Raz
Talking hypothetically for one moment.......
If there is objective evidence to suggest that the entire concept of supernatural, "unknowable" gods are a human invention but absolutely no objective evidence to suggest that gods actually exist - Is it then rational to conclude that gods are more likely to be the product of human invention than to actually exist?
Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2010 11:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2010 10:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 51 of 179 (554531)
04-08-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by hooah212002
04-08-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Are We All "Agnostics"?
Jesus, Vishnu, and Ra (to name a few) are right up there with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. That's how I can call them fairy tales. You can't tell me with 100% certainty that there is NO Santa Clause, can you? But yet, only when it comes to deities do we even have this discussion.
Yes - My point exactly. You sound as atheistic to me as I do to myself.
In that sentence? You are not wrong. I just leave the door open for a deity to show his face, whereas, in my opinion, atheists close that door.
Which atheists "close that door"? Can you quote some doing so?
I will respond, but I would rather not have this discussion as I hate arguing semantics.
I am someone who point blank refuses to argue in terms of dictionary definitions (see any of my previous comments on such things to verify this. But what you are calling "agnostic" seems identical to what I (and otherse here at EvC) are calling atheistic.
When there is such blatant miscommunication of seeming agreement it seems churlish to ignore this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 04-08-2010 6:33 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 179 (554535)
04-08-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
04-08-2010 6:47 PM


Re: Are We All "Agnostics"?
Even here I here I see no proclamation of certainty. Being "convinced" is not certainty.
Maybe Bobbins can clarify - Are you 100% certain that no gods exist?
And if Bobbins is claiming certainty I will tell him why he/she is misguided as vociferously as I would tackle certainty in the opposite direction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2010 6:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2010 7:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 55 of 179 (554539)
04-08-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AZPaul3
04-08-2010 7:13 PM


Re: Are We All "Agnostics"?
Is there an issue with being an agnostic on the issue of Jesus while maintaining that such a story is most probably incorrect and therefore choose to proceed in life without this theism thus being atheist in its regard as well?
No.
So I am atheistic whilst denying the rationality of certainty in this conclusion. Is that not your position as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2010 7:13 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2010 7:31 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 66 of 179 (554884)
04-10-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
04-08-2010 10:33 PM


Who Is Pre-Assuming?
Look whatever the case shall we at least to agree to try and remain civil to each other?
Hi Straggler, do you really want to do this again?
That depends. I want to know whether the wider and well publicised disagreement between you and I is the result of disagreeing over whether or not the evidence in question does exist. Or if it is more fundamental than that and revolves around whether or not such evidence can exist. Does that make sense?
If you have something new to say, then perhaps I might be interested, otherwise I find it pointless to discuss further.
I am guessing that you won't engage for nemerous reasons but don't let it be said that I have not tried to elicit your full position from you.
Are you saying that it is impossible to conclude that the concept of god is a human invention can be based on empirical evidence? Or are you saying that empirical evidence in favour of such a conclusion is just irrelevant? Or are you saying something else (If so - What exactly)?
Raz writes:
Or more circular self referential preassumptions
The entire premise of the world-view you are advocating is based on the presumption that gods are "unknowable". But how can you know this? Or even have any indication that this is the case? Raz if anybody else here based their entire personal philosophy on such a baseless assumption you would be the first to rip into the inadequacies of their position. Why do you think your own subjective beliefs are any different?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2010 10:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 6:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 67 of 179 (554886)
04-10-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
04-08-2010 10:45 PM


Subjective Evidence Is NOT Immaterial Evidence
If there is substantial subjective but unverified evidence of something and no contrary evidence, that to me says it is worth considering the possiblity that it could be true, and focusing on negative evidence doesn't admit this possibility. One can still be skeptical of it, but open-minded enough to consider the possibility.
This is where I think the agnostic differentiates from the atheist, as the agnostic says that the negative premise has not been proven (either), that it is not supported by evidence.
And by "subjective evidence" you mean what exactly? Can you cite a single example directly relevant to the existence of non-empirical beings? Something you have failed to do in multiple threads on this subject.
Your entire position on this is based on the unjustifiable conflation of "subjective evidence" (as per courtroom evidence) with Immaterial "Evidence"
When are you going to realise that "subjective evidence" and Immaterial "Evidence" are not the same thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2010 10:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 69 of 179 (554889)
04-10-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AZPaul3
04-08-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Are We All "Agnostics"?
Unlike Pinkie and the Noodle guy where there is an absolute certainty, such certainty cannot be claimed for all such deities.
I disagree. Well...To an extent. I don't think we can say with absolute certainty that the IPU or his noodleness do not exist. What if these entities do exist and are supernaturally invoking disbelief in themselves because they are shy? Or what if the IPU only reveals itself to atheists trying to disbunk the existence of deities in a grand display of self verifying ironicism? Nothing is certain. And one irrefutable is only less or more ridiculous for reasons that it is rationally impossible to justify than any other irrefutable.
The fact is that all the evidence we have suggets that the entire concept of supernatural unknowables is very probably the product of human invention. Maybe some more than others. But ultimately all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2010 7:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2010 7:32 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 70 of 179 (554894)
04-10-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
04-10-2010 6:47 PM


BZZZZZZZT - Nobody is Claiming - "Complete and unequivocal" Anything
Are you saying that it is impossible to conclude that the concept of god is a human invention can be based on empirical evidence?
You are assuming that such evidence is complete and unequivocal.
No. That is just simply untrue. No evidence can ever be considered complete. And no evidenced conclusion is ever unequivocal. I am an evidence based atheist who inherently lacks certainty. I thought we had got past the whole "certainty" issue.
With that in mind I am asking if ANY evidence favouring the concept of gods as the product of human invention is relevant to the question of whether or not gods are more likely to be the product of human invention than to actually exist. Do you deny such evidence exists? Or do you deny that such evidence is relevant? That is fundamentally my question to you as I seek the root of our disagreement.
The entire premise of the world-view you are advocating is based on the presumption that gods are "unknowable". But how can you know this?
Curiously, all I gave you was one (1) example to show you that your evidence is necessarily incomplete, as this invalidates your conclusion/s.
But I have always absolutely advocated that any empirically evidenced conclusion is necessarily based on incomplete evidence. That is just a practical fact of every single empirically evidenced conclusion you can name.
Likelihood. Not certainty. Why does evidence in favour of the concept of god as a human invention not make that conclusion more likely to be correct? That is the question here. A question you keep evading. If you stop falsely accusing me of certainty and "complete and unequivocal" evidence then you really have no position to speak of regarding this longstanding matter.
What I find curious, is that there is no reason to decide something that is not resolved, and may not be able to be resolved: what is wrong with being an agnostic?
Nothing where that is not a rational and empirically objectively evidenced conclusion. But on what basis do you presume that gods are "unknowable" rather than the product of human invention? Given the available empirical evidence? How can you know, or even have any indication, that this is the case? The premise of "unknowability" upon which your entire longstanding position is founded is rationally unjustifiable.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 6:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 8:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 71 of 179 (554896)
04-10-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by New Cat's Eye
04-08-2010 7:32 PM


Re: We Are All "Agnostics" But Some re More Agnostic Than Others
Straggler writes:
The point of the FSM, IPU and other such "absurd" entities is to demonstrate that the the argument that "you cannot refute god" is logically irrelevant.
The relevance is that it makes strong atheism irrational.
"Strong atheism" being what? The certainty that no gods exist?
In other words a position held by no-one here and no-one readily recognisable as representing anyone here (e.g. Dawkins)
In which case we can all agree that advocating any argument of certainty is irrational. Which leaves only arguments of relative likelihood. No?
If certainty is not possible then only likelihood remains. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2010 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2010 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 73 of 179 (554902)
04-10-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by AZPaul3
04-10-2010 7:32 PM


Re: Are We All "Agnostics"?
I agree wholeheartedly in practise but I remain insistent that we must remain technically agnostic towards all irrefutable entities no matter how "absurd" or "made up" they may seem subjectively. I quote Bertie once again:
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2010 7:32 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AZPaul3, posted 04-11-2010 4:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 74 of 179 (554907)
04-10-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
04-09-2010 9:06 AM


Re: We Are All "Agnostics" But Some re More Agnostic Than Others
I simply suggest that the evidence suggests that such notions are more likely the product of human invention. On what basis might we conclude that they are anything else?
That the majority of the world over the course of human history identifies with supernaturalism in form or the other makes it relevant to at least examine why that is. It could be entirely a human invention or there could be some truth to it. What I am saying is for me, personally, I do not have all the evidence to make a truly educated decision. The sensible thing to do in my opinion, is simply state that I am an agnostic. Why? Because I awaiting more evidence.
In which case (whether you realise it or not) you are simply citing widespread belief in the supernaual as evidence upon which to elevate supernatural concepts over other entirely uevidenced concepts. Belief as evidence upon which to justify belief (or at least decry "disbelief"). That is circular.
That's all it means to me. If you want to be an atheist, knock yourself out. You are entitled that, and your reasons for being an atheist are your own. Why do you feel the need to question my reasons? This is the third thread (that I'm aware of) where you have asked similar questions.
The same reason you keep replying to my questions? Is that not why we all participate here?
What is your beef with agnosticism?
It sounds superficially reasonable and smacks of mindless middle-ism whilst being unable (in my view) to hold up to rational analysis (with regard to any concept of god I have ever seen anyone actually advocate or define).
The point of the FSM, IPU and other such "absurd" entities is to demonstrate that the the argument that "you cannot refute god" is logically irrelevant. There are an infinite multitude of irrefutable entities. Yet nearly all are considered absurd. So irrefutability alone is not a criteria upon which rational agnosticism can be justified.
There is a reason why it is a logical fallacy. You are leaning upon your own incredulity to make the case for you.
Er no. That is what you are doing in differentiating the irrefutable FSM and IPU (and whatever other "absurd" entities" you find incredulous) from other equally irrefutable entities which you consider worthy of your agnosticism. I advocate that they should all be treated with skepticism on the basis that they are more likley the product of human invention than not.
The bible is a breeding ground for illogical and inconsistent claims. That, however, does nothing to disprove God. It only serves to invalidate what the bible claims of God. And even then there could be smatterings of truth. Either way it is of no consequence to me, and why it is to you is a profound mystery to me.
Because I see the illogicality of claiming to know about "unknowable" entities as a logical problem in general and not one restricted to the bible. Claiming to have evidence of non-empirical entities in general falls foul of the problems with Immaterial "Evidence"
When you say you are "agnostic" what do you mean exactly? What are you agnostic towards exactly?
I am agnostic towards the conception of God, whatever that might be. That could be Vishnu, YHWH, or Spinoza's God, whatever. I only argue the specifics.
Then why not the IPU? Seriously. Why exactly is Vishnu more worthy of agnosticism than the IPU? Please explain. This is a genuine point of bemusement on my part. Please help.
To me, atheism is the positive declaration of no gods, and agnosticism has not enough information make a declaration in either direction.
Is there any evidence in favour of the concept of god being a human invention? Would such evidence have any bearing on the likelihood of such concepts being more or less likely to be the product of human invention than to actually exist?
Why is this seemingly innocuous question considered by those (such as RAZD) who advocate agnosticism as so confrontational?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-09-2010 9:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-13-2010 7:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 78 of 179 (555147)
04-12-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AZPaul3
04-11-2010 4:07 PM


Re: Are We All "Agnostics"?
Absurd and made up cannot be called subjective in this case. The objective evidence of when, where, why and who created these images cannot be denied. Consequently, the entities cannot be considered irrefutable which is made based solely on the supposed (objectively demonstrable as made up) trait of being supernatural.
Unless Pinkie or his Noodleiness in their infinite wisdom are simply having a laugh at our expense. Or are particularly inept entities. What if the IPU keeps trying to reveal itself to atheists whilst they are in the midst of debunking the existence of deities? Rather than accept this "subjective evidence" we closed minded pseudo-skeptic atheists keep on thinking that the entity which we are being supernaturally inspired to consider is actually supporting our erroneous position.
Unlikley? Very. Absurd? I would subjectively say so. But philosophically possible? Yes. Such inherently irrefutable concepts cannot be rationally dismissed as impossible. Thus they remain possible. Even if pointlessly unlikely and entirely worthy of ridicule.
But for some things, like Pinkie and the Noodle, no level of agnosticism, no matter how small, is warranted. Again, I submit the facts are conclusive to all but the most irrational or obstinate.
Unless they are logically and philosophically impossible I don't see how you can entirely eliminate the possibility of any irrefutable concept with absolute certainty. Thus a degree of agnsticism is required even if so negligible as to be utterly irrelevant in any practical sense whatsoever.
Because the same objective facts may have been lost to antiquity concerning other proposed entities, even given (a) the preponderance of (lesser) evidence against such an entity and (b) the lack of evidence for such a thing, a level of agnosticism, small to be sure, seems to be the only logical place to stand.
Indeed. I have never claimed that the evidence in favour of the wider god concept being a human invention is as overwhelming as it is in the case of the IPU (for example).
I have simply suggested that such evidence exists and that this evidence makes human invention a better evidenced and more reliable conclusion. The howling cries of "but gods are unknowable" makes no more difference to this evidence than the inherent irrefutability and unknowability of any other concept we can pull out of our arses.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AZPaul3, posted 04-11-2010 4:07 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 79 of 179 (555148)
04-12-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
04-10-2010 8:54 PM


Why Decide? What is wrong with being an agnostic?
Why decide? What is wrong with being an agnostic?
Of course there is nothing wrong with being agnostic where there is a genuine absence of sufficient evidence in any direction. The problem arises when the ridiculous, inconsistent and contradictory assertion is made that something is so definitely unknowable as to rationally require agnosticism no matter how much evidence there may be in favour of an opposing conclusion. That is the context in which we find ourselves here.
So what exactly is your position on evidence that favours the concept of god as a human invention? Are you simply saying that there is currently insufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion and that more investigation into aspects of human culture and psychology are therefore required before this position can be legitimately taken? Or are you taking the more fundamentalist and extreme position that any empirical evidence suggesting that the concept of god is a human invention is entirely irrelevant because such things are just innately unknowable?
You very much seem to be saying the latter. And there are a whole host of problems with that position. But there is no point going into those until you clarify whether that actually is your position or not. So a frank and unambiguous statement of where you stand on this matter is necessary here before we can meaningfully continue.
So Straggler, why are you so obsessed with the question? Why do you feel so compelled to decide ... what is wrong with being an agnostic?
Nothing when it doesn't involve denying evidence that points towards a contrary conclusion.
But, as has been demonstrated on other threads, your "likelihood" is a product of your human invention.
Not "likelihood" RAZ. No-one is claiming that "there is a 82.364% probability that gods do not exist" - Or any other such imbecilic proclamation. Credit me with some intelligence please.
No - We are talking about "relative likelihood". My point is (and always has been) that there is good evidence (objective empirical evidence) favouring the conclusion that the concept of unknowable gods is a product of human invention. This conclusion is therefore more likley to be correct than the opposing and objectively unevidenced conclusion that gods actually exist.
Tell me why you find that stance so unbelievably unreasonable and worthy of such indignation and mockery?
And yet it is easy for a logical mind to conceive of many instances where knowledge, especially knowledge complete enough for making a logical conclusion, is not possible at this time.
And (to end on a positive note) I would entirely agree with your example of specific long term weather predictions as something about which is rational to be agnostic about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 2:27 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2010 10:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 179 (555153)
04-12-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2010 2:54 PM


The Irrationality of "Strong Atheism"
The relevance is that it makes strong atheism irrational.
Strong atheism = the positive belief that gods do not exists
Ah. So is the belief that god as a concept is far more likely to be a human invention than to be a genuine aspect of reality an example of "strong atheism"?
Are you not strongly atheistic towards various unknowable and irrefutable concepts on the basis that they are almost certainly the product of human invention?
Is your "strong atheism" towards these concepts "irrational" too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2010 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 2:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 83 of 179 (555175)
04-12-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
04-12-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Why Decide? What is wrong with being an agnostic?
There is good evidence that the concept of money is a product of human invention. Should I therefore be agnostic or atheistic about my bank account balance?
Does money exist? Does your bank account exist? Do banks exist? Is there any evidence to suggest that we have not only conceived of money but brought it into existence? Along with a whole financial infrastructure. Is there comparable evidence to suggest that gods exist? Along with immaterial realms in which such "unknowables" can exist unhindered by investigation except to conveniently reveal themselves non-empiricaly (somehow) every so often.
If none of the materially detectable aspects of money demonstrably existed and I simply told you about this concept I had called "money" and insisted that it must exist in some unknowable realm then we might be talking like for like. As things stand your comparison is just bewildering stupid.
There is good evidence that mathematical concepts are a product of human invention. Should I therefore be agnostic or atheistic about mathematics?
That is a much better question. Mathematical models of empirical reality are (practically by definition) based on empirical reality. So (especially if they are able to make verifiable predictions) we can conclude that they are worthy of confidence and reflect reality in some sense.
But does the mathematical construct of an infinite dimensional sphere (for example) "exist"? Well the concept exists in the same way that the concept of god can exist in my head. But is anyone claiming that it exists in the sense of existing in external reality independently of people's minds?
And (to end on a positive note) I would entirely agree with your example of specific long term weather predictions as something about which is rational to be agnostic about.
Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense to be skeptical about long term weather predictions, but it makes little sense to be agnostic about them.
Maybe this is just sematics on your part but I mean (for example) that I am agnostic about whether or not it will be raining in London on the 24th June 2013. Unless of course you can show a method of weather prediction that makes such proclamations feasibly accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 2:27 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 3:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024