An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

OK. But that is an argument about sufficiency of evidence rather than agnosticism derived from inherent unknowability. Which is the issue of this thread.If you are simply saying that we need to do more research into human culture and psychology before we conclude that gods are probably a human invention then that is a relatively reasonable position. But that doesn't seem to be what is being said here. I specifically avoided the rabbit hole of "subjective evidence" by not saying "zero evidence" (or the equivalent). I said "objectively unevidenced". Are you going to claim that there is objective evidence in favour of the existence of gods? That would be quite a claim on your part. Why? What is the barrier to doing so? "Unknowability"? Irefutability? Can we not invent concepts that are intrinsically as unknowable and irrefutable as the concept of god and yet still dismiss these as almost certainly invented? Thus demonstrating that unknowability and irrefutability become irrelevant if sufficient evidence towards a contrary conclusion is available. If (hypothetically if you prefer) there is objective empirical evidence favouring the concept of god as a human invention but none favouring the actual existence of gods would considering human invention as more likely be rationaly justified? Is this not exactly your position with regard to the IPU and other such entities? The evidence in favour of human invention makes any irrefutability and unknowability almost utterly irrelevant to your conclusion regarding the existence of these entities. No I haven't. I can point you towards numerous posts (none replied to by RAZD I might add) where I have previously made that argument. We can go that route in one of those threads if you want.But this thread is about exploring agnosticism and, in particular, what seems to be the "but gods are inherently unknowable" primary justification for this position.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

There is a great deal of evidence for belief in the veracity of the god concept. You (like so many others) seem to be in danger of going down the circular path of citing belief in god as evidence upon which to justify belief in god. Argumentum ad-populum. A logical fallacy. My persistent argument is that if there is objective empirical evidence in favour of the claim that gods are the product of human invention and (unlike money) no counter-evidence to suggest that such things do in fact exist then it is rational to conclude that they are more likely the product of human invention than real entities. Your opinion has been noted. But frankly your arguments so far (e.g money is a human invention) are rather trivially stupid. Well we are now moving onto some rather detailed but interesting questions that possibly lie beyond the scope of this thread. But let's see...... I would say that most of our mathematical constructs are based on our empirical experience extrapolated to the nth degree by the application of logic. Concepts of number, space (in the sense of co-ordinate systems) etc. etc. all have their roots in logically mapping reality in some sense. Would the continuum hypothesis exist if there were no intelligent beings to propose such a hypothesis? Would god exist if there were no intelligent beings to invent such a concept?Let's ask some mathematicians here what they think of the comparison of such concepts with the concept of god. From where do the two concepts arise? What is their history? Is there rational reason to think that the actuality of the concept in question exists independetly to, and regardless of, the minds of those proposing such things.Your money example was the epitomy of stupidity and misapprehension of the arguments in play. But the maths argument seems far more interesting.

And just to be clear here - "Straggler's view of agnosticism" is what..........?I would hate to be misrepresented.

But why is disblief in one unknowable irrefutable entity justified whilst not being justified in the case of another equally unknowable and unjustifiable entity? Is it because some entities are believed in and others are not? That has effectively been your position elsewhere. Might be? Are you agnostic to an unknowable and irrefutable Immaterial Pink Unicorn that created the universe and watches over us in deistic bliss? Might that not be a human invention? Are you agnostic? If you are not agnostic towards the IPU are you not claiming atheism on the basis of this irrefutable and unknowable entity being almost certainly the product of human invention? In which case it's ireefutable-ness and unknowability are irrelevant.If so - Welcome to the real world. Specifically in relation to (self proclaimed) "unknowable" entities. How can anyone confidently proclaim that such things are unknowable? That is contradictory and ridiculous.

Well obviously it depends what the concept in question is. Tell me what you mean by the term "god" and I will tell you whether or not I think atheism, agnosticism or ignosticism is the rational conclusion and why.Then we can meaningfully discuss. Until you do that you are simply assuming that you know what I think and objecting on very probably false notions. You might be right. Maybe I am being so embroiled in RAZD's scattegun acceptance of the phrase "I don't know" to imply that which is agnosticism that I am losing my own ability to differentiate what is and what isn't. Yipes!!!

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?

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.

I have no argument with anyone who says that gods exist solely as ideas.That is not what I am arguing against. To do so would be ridiculous. Frankly you seem intent on being a bit of a pedantic wanker. So are you some sort of conceptual-cultural-relatavist? Someone that insists that all concepts are entirely cultural and that no one concept has any more meaning or existence than any other?That is what it looks like at the moment. But I await your clarification on this.

What god concept is entirely immune from evidence of human invention? can you define god such that this is the case? I am intrigued to know what objective evidence you think even might exist for immaterial gods? What form would this evidence take? You cannot.But I am not the one describing gods as unknowable or insisting that the only method of refutation is to provide evidence that they "do not or cannot exist".I am the one saying that unknowability and irrefutability are simply baseless and unjustifiable assumptions which are no more relevant to assessing whether gods are likely to exist than they are to the concept of a magically unknowable Santa Claus existing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Heh: "I know that this concept is unknowable".How can you know such a thing? How can that be anything other than an entirely baseless assumption?And yet it seems to be the root premise of those who advocate the rationality of agnosticism towards "unknowable" gods regardless of any evidence favouring human invention that exists. Parliament and god are conceptually equivalent in your eyes?

And physical existence is a very different idea from non-empirical existence that remains a part of reality independently of ones mind. When a theist/deist says "I believe that god exists" do you think they mean just as a concept inside our heads? As something that would no longer exist if there were no conscious beings capable of conceiving such an entity? If they do - I have no argument with them. As a self confirmed comic fan superhero geek I am a big fan of both of those concepts. But I do not consider them real. By my (and any normal definition that I have ever seen) I am atheistic about the actual existence of Spiderman and Batman. Are you not? And those who claim agnosticism towards the concept of god on the basis of inherent "unknowability" are denying empirical evidence of human invention in exactly the same way that someone who insisted we should rationally be agnostic towards the existence of the Easter bunny on the basis of magical "unknowability" would be ignoring empirical evidence favouring a contrary conclusion.To assert in the face of evidence is fundamentalism. And that applies to deistic fundamentalists as much as it does to biblical fundamentalists. Or even "agnostic fundamentalists"!!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am asking you to clarify what it is you are saying. Why don't you just do that and not make pointless intermediary posts?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Absolutely. I am making the additional point that simply asserting (or baselessly assuming) that god concepts are inherently "unknowable" and thus immune from such evidence is of no more relevance to god concepts than it is to a magically unknowable Easter Bunny.But this simple point seems to be highly contentious and lost on many.

I am making the distinction imposed on me by those who claim to believe in gods. Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly in the principle you seem to be espousing. The question is - Would gods exist? Are you using the term "god" in any way that theists or deists would accept? But the immaterial concepts in question are claimed to have done things like create the universe. Things that by definition happened without the existence of consciousness in the material world. Thus necessarily making them exist independently of us in a way that the golf course concept does not.Would god concepts exist if conscious beings in the material universe did not exist? Are gods and golf courses conceptually equivalent in this respect?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.