An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

We get our meanings for words based on the way that he hear or see others using those words. The word "agnosticism" is not in common use in ordinary discussions, so we don't actually have a good way of determining a meaning. We mostly see the term in philosophical discussions, though not necessarily by professional philosophers. Even in philosophical discussions, people are all over the map on how they use the word.For that matter, as I browse through this thread, I see that people are all over the map here.I'll add that I don't really know what "agnosticism" means, partly for the reasons just given above. I also don't use it much, as I generally prefer to keep my own religious views private, so not part of any public dialogue. But I won't let that prevent me from exploring the question.Consider the following hypothetical conversation:This actually sounds rather ordinary. People do talk that way.How about: To me, that seems rather odd, even bizarre. People do not talk that way.I am inclined to think that we do not use "agnostic" with respect to what we ordinarily think of as factual questions.Now try this one: I am inclined to consider that respondent to be an atheist, not an agnostic.Or try this one: It seems to me that the last respondent is somebody who could properly be described as 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?There is good evidence that mathematical concepts are a product of human invention. Should I therefore be agnostic or atheistic about mathematics? 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.

When I look around at all of the churches in town, when I consider the church memberships, the charitable work done by church based organizations, it seems to me that there is a pretty solid infrastructure in support of the God concept. I am more inclined to think that the rationality arguments you are persistently making are stupid.John Searle, in his 1995 book "The Construction of Social Reality", makes what I think is a useful distinction between what he calls "brute facts" (such as facts about the height of a mountain), and what he calls "institutional facts" (such as facts about money).Your persistent argument seems to be that we must treat the "God" question as a brute fact, and refuses to consider the possibility that we should look at it as an institutional fact. Platonist mathematicians believe that, though they will say that it is a reality of platonic forms, rather than physical reality. And by most estimates, a substantial majority of mathematicians are platonists.You might try asking some mathematicians about the continuum hypothesis. This has been proved independent of the other accepted axioms of set theory and independent of the axiom of choice. Many platonist mathematicians will assert that there is a fact about whether or not the continuum hypothesis is true, but that our current axiom systems are not yet powerful enough to get at that fact.

I am not saying that money is a good analogy with God. But I am saying that the reasoning that Straggler uses does not distinguish between money and God.

Many theists and deists presume that God is a real entity with no empirical existence. And Straggler has been arguing about what is empirical.In perspective, most platonist mathematicians say that mathematical objects are real, but have no empirical existence.

People certainly talk about money being real. Straggler has mostly been talking about the empirical evidence. Sure, Straggler also says that God is likely a product of human imagination (as is money). It is entirely appropriate for Straggler to use that view of God when deciding whether to be atheist or agnostic. But it seems quite strange to say that what Straggler believes about God should have any relation to whether the agnosticism of person X is rational.

When I joined this site, I decided to keep my own religious views off the table. I see no need to change that now.I am, however, atheistic with respect to the epistemology on which Straggler appears to be basing his criticism of agnosticism.

No, I am talking about Straggler's apparent view of agnosticism.

Oh, bull.I have not said anything at all about justifying belief in god. I have been commenting on the things you are saying about agnosticism. So what?Why do you have a problem with agnosticism toward things that might be a product of human invention? Most mathematicians will insist that mathematics is not empirical, and that the application of logic is logical but not empirical. I have never asked mathematicians that one. My guess is that they would be divided about that. I have not been discussing the existence of god. My point has been about what you have been saying on agnosticism.

I don't have a full picture of that. But I do see you telling people who have expressed agnostic positions, that rationality requires that they take an atheistic position.And then, in Message 83 you said: That seems strange to me. I would just say that I don't know. It seems quite odd to use "agnostic" there.

You seem to like making stuff up, and then expecting people to defend what you have made up.I presume your reference was to my posts in Omphalism. I don't recall suggesting that belief in an entity is justified - you seem to be making that up. My agnosticism was toward a philosophical position, not toward any entity. The IPU is an entity hypothesized for the purpose of making an argument (basically a reductio). It requires neither belief nor disbelief nor agnosticism. One simply pays it no attention at all, except when making that argument.Edited by nwr, : fix typo

No, there was no analogy intended or implied.I was responding to Straggler's argument in Message 79, and pointing out that his argument, if correct, would prove too much. For, as worded by Straggler, that argument would also apply to money and to mathematical entities.

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

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

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