An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

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.

quote:

---

People certainly talk about money being real.

---

The physical coins and notes certainly are. The value we assign it is a convention.

quote:

---

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.

---

So what is your view ? Is God simply a convention or a physical object manufactured by humans ?

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.

quote:

---

When I joined this site, I decided to keep my own religious views off the table. I see no need to change that now.

---

Then you must be talking about someone else's view of God. Whose is it and is it that God is a physical object created by humans or God is a human convention ?

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.

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

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

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.

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!!!

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

quote:

---

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

---

And in doing so you claimed that money was analogous to some view of God in a way that refuted Straggler's argument. So what is that view of God ? It should be a simple question to answer if your argument had any merit - because it is implicitly part of that argument.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

So basically you were just making a minor nit-pick that the wording was not absolutely airtight - and that's your only problem with the argument. OK. But if that is what you are doing, you really should make it clear that that is all that it is.