Is agnosticism a better position than atheism?
Atheism
Agnosticism
I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ?
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnosticism
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God
I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ?
Comments (350)
Do you rule out a rotting pile of spaghetti in another dimension?
How does the atheist rule out the existence of God?
I don’t know ask them…I’m just going by the definition of atheism as to how they rule it out I have no idea but I guess they rule it out due to lack of evidence.
no I do not.
As Banno says, it makes no practical difference. There's another thread on this already somewhere.
Many atheists take the position that there are no convincing grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists - they do not say there is no God. Agnosticism refers to a knowledge claim, atheism refers to belief.
Hence agnostic atheists who are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of a deity, but are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
Do you rule out a spaghetti monster who lives on the back of your head and only you can't see?
Quoting Deus
The definition just says that atheism is, disbelief (non-belief) in God. It doesn't mean the atheist rules out the existence of God.
At the beginning of this post I made sure I used the definitions of what these two positions entail to for the sake of clarity and it is these two different positions that I wish to address when it comes to what atheism is as opposed to Agnosticism
Well this is one of the issues. The varying degrees of Atheism so it really is a debate between hard atheism and soft atheism (aka Agnosticism?)
How does this work in terms of compatibility between two seemingly contradictory statements…if you acknowledge that you do not know then how could you hold the belief that God does not exist rather than he MIGHT exist.
Quoting Deus
Yes, I'm a soft atheist, an agnostic. Richard Dawkins on the other hand is a hard atheist, believing there is no god.
It's probably about time I re-read his book The God Delusion.
There are all kinds of things I do not know but have beliefs about.
Interesting, so let me add a further statement to further the analogy of Aliens/God and allow you to tell me what the difference is…
“There are no Aliens”
“I believe there are no Aliens”
There’s no difference in the two above statement as far as I am concerned it’s just that the second statement inputs belief which is not based on evidence. The first statement qualifies it or turns personal belief into fact which of course is ridiculous in this example as nobody knows if life exists elsewhere in the vastness of this universe or we are the only ones. As far as our scientific apparatus we have not been able to detect them but we cannot claim they do not exist. This is the issue with God too for atheists, hard atheists especially…there is no God is equivalent to there are no Aliens.
The Agnostic would holding the softer atheist position comes perhaps closer to the truth than the hard atheist. What I mean closer to the truth is that their position is truer or true.
There is no god or there is no aliens could also be true but it’s just more unlikely
If you are a believer you are obviously going to prefer agnosticism because there appears to be room for the apologist's familiar arguments.
It’s not a preference I actually don’t care! :wink: although I have to admit Pascal had an interesting take on it with his Pascal’s wager although personally I wouldn’t go that far.
You entirely missed the point of what I posted. Notice that I said That there was no practical difference. Notions of heaven and hell are not practical. In so far as they make a difference to ones behaviour, an agnostic who goes to church just in case is not all that agnostic.
If your purpose here is to understand the difference agnostics atheists and theists then you really should spend some time contemplating what has been said by myself and others.
They only claim to be theist. The human mind cannot believe in God without fooling itself. Everyone is at the core an atheist and in philosophy an agnostic
My thought is that an individual's beliefs are too nuanced to be fully captured by a label. In a sense, I'm an agnostic-deist - I think it's a live possibility that some sort of entity might exist that intentionally caused the universe. I also consider such an entity's existence to be irrelevant, because IMO, a God-of-religion is not a live option. It's merely logically possible.
There isn’t, you’re right! Not practically, however there’s a conceptual difference or the difference in definition which I am still trying to understand so bear with me.
I have now realised I should have made this post about what the differences actually are before attempting to tackle which position is more prudent rather than better that I used in my original post.
I fully agree. Though I've been accused of "evangelism" and all sorts of nonsense here, my position is closest to agnosticism which, from a purely philosophical perspective, seems preferable to unqualified atheism.
I can see no advantage in denying the existence of metaphysical realities on philosophical grounds.
Why would they do that ? In my experience I’ve come across individuals with real faith who really believe in God that not even the sceptic in me would question it.
Faith in supernatural things is not real belief or genuine action. It's make-believe. Do people enjoy warm fuzzy feelings and so appear to have faith? Yes but it's dishonest make-believe and bad faith. Humans don't really believe in supernatural father figures any more than other animals do.
6 famous minutes of Derrida:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch-DliKSGu0
Nor does it rule out the infinity of other ridiculous ideas we can come up with. Are we supposed to entertain them all, or just the ones that were popular between three- and one-thousand years ago?
Not sure what your 'preference' reference is to (l'm assuming whether you prefer God or not god?)
Pascal's wager is problematic as how do you know which God to make yourself believe in? What if you pick the wrong God? I also hold it is impossible to make yourself believe something. You are either convinced or not convinced.
I think both positions are not mutually exclusive.
Atheism is a negative answer to the question: “Do you believe in God?” whereas agnosticism is a negative answer to the question: “Supposing God exists/does not exist, can we have knowledge about God/the divine/God's non-existence ?”.
Even being an agnostic theist may not be incoherent, for instance: Nicholas of Cusa thought that God was essentially unknowable (he was agnostic, in that sense, about God), but he still was a christian (this of course is still problematic, since a christian must, in some sense, believe that we can have knowledge about God, even if through faith. But someone could say that God is unknowable and yet still be a deist).
One could object here, as Sade did, that it is impossible to believe in what one does not understand, but I'm not sure that's true.
Alternatively, agnosticism may be interpreted as the answer to the question: “do you know if God exists/ does not exist?”, and I think most atheists would reply: No, but I think it is very unlikely/implausible , since I haven't seen any evidence of his existence, and the arguments purporting to prove God's existence don't convince me.
There may be some atheists who would claim that they can prove that God does not exist with certainty, depending on how God is defined, because some definitions of God seem to entail logical contradictions, and, they would say, something that entails a logical contradiction simply cannot exist.
In my opinion, such a proof may not be possible, but that is a matter for another discussion.
What is real belief then? Belief that Mars is the 4th planet from the sun? That’s not belief that’s evidence. Scientific evidence. Belief is for another way of putting it faith…there’s nothing wrong with it…
Quoting Kenosha Kid
There are a few ideas definitely worth entertaining not because of implications but curiosity as to whether God exists which cannot be proven scientifically or theoretically…other interesting concepts which are worth entertaining is do we live in a simulation? It’s what philosophy is for.
For an analogy: imagine that you have gone walking in a freezing forest and you have gotten lost. And no one has found you for months, but somehow you've managed to survive, against the odds.
I am justified in believing you are dead, as is everyone else apart from.....you. Our evidence that you are dead is that you have been missing for months in a freezing forest. You too know that you have been missing for months in a freezing forest, but this doesn't provide you with good evidence that you are dead; for you have apparently cast iron evidence that you are still alive. Of course, if you subsequently encounter angels and such like in the forest, then it would start to become reasonable for you to believe that you had died as well. So, it all depends on what apparent evidence you have and its probative force.
Other things being equal - that is, you have no basic belief in God - then the default is not agnosticism, but atheism. To be agnostic at the outset is, well, silly. Just to assume there is some evidence God exists apropos nothing is not remotely reasonable. And the fact this world does not at all appear to be the kind of place God would create and place innocent people in, provides you with powerful reason to disbelieve in God.
So, you should start an atheist if you are reasonable. The burden of proof is squarely on the theist. And to think that the brute possibility God could exist provides you with some reason to doubt atheism is, well, unreasonable (anything is possible - but it is not reasonable to believe anything). At the outset you have no reason to think God exists, and apparently good reason to think God does not exist.
That should continue to be your position until or unless you encounter arguments for God's existence. If those arguments are valid and have premises that seem self-evident to rational reflection, then you should - if you are reasonable - start to take seriously that your belief that no God exists is open to reasonable doubt.
There are such arguments, of varying probative force. There is no question they exist, for they are discussed by philosophers to this day. But you should satisfy yourself of this by exposing yourself to them and seeing what your own reason says about them.
It is at that point that it would become reasonable for you to adopt an agnostic position. For now you have apparent evidence that God exists. Indeed, if you continued to be confident in your atheism you would have discovered that you are unreasonably committed to atheism. After all, being reasonable is not about what you believe, so much as the manner in which you believe it. And so if you continue to be an atheist despite being unable decisively to refute arguments for God's existence, then you have discovered that you are unreasonable.
Reasonable agnosticism, then, requires appreciating some of the force of the arguments for God's existence. Someone who thinks the arguments for God's existence are rubbish, but nevertheless calls themselves an agnostic is a bit of a twit. (Needless to say, this place is full of them). A reasonable agnostic thinks there's a good case for God.
If just one of those arguments appears to be valid and have premises that are far beyond any reasonable doubt, and you have sincerely attempted to refute it and failed, then it would be silly to continue to be an agnostic. For now you have the best evidence that God exists. Likewise, if the cumulative power of all the arguments for God raises the probability that God exists significantly over 50%, then you should stop being an agnostic and describe yourself as a theist. (There's more than one way a thesis can be proved - sometimes it is by one zinger of an argument, sometimes it is by a cumulation of weaker arguments). A reasonable person's beliefs are responsive to evidence: responsive, that is, to reasoned arguments.
Needless to say, above I am describing how I came to believe in God. The important point, however, is that agnosticism is not the default. You have to earn the right to be an agnostic - earn it, that is, by appreciating some of the probative force of the case for God. And it is an inherently unstable position. For God does not both exist and not exist. So either atheism is true, or theism is true. And yet the reasonable agnostic thinks the apparent case for both positions is roughly equally matched. They must at the same time, however, acknowledge that one set of those appearances is illusory.
There IS something wrong with "supernatural faith". In fact it's sinful if I may use the word. Perhaps there is a lesser condition where belief in God is needed for a moment. But for the most part supernatural faith (leaping towards God without evidence) is as inauthentic as positions attack by religious people (modern culture, ect). Believers nurse on their own consciences
I started off as an atheist that’s for sure but then some events happened in my life that convinced me that there was a higher power/intelligence which no philosophical argument could. But for the sake of this topic I just wanted to get a feel of this site which of course veers towards the sceptical and analytical approach when it comes to the God question.
What interests me and what I expect would interest atheists equally is understanding how someone could not believe in god and to the atheist how someone could. Then you have the agnostics right down the middle. I respect all three positions equally as they’re of equal merit and equally rational.
In my opinion the agnostic position makes the most sense and is the strongest out of the three even though I believe in God myself.
It isn't the strongest. The case for theism is the strongest. By far. If you think agnosticism is reasonable, then you must think that the case for God is about as strong as the case against, yes? Otherwise how is it a reasonable position?
Quoting Deus
I recommend undergirding your belief in God with rational arguments, for they're more stable. So long as your belief in God is based on some experience of yours, it is held hostage to your future experiences. You could lose it as easily as you acquired it - all it would take is a countervailing experience of similar or greater potency, or for your memory of the original experience to fade or disappear altogether.
If you understand that God exists on rational grounds, then one's belief is as robust as those arguments and does not depend on one's own psychology and experiences to the same extent.
That's more interesting to me as well.
Quoting Deus
Agnosticism has the strength of skepticism, which always wins, but it's not a victory that pays out much ultimately. No one lives as a skeptic, and you'd really liked it your success to have some relevance (which is why Davidson is trash).
Come to think if it, it's why AP in general is useless garbage.
Oh I have some grounds based on non-psychological experience. For instance the emergence of life or abiogenesis which is poorly understood to this day and age. Feel free to read
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
So far science has not been able to replicate the origin of life (abiogenesis) using the bottom up approach for the emergence of life but perhaps one day we will understand at least how life formed from inorganic matter to having the ability to self-replicate and pass on information using RNA. The chances of this happening by accident are astronomical but not 0. Then there’s the beauty of evolution itself with all its diversity predator prey and then us the toolmakers, hunters, farmers with that slice of divine spark. The evolution of consciousness itself - that huge gap from simple chemical reactions in thermal vents to consciousness - sure it took a few billion years yet here we are…then go before that to the formation of stars before life…it didn’t have to happen but it did so that’s why I lean towards theism this rise in complexity of life … there just had to be an intelligence agency that set the rules and laws in motion before backing off.
It's useful if you have a belief in something, but are pretty sure all religions are wrong. So, for the sake of communication perhaps agnosticism better represents your position to other theist. But, to atheist it really could go either way. I believe I 'saw' something, but any evidence would just look irrational; like free association or something.
There's always one, often two or more. They tend to be first threads of new members, and are never started by agnostics or atheists or other non-believers.
Folk tend not to come to discussions about god in order to have their ideas tested. More often they are looking to have their prejudices reinforced.
Amongst professional philosophers and there associates theism is overwhelmingly rejected. In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely tyhat those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads.
And it seems that the theists threads are dominated by 'Mericans. That's not a surprise, I suppose, since most members are American, from what I understand. But there appear to be vanishingly few loud theists form Europe, Asia or Australia. That would be in line with demographic trends, which show an anomalous preference for religious belief and practice in the USA.
I’m all up for listening to different viewpoints respecting differing opinions and ideas of course. As for having my faith tested … go ahead I’m willing to entertain all arguments without being zealous or evangelical in my attempts. Above all I’m up for a good debate and the intellectual challenge such a topic poses of course. Whether I have the ability to do so is another question but I do wish to improve my debating skills :) …
You’ve hit the nail on the head though, the theist does not want their ideas tested but I’d like to think I’m a better breed of theist than that
Although you state that most professional philosophers dismiss the god claim their best bet is really agnosticism or at least it should be rather than hard atheism…it’s more shall we say open minded and foolproof…
The thread is about argument strength. Have a little respect and address it or STFU.
That's not the case. A large majority are explicitly atheist.
It doubtless comes from understanding argument and logic well. It is very difficult to develop a coherent notion of god. Hence the need for theology.
If they changed their mind; would they say anything?
That's the god of the holes; invoking god to explain something for which there is at present no scientific explanation.
There's a few problems with it. Firstly it assumes scientism - the primacy of scientific explanations, and That might not suit your needs. Science makes the methodological assumption of physicalism, in self-consciously restricting itself to what we might call "physical" explanations. Thus it rejects god as an explanation for methodological reasons. There's a prima facie a contradiction, then, in supposing both scientism and god.
But more poignantly, if your aim is to base your theism on a firm base of rational enquiry, you will not find the firmness you desire in science. Consider the consequences for your theism should scientists tomorrow show a physical process that explains abiogenesis. If your faith is based on science, then to be consistent your would be obliged to reject your faith.
But of course, that's not what would happen. Instead, folk question the science, and do so to the point of inanity. See the evolution/creation debate.
Better to take atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists.
That leaves a middle ground of neither believing that god exists, nor disbelieving that god exists, for agnosticism.
There are two experiences on the side of scientists. First, many have been profoundly shocked by the miracles their methods accomplish. Moreover, few of them would deny that the more complex the world is seen to be the more they are amazed at the world, not at God (or whatever).
One axis has:
I believe God exists. (theism)
I don’t believe God exists. (weak atheism)
I believe God doesn’t exist. (strong atheism)
The other has:
I know that for sure. (gnosicism)
I don’t know that for sure. (weak agnosticism)
Nobody could possibly know for sure. (strong agnosticism)
You can mix and match your answers to both questions.
Usually by showing problems with the arguments that purport to demonstrate that god exists, then pointing out inconsistencies in the notion of god that render him logically impossible, and finally by rejecting the immorality that so often follows from theism.
You know this for sure?
Something for us to chat about in another thread, perhaps.
And the strongest argument from a logical standpoint?
If there is a god, shouldn't his presence be overwhelmingly apparent?
And indeed, theists often do make this claim, adding the corollary that atheists are being wilfully infelicitous (atheists lie).
This position, although fanatical, has the advantage of at least being consistent.
By definition, the results of science are not miraculous.
Yep.
Did not wish to invoke God but life arising from mere inanimate matter is a big leap for sure…and secondly thermal vents which started all sorts of wonderful chemical reactions to lead to simple organic life…these conditions were not there earth early on was full of lava. Yet planetary conditions allowed transformations to earths surface to happen. Where am I going with this?…Yes back to thermal vents…the odds of going from non organic rock to an organism that is able to self replicate …huge I tell you … so where does God come into this ? He doesn’t! What’s my point ? Exactly …just odds from rocks (non-life) to human beings all because of those thermal vents without invoking God at all, yet the atomic interactions between the different molecules ! Science …but how did this happen in the first place you ask…no God? Surely these elements were designed in such a way by a higher power to bind together and create something useful. Hydrogen and Oxygen combining together to form water? That’s useful … still though … God ? Nahhh
Did not wish to invoke that. Quoting Banno
Big Bang! We will never know nor have the capacity to know what happened before it. It’s not unreasonable to invoke a first mover.
Nor is it reasonable to attempt to entirely seperate knowledge and belief (@Tom Storm). Knowledge requires belief, in that you cannot know something you do not believe.
I don't agree. It arrises from my inanimate breakfast, for sure. Your incredulity is not an argument.
And we would do well to steer clear of the evolution debate, for fear of rendering the thread impotent.
As for a first mover, see this thread on causation: Causality, Determination and such stuff.
Good idea let’s stay clear of it … I have no further arguments to present here for my theistic beliefs without sounding silly I guess it boils down to faith and personal opinion whether you believe in God, are a smart arse Atheist or a Prudent Agnostic.
The Agnostics will never know, the atheist simply doesn’t and the theist is damn sure.
...and that's were morality enters the discussion, since we would then be considering what one ought to believe and how one ought to act. When faith is belief despite the facts, it is unconscionable.
I gather this thread is not going the way you thought it might.
One writer once wrote here that theism is "please spank me daddy" syndrome. A lot of the past has gone with the winds of time so physical explanations for life are tentative because it happened so long ago
You said it, Greg.
It seems to me there is no "better" and the "best".
Not knowing isn't the same as knowing. Whether that knowing affirms or denies.
There is simply the fact, or the non-fact (belief). Anyone that sets aside facts isn't reason-able, whether they affirm or deny
I agree.
So......let's get back to the intelligence of intelligences.
Is it not ? I don’t delve into the nature of the almighty his ways are mysterious. As to how a human being should conduct himself well that’s up to them … although compassion should be valued highly. Do good deeds not for the sake of reward and just remember Santa knows if you’ve been a good boy! Above all though do not preach nobody likes that.
Quoting Banno
An adult should have realised this by now, respect all. Value life recognise virtue do not feign affection be on good terms with all. Forgive mistakes give praise when it’s merited…enjoy life we only live it once.
Yes let’s! An omnipotence owes nothing to us especially proof to its existence…the proof is in the pudding.
Is that so? I had been told he loves us. Doesn't that involve his taking on some obligations towards us?
As is heresy.
Problem with that is the pudding is used to prove either argument.
Who told you that ? He’s a funny guy got a wicked sense of humour I tell you. If he told us he existed all scientific progress would come to a halt and we would be to dependable on him…this is the reason why there are so many atheists it’s all a bit hush hush. What’s love gotta do?
Alright., i have no investment in this game....so will remove myself.
Existence itself buddy where did we come from…poof pops the universe out of nowhere don’t you find it interesting. Bigger question…who created god how did existence itself come to be why is there something rather than nothing. How did it come into existence out of nowhere ? Very interesting questions to me
You suppose to know the outcome of God undeniably presenting itself to the world? Seems bold, like you imagine God thinks just like you. I think the atheists are being honest.
Theist all the way, although the degree of his involvement in his creation is sometimes questionable.
Just making an assumption I do not think the almighty would reveal himself to everyone all at once. Perhaps to the occasional individual.
Special pleading: in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.
Quoting Deus
There was never* a theist who claimed otherwise. But then the argument did not go their way...
*oh, except for @3017amen. But no one pays any attention.
But you stated it as fact and said it's the reason for atheist.
Questions are fine. It's the answers that are often the problem. Hence God of the Gaps.
I'm pretty happy with 'I don't know' for most of those currently unanswerable questions. Was there a starting point? Maybe not. We don't know. Was there nothing before something? We are not certain. We can't readily define what nothing is. Do all things have a cause? Maybe not. We can't say for certain.
To say 'God did it' has no explanatory power. It's using a mystery to explain a mystery. Might as well say the Magic Man did it. Or aliens...
I agree. And if God happens to be an emergent feature of the universe it would also be false.
Well, an inquiry into "facts" is ideal if anyone wants to borrow that word. Because often non-facts are confused or masked as facts.
Don’t worry I’m not a special snowflake who cannot handle opposing views in fact I like them and find them interesting to say the least. Quoting Tom Storm
Well this is what’s interesting about it our predecessor, God, who existed before we did. We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. My interest as a theist is not so much why he created us, he just loves it maybe, perhaps we are his first creation. What really spurs me on in my theism is understanding him who created him. I’m happy with I don’t know too
Really, if this was shown to be false you would stop believing?
and yet...
Quoting Deus
...bland assertion. Can you do better?
Not at all! My faith goes beyond that through first hand experience or religious experience which was refreshing to say the least.
What really interests me is how did existence itself came to be was god prior to it. What is he anyway ?
So, what is the point of leaning on this need to inject one's religion into a secular science?
Bland you say ? Let me spice it up for you. Let’s imagine the concept of eternity or eternal existence…no beginning no end … difficult to wrap my little human brain around … yet this is the possibility that we are facing we did not come from nothing and by nothing I mean the big bang there has always been something that has existed whether that be god or whatever you wanna call it. This eternal existence is fascinating it would have lead to an intelligence not much unlike ours but a few generations of big bangs ago before perhaps there was big bangs … there’s a theory I’m sure about this …cyclical big bangs.
Apologies …
I'm not offended just curious. If I had subjective undeniable evidence, then this whole "what part did God do" song and dance would be unnecessary. I think you are looking for a reason to believe it; or it appears as the case.
Not at all my faith is firm here I just enjoy a bit of written jousting.
Treating a belief in God as a bit of sport seems odd to me.
God is ok with that that’s all I can say. Odd though ? Probably
But now we are going off in the direction of arguments for god, not the distinction between theism, atheism and agnosticism.
Thanks I will look it up :)
Quoting Banno
Noted
You mean you are ok with it. "He" agree with everything you think?
Let's take a look at (Blaise) Pascal's (founder of probability with Pierre de Fermat) wager.
.......................God exists......................God doesn't exist
Theist............Infinite gain..................Finite loss
Atheist..........Infinite loss...................Finite gain
Being an agnostic implies the chances of god existing is 50/50. Given these odds, the expected value for a theist (+ infinity) is greater than the expected value for an atheist (- infinity). You should bet your money on theism and not atheism.
Agnosticism isn't as reasonable/rational as it's made out to be. That's because agnosticism hinges on possibility alone. Pascal's wager, because it uses probability (math), manages to produce a clearer picture of the situation, making a decision possible. The verdict is, agnosticism and atheism are guilty of crimes against logic!
Indeed sir, Pascal’s wager does it for the gain. I did not wish to get involved in that as a loving diety would not cause his creatures and doom them to non existence even if they were atheist hence me trying to avoid the wager.
My question is purely from a non gain perspective but rather a gain towards knowing his nature and that he exists if he does exist and present himself after we are dead if he decides to do so. He could if he likes decide not to present himself even to believers although i doubt that.
I am not condoning what's being said and done in this thread, not that it's important whether I do or not. Just clarifying. It's common to see people jump into bandwagons, steal the logic, arguments, and words one uses or makes....but you know when someone agrees to be fine with "non-knowing" then they shouldn't even be speaking about things as if they know. And then backtrack and say "oh i am fine with not-knowing". After spending a day going back and forth this kind of dishonesty is just silly. Don't you think?
On a more serious note, i think you will agree that "not-knowing" cannot be claimed by any TDH, as it requires one to exhaust the entire field and go beyond the frontiers by one's own effort. So it isn't a cheap and weak claim like "oh i am ok with not-knowing". Only someone that has exhausted the limits of knowing can make that claim, right?
No kidding.
The Eternal Basis has to be, for 'Nothing' cannot be, much less 'be' a source of anything, as you note, showing that its existence of the Eternal Basis has no alternative, in that existence has no opposite. This, then, seems to be a stable position based on the ultimate default condition, which we both accept. More defaults will come into play, such as that composites can't be Fundamental.
What is Eternal, then, has to be ungenerated and deathless, unmakeable and unbreakable. I would also note that there can be no design point for the Eternal Basis, given no Beginning.
…
For certain, 'God' cannot be so, as Fundamental, not an evolved Alien, for a Being who plans, thinks, designs, and implements requires a System of Mind—and systems violate the Fundamental Art in that they must contain parts that have to be more fundamental than the system. 'God' is a contradiction.
Not even a proton can be fundamental, for quarks are its composite parts, but a quantum field could be, as continuous waves oscillating.
Napolean said 'I feel like a rock thrown in time". The universe is not bound by philosophical ideas like necessity and contingency. Things have potential because of the actuality that they are. The world is the rock and we are the time.
Yeah, someone of that opinions is either a weak atheist or a theist, so it ends up just a grouping of two of the other positions.
I thought belief was key to salvation. That raises an important question in ethics :point: Belief In God Necessary For Being Good. The related issues are that of Original Sin and Divine Grace. All this implying the God Pascal's wager's about is the Christian God. Nevertheless, I don't think any God, Christian or not, would give us free access to heaven - we need to pay for the ticket and the accepted form of payment in all religions seems to be virtuous thoughts/words/deeds and for that, luckily or not, one might need to...believe.
Quoting Deus
Correct, however, Pascal's wager takes that - limits of knowing - into account. Hence, it's a probability argument, the very essence of this branch of math being about ignorance and how to tackle it in a rational way. If I claim I don't know if God exists or not, I mean that, mathematically speaking, the probability that God exists = the probability that God doesn't exist = 50%. Once we have a number, plug it into a formula and out pops the relevant result (see my previous post)!
I thought that us suddenly popping into existence :sparkle: was your sort of thing?
Well, who says we did anyway?
1. we already know that more complex can come about from simpler
(implicit here is some notion of ours of simple and complex)
2. complex coming about from more complex leads to an infinite regress, apparently a vicious rather than benign one
3. say, life from non-life, for example, is rational enough
People might have different attitudes towards, say, Sunnism and unassuming deism:
[quote=https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/554551]There's a worthwhile distinction to make here.
Stories: Here gods/God are various narrated characters, found in religious texts and such. These are more elaborate (and often include divine intervention), and adherents go by rituals, commands/rules, impositions, fate designations, they have public aspects (and advertising), etc.
Definitions: Here gods/God are defined by apologists, and definitions may vary. Some are results of apologetic arguments. Some do not differentiate, say, theism and deism, and some are more panpsychist or Spinozist (or whatever) than others.
The distinction matters because people have different attitudes towards the two.
Additionally, the former category is typically where we see social impacts, be it in politics or interfering in people's lives or some such, so these warrant more attention.
Also, you cannot derive the former from the latter.
I'd suggest setting out what's meant so as to anchor goalposts and minimize ambiguities.
[/quote]
Not sure why you are tagging me on a post which was clearly on a different context, and addressed to the OP, And also why you are asking me to see your previous post. Are you seeking a discussion. Because last time you tried that, i am guessing it didn't go well for you.
Who doesn't? Everyone is in it for something - a prayer answered, improving the circumstances of one's future reincarnation, a heavenly slot, improvement of one's social standing, reciprocation of love, etc.! Right?!
Neo: Whoa, deja vu.
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neo: Nothing, I just had a little deja vu.
.
.
.
Trinity: Deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.
Go back to what you are good at, i.e, posting videos about "enough talk, let's fight". Get a seat in the peanut gallery and watch the big boys.
:ok: You seem to be in a not-so-good mood. I'll leave you to cool off, if that's even possible. I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm on your radar but don't waste your time on people like me. I'm sure you have better things to do than that! Right?
Now that you put it that way, it's likely you have seen me share my thoughts on the subject matter of present discussion. It's few comments back, probably in the previous page.
As to using mathematics, i am not sure we have to be an educated idiot when we can use simple ways like observation and common sense to arrive at the same determinations. But it's just my take. Doesn't have to be anyone else's.
I'll go read your posts and will get back to you if I can pick up anything that might interest you.
Observation & common sense - killing combination, Sherlock!
Quoting TheMadFool
Isn't it? Purely elementary! Something educated idiots can learn about.
BTW sarcasm and wit, which yours truly can use if the need be, isn't a quality he cherishes or cares for. As it has the stench of subtle violence. Let's see if we can put that aside.
:100:
There definitely does not exist anything that should reasonably count as God, and most of those things could not possibly exist, although there definitely do or probably could (in different cases) exist a few different things some people might count as God anyway.
This doesn't tell us why you think agnosticism is better than atheism. If the underlined sentence is your reason, then I disagree. Depending on your epistemic situation (and I am not necessarily talking about gods here), it can be more reasonable to take a position, however tentatively, than to abstain from taking a position, or even renounce the possibility of any knowledge, as your suggested definition of agnosticism states.
If, while sitting in a chair, you announce that you have no idea whether there is a chair under you, and that moreover you cannot possibly know such a thing, anyone would think that you are out of your mind.
:ok:
It's not cool, manly, or macho to call people out for with subtle violence in your back pocket in discussions on a public philosophy board unless the other person is literally using this at you
Of course. And most likely that could be because of the historical accounts associated with Christianity, as Jesus was recorded in same. Just like many history books we read about someone, one can easily conceive of that existence pretty readily...
Others simply find no compelling reason to rule it in.
Based off these definitions, holding agnosticism as a position, especially one that is 'better' just seems like virtue signaling and pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk to get people off the hook from thinking further.
If the claim is "God" (and it's existence) is not known or can be known holding agnosticism as a interesting position seems more so a superficial getcha-back statement of some kind in response to atheists and theists, less a position communicating an intellectually interesting stance.
I question agnostics like this why they don't claim Ignoticism instead. What exactly are you 'questioning' that isn't self-defeatist [or superficial] if agnosticism is the position that 'X cannot be known, is not known, or unknowable' is known itself ... knowledge of X is unknown and unknownable, so?
I don't believe any posed gods exist but I can't know that no gods exist with maximal certainty.
Gnosticism speaks to knowledge.
But you do not think this can be demonstrated to others inductively or deductively (that there is a God). And you do not consider yourself completely free of doubt.
And in real life we have many such beliefs. All sorts of conclusions around other people, from employees to friends to romantic relations. We believe that Joe is less trustworthy than Mary, but we cannot demonstrate this (yes, in some cases we have evidence, but some we don't. And also the way we use evidence, often, is based on intuition. But then sometimes it comes down to vibe or other intangibles ((which by the way one can better at noticing than other people))). Yet, nevertheless we allow such conclusions to guide decisions and how we relate to people. IOW these beliefs that we do not, at this time, or sometimes ever, think can/will be demonstrated to be the case or even statistically more likely to be true
have real world effects.
I think sometimes in these discussions - not responding here to you - there can be this, often implicit idea, that one should never believe something that cannot be demonstrated to others. But then, we all have these beliefs. Most atheists and agnostics, at least those identifying as such and engaging in discussions would tend to, when waxing epistemological anyway, focus on science, and good deduction from generally accepted secular truths, etc. There can be an attendant illusion that they themselves do not believe things that actually do not meet their own posited epistemology. But, so far, I haven't met anyone who bases all their beliefs, including important ones like political ones, social and professional life beliefs, where in fact it is values, intuition, guesswork are actually at work.
Another way to put this is I think people are epistemologically eclectic. Which is fine, but it needs to be recognized.
Indeed, folk believe all sorts of inconsistent things.
If these beliefs affect one's psychological state and decisions and action foundation, then agnosticism wouldn't be better or more prudent, as it would give more confusions hesitations and uncertain feelings in his life? Whereas it would be simpler and more consistent and certain on one's daily life when one has strong beliefs on either God exists or not?
It would depend on the fact that whether it affects your dispositions, feelings and the way of living, or the beliefs are taken just as on the theoretical level, I would imagine.
Also, these beliefs are suppose to change through time depending on the individuals' life experiences.
From a purely pragmatic perspective of course, you are correct: agnosticism - in the sense of withholding or suspending judgment - is eminently the more sensible position.
Tell me what I'm missing, where my thinking goes wrong:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/562314 (re: whence agnosticism?)
Not being brainwashed as a child, usually.
I had absolutely zero religious training and I'm not even slightly inclined to atheism. My sense of incredulity at the magnificent complexity of the universe only reduces that further.
"usually", not "you, silly".
If you can couch your dilemma outside of those terms I can comment, but as it stands I can't say anything meaningful about it. :confused:
The idea of putting the conflict between realist and antirealist approaches to science aside is also a recurring theme in some accounts of pragmatism, and quietism. Regarding the first, Peirce ([1992] 1998, in “How to Make Our Ideas Clear”, for instance, originally published in 1878) holds that the content of a proposition should be understood in terms of (among other things) its “practical consequences” for human experience, such as implications for observation or problem-solving. For James ([1907] 1979), positive utility measured in these terms is the very marker of truth (where truth is whatever will be agreed in the ideal limit of scientific inquiry).Many of the points disputed by realists and antirealists—differences in epistemic commitment to scientific entities based on observability, for example—are effectively non-issues on this view
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PragQuieDialPara
This.
It’s far worse. Agnosticism rests itself on the possibility that god exists, which seems to me a crummy assumption.
Like I said, if you define god as "the most advanced sentient being in the universe" then god it is an absolute fact that god exists. That's a pragmatic solution. I don't buy into the whole realism/anti-realism argument. Not everyone does. If you are trying to say it's just me then you are the one who is out of touch with reality.
Not true; an agnostic is not going to waste time arguing against theists.
Indeed. How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? What can you not justify using an appeal to faith? It seems very weak to me.
Quoting Pantagruel
Isn't that just an old apologist's canard? I'm sure it is not intended this way by you but it has a patronizing tone to it. Atheism equals disfunction or disruption, rather than a genuine expression of freethought. My own experience of atheism here in Australia is that it's often the product of socialization. A secular non-religious culture breeds a secular, non-religious people. Despite this, I grew up in a religious context and was sent to a religious school. I never believed in God mainly because the idea never resonated with me. I never had any use for it. I still can't quite understand what the idea of god is for except as a debating subject.
Not in my experience. I have met many agnostics who debate Christians fiercely, not on the basis of God's existence but on the basis of how a believer can possibly know and why the Christian version not Islam, etc. Most agnostics I have known have found Abrahamic faiths absurd. They are more inclined to have a soft spot for deism.
What puzzles me is why people are so concerned about the metaphysical or religious beliefs of others. I think it must stem from insecurity.
They must be pretty stupid agnostics then since religious faith is based, as the term indicates, on faith not on knowledge. Or else, if they are smart they are arguing, not against theism, but against any claim to know that theism is true.
But is that because you are projecting or you have a need to denigrate what you don't understand? It just sounds like trash talk.
You're missing something. The issue is that beliefs cause harm to others. When, for instance Christians seek to change legislation - eg, abortion law, euthanasia, creation science in schools, climate science denial - you name it - and when they are supporting political candidates, they are justifying these high impact changes on the basis of an unproven entity. This is not cool. This is the key issue not private beliefs.
No, you are missing something here too. An agnostic is agnostic about the notion of a deity. That does not mean they accept the claims of any given religion about their God. Agnosticism isn't quietism.
If people argue against the incursion of religious ideas into the political realm they are arguing for separation of church from state, which has been the official reality since the Enlightenment in the West at least, and they are not (necessarily) arguing against theism as such.
Some Atheists operate on the basis that harmful ideas harm human beings. All myths of the Enlightenment aside, the reality is right now laws and society all over the world are being changed by religious folk with disproportionate power.
I have no interest in getting into a ceaseless slanging match on this and wish you well. Maybe just be open to considering that atheism is not necessarily the dysfunctional reaction you seem to think it is. And there's no need to call an agnostic stupid if they don't conform to your definition of the term. Feel free to have the last word. :pray:
I've have never yet encountered an atheist who did not treat atheism like a substitute religion, which is the ultimate irony, as I said. Yes, my comment was tongue in cheek. There may well be philosophically sincere atheists, and, if so, they probably do get drowned out by the noisy and offensive ones. If that's you, then I sincerely apologize. As I mentioned, I do think this tends to be more of a social than a philosophical issue.
What if God is the devil?
However I'm not sure how that applies to your question.
This comment of yours @Pantagruel should framed on the front of the website!
How do overzealous atheists not see their dawkinsism is just a secular religious substitute!?
The do say "love is blind".....
I personally don't do any of this because I live in a secular society. I am more likely to call out atheists for dogmatism.
Lol!
The psychologist in me says it's "hate that is blind"!
I hear you. But I still think that there should be freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
:up:
I think there are two reasons one might believe. The first is intellectual and in my opinion not a good reason to believe. It is, however, the reason we often find being argued - the necessity of a first cause or designer. The second is emotional, and although not based on reason, is reasonable, if one is led to believe because in some way it resonates with them, gives them a sense of security, or meaning and purpose. Practical consequences, however, may not always be reasonable when faith is used as a substitute for good judgment.
A Gnostic idea? Dystheism? or ...
Once reason understands the limitation of its own capability, it then realises that possible options available is either jumping into the abyss of faith, or be atheist.
doesn't logically follow from
Quoting Corvus
In fact, the opposite follows: if you understand the limitations of reason, you have good reason to doubt.
I think most things should remain in doubt. I feel 99.999999999999% confident that no intelligent deity created mankind or the universe (but 100% confident that the previous percentage I wrote was just made up). This is good enough for action. Action is predicated on certainty: confidence is sufficient.
Atheist are on their own, that is a tough position to be. Agnostics are in the dark, but have hopes. Theist are having it all too easy - all the answers are in God.
The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable.
Most of these opinions and beliefs don't even have a practical purpose, other than satisfying the mind with answers however uncertain they may be.
I know
I don't know
I don't know and I suspect or have a guess
I don't know and suspect to the point of being convinced
My question is when is it justified to go from suspecting or having a good guess to actually being convinced something is true without actually knowing it is for a fact.
to me it seems more reasonable to never be convinced until one knows for certain.
Edited to shorten and add better punctuation.
I work with a vast range of beliefs that I am convinced enough to make decisions based on, decisions that affect me and others. But I am not certain. There is a wide range of levels of certainty. And, for example, beliefs that seem unlikely to hurt someone either way, I give much more slack with. But have beliefs about individual people, people in general, politics, psychology, what it is that helps and hurts other people and much much more. And much of this is not based on science say, though some of can be influenced and perhaps slightly justified via science. I don't see a problem with this or how it can be avoided.
I want to say all beliefs. I think there's only so many options for any proposition.
I prefer to think levels of suspicion. Certainty I consider an absolute. I'm certain or I'm not. I can't be kind of certain, or 99% certain. If I have doubt, any at all, I am 100% NOT certain.
I would guess most of us have had an experience of thinking we were certain or at least totally convinced something was true and then found out we were wrong, so then on reflection we can't really say that we were whatever percent certain, rather we had 0% certainty and only a very convincing degree of suspicion of a truth.
I don't think certainty is necessary to make decisions, which I guess we agree on. I think it is very hard to avoid the illusion of being certain as well. I'm not sure if I would say such is a problem, actually I think problems are just subjective judgment on a neutral reality, but I do think it's an error of judgment and I'm trying to avoid it to the best of my ability.
I agree that some beliefs maybe more important to take the time to critically examine than others.
When it comes to philosophy I like to try to dig to the root issue and I think how does one know is pretty close if not to the root of philosophy while a lot of other questions are skimming the surface until that question is answered.
I agree. The problem as I see it is this notion that there is an absolute divine authority that has determined all matters ethical, and that by belief this authority becomes one's own.
Sure, atheists and most everyone else probably believe that harmful ideas harm human beings. And some religious ideas are unarguably harmful, and those ideas are arguably always fundamentalistic ideas, in contexts where faith has become ideology, where faith has been conflated with knowledge.
Can you give me any examples of where and what "laws and society all over the world are being changed by religious folk with disproportionate power" other than in the case of theocratic societies?
Also, I don't see this as a slanging match but a discussion being held (at least from my side) in good faith, on account of what seem to be honest disagreements. Surly you can countenance my disagreement without imputing bad intent on my part?
I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, just as I have said fundamentalist religious believers are stupid for the same reason. I have also acknowledged that it is not stupid to argue against fundamentalism in all its forms (although, it may be a waste of time since such arguments often fall on deaf eras).
I'm not merely concerned with having the last word, either.
Never said you were. It was just an offer since I wanted to move on.
Quoting Janus
Why be defensive? I have not said (or indeed concluded) anything about your motivations here, I said 'slanging match' - which implies we both do the 'slanging'. It's just a term. I'm not into lengthy back and forth arguments, that's all. They become tedious, as I fear this is becoming.
Quoting Janus
Thanks for the clarification. Given the predominance of fundamentalism all over the world - their huge influence in American politics (Trump/High Court/changes to laws and views about gays and trans and teaching evolution and threats to Roe versus Wade) I would say atheists have a lot of work to do in this space.
And yes I would count theocracies all over the world. Why would I not? You can't rule out state fundamentalism it seems to be an inevitable result of theism. These guys still believe in killing non-virgin brides and apostates and gay and trans people. And that's just some of it. Saudi Arabia, a key ally, still regularly executes gay people to say nothing of other vile practices.
We have an enthusiastic fundamentalist as Prime Minister here - do you think he doesn't see the world through that narrow lens? Foreign policy and legislation? Could that be why he isn't taking action on climate change? (This is rhetorical, I am not expecting an answer)
Quoting Janus
Partly yes. But you said they were pretty stupid for arguing against Christianity/Islam - a response to my comment. Agnostics I've known are often very critical of the truth claims and practices of religions.
The principle is simple. It is one thing to say you don't know if any kind of deity exists or not. It's another thing entirely (as Hitchens might say) to be neutral on specific claims made regarding a specific deity's views about morality; who you should sleep with and in what position; what country should win the war; what you should eat; what days you can work on; what counts as knowledge, the status of women; etc. Agnosticism doesn't have to make one a eunuch. There is a lot of harmful religious practice (not all of it fundamentalist) that demands a response even from the agnostic.
:up:
In a desperate quest for safety and meaning.
It seems more likely to me that the religious references to or implications of God are merely part of a political strategy, and not a genuine expression of belief. This strategy is fuelled by the constitutional freedom of religion and the constitutional demand for respect for religion. The religious have here an ace that the non-religious don't have. If you oppose what they say, they can accuse you of denying them their constitutional freedom of religion. This is how they can silence you, which was their goal all along. This is how the secular constitution is shooting secular people in the foot -- or more like, in the head.
Quoting Tom Storm
Don't forget that many people conflate faith, belief, and knowledge; they have little or no sense of perspective, subjectivity, or of the dichotomy of facts vs. opinions. (This is also why scientism can flourish among secular people, as witnessed in the covid vaccine hysteria.)
They have no training in criticial thinking (or at least none that would stick.) They reason in an entirely different way than someone who has had some of such training.
That's because you're not pugilistic enough. The idea of God has proven to be a very effective tool for fucking with people's minds, and thus render them silent, incompetent, or irrelevant.
Not from what I've seen. At least on internet forums, I've seen plenty of aggressive agnostics trying to fight it out both with theists as well as atheists.
But you're not a theist in any actual, established religious sense of the word. You couldn't go to a particular church, join the religious community there, and function well as a member, could you?
Quoting Pantagruel
Oh? And this means that they should first seek psychiatric help, and once they are cured of their trauma, only then proceed with their religious explorations?
No one is forcing you to particiapte.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't remember saying anything about Islam or specifically about arguing against Christianity. Perhaps you can cite what I wrote? Also I said it was fine ( not stupid) for agnostics to be critical of the truth claims and (harmful) practices of religions.
It would benefit the discussion if you read what I actually wrote, but if you want to cease discussing these issues that's fine with me too.
Quoting baker
Sure, but are they not fighting against unwarranted truth claims from both sides, a practice I have already acknowledged and agreed with?
I feel like I should be saying this to you given your responses. No matter. Maybe we can exchange views on something else later. All the best.
I think this defiantly happens. Good point.
Yep. This is a key point. Agnosticism is not necessarily a neutral position - it can be just as combative and critical of religion and god beliefs, not to mention atheism. And atheists are far from harmonious with each other.
Theist: "I suck on a cosmic lollipop."
Atheist: "I don't suck on a cosmic lollipop (maybe because cosmic lollipops are imaginary)."
Agnostic: "I don't know whether any cosmic lollipop is real or imaginary (so I don't know whether I should suck on it or not)." :roll:
Justifiable action is predicated on certainty. Affected belief is sufficient for action. Some of us just hold ourselves (and/or others) to a more rational standard.
Quoting 180 Proof
The agnostic acknowledges what you’ve alluded to by adding ‘maybe’ to the atheist position: that you cannot know whether ‘cosmic lollipops’ are imaginary or real. The atheist is adamantly refusing to suck on any ‘cosmic lollipop’, real or imaginary. The theist has chosen to happily suck on what they believe is the closest thing to what a ‘cosmic lollipop’ might be. The agnostic thinks you’re both a little loopy, carrying on about ‘cosmic lollipops’ as if ‘to suck or not to suck’ on something that may or may not even be real is an important, life-altering decision, and would rather just get back to it.
I would say that agnostics can be just as combative towards and critical of claims to logical justification, objective truth or certainty one way or the other. But I don’t find them so critical of beliefs as such - or lack of belief. Ignorance, actions and attitudes maybe, but not beliefs. I think this is an important distinction to make for agnostics. It can be easy to get lost in the binary form of a debate, though. Just because I’m critical of your perspective, doesn’t mean I’m diametrically opposed to it. It’s hard to recognise this when you feel so certain. And it’s equally difficult to concede this when someone claims such certainty.
Hmm - I would say that ignorance, actions and attitudes are derived from the beliefs; they are enmeshed. For instance:
"Gay people are going to hell - they are an abomination."
"Climate change isn't important; God will provide."
"We need to change the laws to protect the Christian worldview."
"Heretics and apostates should be jailed or killed."
The agnostics I know would vocally challenge these relatively common religious views of earnest theists. If we wish to substantively address ignorance, actions and attitudes, we need to challenge belief in literalist readings of holy books or the notion that God's will is known.
I'd just say that's false. That which is stated with justification etc.
Quoting Possibility
The irony is that believing any of your actions are based on a justification schema of certainty is completely irrational.
I think if you interviewed the best detectives, scientists, whatever, that they would be people that while trusting their intuitions, are also humble and skeptical of their abilities, which would be one of the reasons they have gotten so good. I don't know, btw, if we are going too far off from the thread theme. We can PM or start a thread if you want, unless you think this ties into the main theme?
Not true. Atheists won't shut the fuck up. At least agnostics have a respectable silence.
How can you speak for every agnostic? That is simply not true. You can be an agnostic about the existence of God while also believing that, if God exists, it isn't Yahweh or Allah.
Amen brother. Don't you guys even have money with 'In God We Trust' emblazoned on it? WTF? I guess it might be a cute way to deal with Matthew's injunction to not serve both God and mammon.
Beliefs and doubt are highly susceptible to affect. An affected belief or doubt can lead to ignoring or excluding contradictory information, and can block opportunities to increase awareness. But I think it’s an affected or blind commitment to belief in literalist readings of holy books, etc - the kind that motivates people to declare these statements of belief without entertaining any doubt, and then actively ignore, isolate or exclude information which disputes them - that can be more damaging than just belief alone.
I do recognise that most of us don’t feel the need to make this distinction, and define a belief as one stated or evident. I have a number of beliefs I’m not committed to due to insufficient reason, but nor am I prepared to exclude phenomena that supports them. For the most part, these beliefs are impotent in the light of reason, but I’m aware that they can show up in thoughtless or affected words and behaviour. I often mention these beliefs in discussions here to entertain doubts and contradictory information, and I’m not committed when I say ‘I believe’ or ‘I think’. This is how we continue to challenge our own thoughts and beliefs - by introspecting the role of affect.
I get that atheists prefer to simply exclude any beliefs that cannot be supported by sufficient reason. My issue is with atheists who attack agnostics for a lack of blind (or blinkered) commitment either to rationalised doubt or to unsupported beliefs. It suggests a niggling awareness of potential/value in phenomena or aesthetics they ignore or exclude on rational grounds - not that they might be ‘wrong’, just missing something. An agnostic position does not prevent speaking of or acting on either belief or doubt - but is also aware that phenomena and affect play their part in this. An atheist’s commitment to rationalised doubt is not as damaging as a theist’s commitment to affected beliefs, but they both increase ignorance, isolation and exclusion in their own way.
Quoting darthbarracuda
:up:
Agreed.
Oh, we push. The thing is that when you see us push, you imagine us as fellow atheists. And when we argue against your commitment to rationalised doubt, you imagine us as theists.
Agnostics ARE atheists. An agnostic doesnt believe there is a god, thats what defines atheism. The two terms are not even positions on the same thing. Agnosticism isnt a position in whether god exists or not, it is a position on what can be known about god.
Thus one can be an atheists agnostic.
Being against religion or the idea of god is not atheism, it is anti-theism. Many atheists are anti-theists and because of that people think of atheism as anti-theism but its not.
The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.
? Robert G. Ingersoll
I agree that the two terms are not positions on the same thing, and that some agnostics are atheists, but not all. I also understand that many atheists are not anti-theists, and don’t wished to be tarred with the same brush. If I have made this assumption, then it was not my intention. I think I have referred to ‘atheists who...’ to make this distinction, only because all anti-theists seem to identify simply as ‘atheist’, not as ‘anti-theist’.
As an agnostic, I do believe that ‘God’ is a suitable placeholder for a relational aspect of existence beyond knowledge. I believe this because I want to, because it makes sense in my affected experience. Can I then call myself an atheist?
I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness. But my understanding of this aspect doesn’t fit with the theist position, because I disagree that ‘God’ is a necessary being. Can I then call myself a theist?
Understood, I wasnt taking offence, just illustrating some distinctions I find useful. I actually am an anti-theist atheist but Im open minded to change either of those positions. I’m not attached much to the positions I hold. Most of them anyway.
Quoting Possibility
Don’t you find that using “god” as a placeholder carries a lot of baggage with it? It just seems easier to call it “existence beyond knowledge”, or “wonder” or “mystery” etc.
Anyway, I would probably call that atheism. You don’t believe in god but call existence beyond knowledge god, a theistic term for something non-theistic.
Quoting Possibility
Hmmm, harder to parse. What exactly do you mean by that first sentence?
Fair enough. Good to have you join the discussion, and I appreciate the probing questions.
Quoting DingoJones
When I strip that ‘baggage’ of association with any particular religion, it isn’t all that cumbersome. The placeholder is a way of connecting phenomenal experience through language. I suppose my use of ‘God’ fits more clearly with the discussions here. I find your suggested terms are more specific than simply using ‘God’ in inverted commas. When I talk about ‘God’, I don’t just mean ‘wonder’ or ‘mystery’ - these are different ways we can relate. And I don’t think that ‘existence beyond knowledge’ is non-theistic - I think most theists would relate to this as an aspect of their god.
I believe that the phenomenal experience I refer to as ‘God’ and what most people are talking about when they talk about a theistic god all refer to the same relation, they’re just describing a limited perspective of it. That’s not to say my own perspective is not also limited, but I won’t pretend I can accurately describe what I’m relating to. ‘The Tao that we speak of is not the eternal Tao’. It’s like an event horizon.
As to your question about my statement: “I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness.” By levels of awareness, I’m referring to dimensional awareness: our relation to ‘God’ is qualitatively different when we understand ourselves as physical matter (to the act of an eternal Creator), as a living creature (to the concept of an all-powerful Being), as a socio-cultural being (to the ideal of a caring, all-knowing Father) or as a reasoning mind (to the pure relation of goodness, or Love itself). I’ve found that in reading the bible, for instance, it’s possible to follow this progressively developing awareness of ‘self’ in relation to ‘God’, regardless whether or not we believe anything that’s written (it’s all opinion and here-say, after all). It seems obvious to me, then, that the developing Old Testament concept of an all-powerful Being would appear petty and uncaring to a reasoning mind.
But this way, we're attacking the theists' constitutionally given freedom of religion.
How do you propose to get around that?
But are those truth claims really unwarranted? How can we possibly know?
Goldilocks: Too hot!
Should I now become an atheist? No if you don't want to commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (argument from ignorance). [s]Atheism[/s]
Goldilocks: Too cold!
This logic (above) applies in full if the situation were reversed and we had begun with attempted proofs by atheists.
We simply don't know whether God exists/not. Agnosticism is purrfect!
Goldilocks: Just right!
Quoting Possibility
They might relate to that aspect of god but they would have more definitive qualities, more qualifiers, than that for god. “Existence beyond knowledge” is generic and unspecific enough to apply to more than just a god concept and so if you are using only that as your criterion for “god” then you aren’t qualifying a theistic definition of god, you aren’t reaching minimum requirements for a theistic god despite having this generic trait “existence beyond knowledge” in common.
Quoting Possibility
Lot to digest there, thanks for the explanation.
Agreed. Perhaps I just continue to use ‘God’ because it keeps me connected to the overall journey - to my journey, in particular. I think that’s important, too. Thanks for your thoughts.
Likewise, thanks.
To be counted as warranted a truth claim requires either corroborable empirical evidence or logical necessity.
SP
SP
I don't think so. Waffle.
Thanks for elaborating your ideas. I guess we differ on the question of individual certainty. If someone says that they believe a thing I'll accept that they do. Ditto with unbelief. I don't think people need to articulate an ontology of the transcendent to be called a believer.
Have you read much phenomenology?
Take prayer for instance. The decision to pray or not is a question of whether you believe God exists or doesn't. Being an agnostic - to hold that one doesn't know if god exists or not - can't in any way help to take a stand on prayer.
It appears that agnostics are in some kind of ontological cum epistemological limbo that precludes any sort of decision-making on other related beliefs/actions.
Thus, necessarily that the agnostic has to pick a side - become an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
It's kinda like not knowing what's inside a cage, recently arrived from Africa. Is there a full-grown, hungry, lion inside it or not. That uncertainty will not allow you to decide how to deal with the cage and its contents. You'll have to assume either that there's a lion or not to inform your approach towards the cage. In other words, being agnostic about what's inside the cage is a dead end insofar as your subsequent actions are concerned. You'll have to be either a lionist or an alionist.
Not yet, I just keep my eyes open, and use common sense. If saying aren't in line with emotional reactions, I would seriously reconsider whether that they know what they are talking about. If the emotional harmony is given with the spoken words, I'm ready to believe that they believe that they believe anything. We can never be sure of anything.
SP
Would be necessary indeed in certain situations. However, the strangest agnostics are the solipsists. According to this there may not be anything outside of your own mind. The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
SP
Agnosticism CAN be used to guide our actions, make decisions, etc - it’s just not as obvious to everyone else.
Why should we take a permanent stand on prayer? Does it make a difference if I take a moment to declare my private wishes to the open possibility of existence, or to any potential or actual being that I believe will hear me?
The agnostic picks a side based on the sum of experience at the time. Being an atheist/theist is like assuming there’s a lion in the cage or not, and stating this claim well before approaching the cage. The agnostic stays aware of changing conditions, and is open to continually revising their prediction on approach.
II get what you are saying but 'm not convinced by this. I think that metaphor is off the mark. For one thing, lions exist and we can readily test if they are in a cage or not.
You either believe or you don't believe. The 'don't know' option doesn't address belief, it addresses knowledge - a separate dimension to this matter. Like many others I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I am agnostic about its existence.
But in the end labels are not all that important. Most agnostics are effectively atheists in their lifestyle - there is no contemplative prayer, no devotional ritual or worship, no transcendent experience of being or bliss. Some agnostics may well be more open to theistic possibilities than some atheists, but I doubt the distinction is useful. There are atheists I know who are into astrology and fortune telling. It's a broad church. :joke: I'm certainly open to revising my views on theism if the evidence/information changes. Or if I change. Not all atheists are Richard Dawkins...
How do you make decisions when you don't know (something)?
Say you don't know whether it'll rain tomorrow or not. How will you plan for the morrow? You have to assume either that it'll rain or not, right?
Quoting 180 Proof
:death: :flower:
I agree with you - the metaphor wasn’t mine, I was just messing with it.
Quoting Tom Storm
The point is that we don’t have to know - it doesn’t stop us from making decisions or from acting as if we believe one or the other is true.
Quoting TheMadFool
There’s no final decision either way to be made here. As you say, either it’ll rain or not. You can plan for only one outcome, taking a calculated risk, or choose to include both possibilities in your plans. And all of this regardless of what you believe, which could well change every time you ask yourself the question, or check the forecast. Why lock yourself into a plan until you have to?
And to make my phrase less intimidating, I don't say trust me. Instead believe me:)
SP
If there is a god, shouldn't his presence be overwhelmingly apparent?
What about the world and all creatures living in it?
It follows when one says, God does not exist, it it "same meaning as God does exist."
Ëxactly! :)
It is impossible to be an atheist but in the other hand, it is "possible" to believe in something you do not have proofs about as God.
The world does not show us proofs or principles to believe in God at all... It is just our interpretation about life and beliefs about what could happen after death.
"The world does not show us proofs or principles to believe in God at all"
What about the world itself? God(s) created it and the universe being there is proof of that.
There is no proof that God created the universe.
The existence of it is proof.
Universe and earth exist and can exist even without the human awareness. I mean, we are the ones responsible of giving them a "meaning" beacuse humans tend to search what is going on around us. But both Earth and Universe will be there without depending on humanity's existence.
"Universe and earth exist and can exist even without the human awareness. "
I didn't say they couldn't. I said their existence is proof of God(s).
Which is not to say I need god(s) in whatever I do. They cant tell me what to do, they can't tell me what's right or wrong, they dont inspire me, and they can't tell me or know what's in store, or how to think, etc. I can curse them, talk to them whenever I want, and they might even listen to all of us. But I wont go to hell, that's a place I don't want to go. Nor heaven. I just wanna come back in a new universe and god(s) provide...
According to this argument... Why the universe is not a proof of human's awareness?
"Why the universe is not a proof of human's awareness?"
Human awareness indeed shapes the universe. It shapes the perception of it. There is not a true shape to create a true perception. Perception and reality are interdependent. But this whole process of percept and shape is a process that is part of a universe created by god(s).They didn't shape the world in a fixed form. Even the Aboriginal dreamtime is a part of it. The big question is though where the gods themselves came from and if we really need them .I don't.
No, this is the big question here: is there really anything considered as God (s)?
I don't know if "we need them" I think as you I guess not but with this argument we lose faith in humanity and their behavior. To be honest, I understand it because I lost it too but I do not need "Gods" to explain what is going on.
To be a genuine atheist, one has to be silent, when asked "Does God exist?"
Sorry if my reply was not appropriate. I will not involve in debates nobody asked me to again.
Your reply was appropriate. Don't feel like that.
I was just trying to elaborate more in Wittgensteinian manner on the argument. :)
It seems I've failed to make my point. If you don't know whether it'll rain or not tomorrow, what do you plan to do the coming day with your umbrella or Mackintosh?
Nonsense. You "know about" Sauron, don't you? And "about" Klingons too? Also "about" Zeus? (vide Meinong.) Every (mono)theist "knows about" at least one other g/G she doesn't worship which she "knows does not exist". I only have to disbelieve in any g/G which you believers say you believe in and thereby define as real. So define your g/G (i.e. select a deity actually worshipped by any religious tradition), claim it is more-than-imaginary, and I will show that that claim is untrue (by falsifying whatever its predicates entail) or show that that claim is incoherent (i.e. too vague or self-inconsistent to make sense as a claim); and therefore demonstrate that such a g/G is only an empty name and an untrue belief.
Quoting Corvus
On the contrary (pace Tillich), a freethinker replies If there is sufficient evidence to rule out that nature alone suffices to account for nature itself, then g/G, or something like it, must exist. According to apophatic theology, however, "one has to be silent" iff g/G exists.
"is there really anything considered as God (s)?"
Yes there is. Really.Is there really only the universe we live in? No. There are gods, dreamtimes, walhallas, quarks, leptons, curved spacetimes, Calabi-Yau manifolds, nirvana, witches, shamans, ghosts, vampires, dadaist programmes, field fluctuations and virtual particles, art, poetry, photographs, a zillion languages (though that number is decreasing rapidly to be taken over by English and math, the allegded native tongue of Nature), Bessel functions, hidden variables, untrue Higgs mechanisms, rishons, lies and deceptions, Tavistock manufactured shocks, deliriums, drugs, visions, dreams, jealousy, parables, allegories, computers, quantum fields of gold, musical trance, false flags and black ops, conspiracies, trains of thoughts, solitude, moonlight drives, strange little girls, Siouxies, Aboriginals, Hopi (though less and less, psychoses (maybe drug induced), euphoria, fears, mosques, temples, proofs, etceteras, and many more. If that is no proof of god, I don't know what is. What is a proof of god? An actual encounter? Who would believe you? Mozes spoke to him. Received messages. There were even mass revelations. But normally they don't show themselves. Especially in these days. They showed themselves to the old Greek untill the One-entity, this monster of Xenphanes replaced them. Still around today...
Quoting Prishon
Taking that: :death:
Quoting Prishon
You think Mozes was high on dope?
I don't know anything about God you listed. I was just demonstrating the logical argument, and it proved with the conclusive truth. It could have been about any object X. It was just a logical argument.
The fact that you have written down "God" means that you are a theist according to the conclusion of the argument. Even if you say that you will try to disprove it as empty concept, you have already proved that you know it exists by writing the word "God".
If you really did not believe it existed, then there would be nothing to say about it, even the name.
No need to thank me, Corvus, it's par for the course.
It is so simple. Don't try to complicate it.
You believe something, then you must know it. You cannot believe something that you don't know OK?
For you to know something, the thing must exist. You cannot know something not existing.
Therefore even if you say I believe that X doesn't exist, you are admitting X exists, when you utter the statement. You are contradicting yourself by uttering the statement.
My logic is semantic? All logic is semantic. Reason is semantic, and without language we are just zombies.
No. But it is a more cowardly position.
You are a believer just as well. You believe they dont exist or dont bother. You believe that only a smaller part of the world is important for you. And rightly so. Realities are different. There is not one true and only reality.
Clearly, Prishon, you have the same problem as Corvis.
[quote=Prishon]There is not one true and only reality.[/quote]
Tell me how you know this to be the case. :chin:
And what is rationally warranted may well (and very probably does) differ depending on what form of theistic god-claim we're talking about: are we talking about the god of evangelical Christianity, based on a literalist reading of the Christian Bible? The remote, impersonal god of deism, or some forms of philosophical theism? Pantheism? Something in between, or something else entirely? Its not a given that the answer will be the same in all cases.
I'd suggest that atheism is the more rationally warranted (i.e. more consistent with the evidence) wrt the creator-intervener God of popular Abrahamic monotheism (Christianity in particular), but agnosticism is more rationally warranted wrt more vague and abstract god-concepts posited by philosophers and theologians (i.e. Aristotle's First Mover, Spinoza, Kant, Tillich, etc etc) for which there is little empirical evidence either for or against.
It seems so. Another poor analogy, I’m thinking.
I’ll take my umbrella with me, obviously. That doesn’t mean I’ll be upset if I don’t have cause to use it.
My point is that I fail to see the necessity of permanently locking in one belief or another. The only reason I can think of is that it renders my actions more predictable for others. There is an overall pattern to my actions in some areas of life that could be interpreted as a belief in God, and others that could be construed as atheism. But I don’t think the apparent contradiction is my problem, really.
If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
So, not knowing whether it'll rain or not tomorrow means you'll take your umbrella.
What about if you know it'll rain tomorrow. You'll take your umbrella, right?
Being agnostic about tomorrow's precipitation status is the same as knowing tomorrow will be a rainy day. What's the point of being an agnostic then? After all, an rain-agnostic taking the umbrella is equivalent to assuming it'll rain and doing the same.
Quoting Possibility
This isn't an analogy. It's a real-world example of how being agnostic won't cut it when it comes to decision-making.
Quoting Possibility
:up: :ok:
Oversimplification, but I’ve come to expect that from you. It’s only ‘the same’ with regard to the specific decision to take or not take an umbrella with you.
Quoting TheMadFool
Won’t cut what? Being agnostic is, by definition, not knowing. That doesn’t stop me from either acting or making decisions. We don’t act based on knowledge alone, nor do we act based only on belief systems. We relate knowledge, beliefs and ongoing sensory information (and lack thereof) to determine action in an ongoing predictive process, which includes (among other elements) a consideration of alternatives as well as how much time/effort/attention we have available before any decision may be irreversible.
Granted, being a theist/atheist would make some decisions seem easier to make, but are arguably less accurate. A stopped clock is correct twice a day; the rest of the time it’s subject to a variable degree of inaccuracy. It’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook, I suppose.
I just no longer think the question definitively answered by atheists/theists is a useful one to ask. The useful question isn’t “do you believe it will rain tomorrow?” but rather “do you believe you should/will take an umbrella tomorrow?” That one I will have an answer for.
Correct the scenario then - make it better, add/delete as it seems fit; remember, you have to be agnostic about some claim and make a decision based on that uncertainty, then compare that too how you would make the decision based on knowing i.e. you have to be certain about whatever it is that you're agnostic about.
The ball, I sense, is in your court, Possibility!
It sounds like you are rejecting logical argument. Philosophy devoid of logic? cannot be philosophy.
Aye, there’s the rub. There is no way to be certain in making a decision without some degree of ignorance/exclusion. As I said, it’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook.
Assume, Possibility, let's go hog wild, you're totally uncertain, say God's existence is 50/50. Do you pray or not? Why?
Theism is acceptable, as it's wholly acceptable that one has an interest in God.
Atheism? What's that. Theism doesn't preclude an interest in science or humanity.
Atheism doesn't seem to preclude an interest in dogma or fighting.
It's just the staunch belief that this one particular possibility can't, in any form, exist.
If I pray to God Im 100% certain He exists. I dont pray (I dont care about Him). But if I did I would do it with full conviction. Not while thinking there is a 63% chance he doesnt get my message.
Well, that depends on a number of other factors. Not least of which is: what would count as ‘prayer’?
You see, I could believe in God’s existence, and still decide to not pray. Or I could behave in a way that I consider to be along the lines of prayer, yet some theists would be of the opinion that it isn’t prayer. Or I could not believe, and yet communicate with an awareness of possibility in the universe that would have some theists claim that I’m ‘really praying’.
But to keep it simpler, I don’t pray in the conventional way I was taught to, but I do sometimes put my thoughts or desires ‘out there’ with a vague sense that this can make a difference in some situations. At the very least, it orientates my sense of self in relation to existence.
But that’s probably not the answer you were looking for.
Quoting Prishon
That’s a choice you make, sure. I’ve had the luxury of gradually deconstructing my belief system. So, yes, there have been times when I’ve technically prayed - with about 63% certainty that anyone might be listening.
But perhaps you aim to do everything with 100% conviction, because that’s just how you see the world. My son is like that. The difference between his perspective and mine is a bit like a particle and a wave.
I think that conviction is different to certainty, though.
In the article you linked to one can read:
Many of the mistakes we make when we experience emotions are due to the illusion of certainty they create. High adrenalin and cortisol emotions, particularly anger, create the profoundest illusions of certainty, due to their amphetamine effects. Amphetamines create a temporary sense of confidence by increasing metabolic energy production, while narrowing mental focus and ignoring or discounting most variables that might invoke self-doubt. That's why you feel more confident after a cup of coffee than before it. It's why feel convinced that you’re right and everyone else is wrong when you're angry.
So when Im angry Im the more convinced that what I think is certain (or when Im euphoric maybe). But when the anger (or euphoria) is *caused* (how I write Italics?) by me being certain or uncertain about something its a different matter.
I believe that thinking there is no way to be 100% certain is a belif too. Consider me to be the particle in the QM wave. With hidden variables though. And you are the wave (nice analogy!).
(e.g. @Possibility – You don't know whether or not it will rain tomorrow; but, though it's not raining, do you or don't you take an umbrella with you in the morning?)
I fail to see how 'agnosticism' is anything but a distinction without a practical (i.e. moral or epistemic) difference.
So certainty is about (potential) information you have in qualitative relation to (potential) information you don’t have, whereas conviction is particularly about your own behaviour: what you (should) do in qualitatively relation to what you (should) don’t do.
Quoting Prishon
I want to clarify here that I did qualify this: not without ignoring or excluding information.
P.S. I like the ‘hidden variables’ edit!
Quoting Deus
It is very good that you brought up definitions of both. Few do, even if the terms in most of the topics shout for their (own) definitions! :smile:
Now, let's see ... The atheist simply does not believe in (the existence of) God (or a "god"). This is quite justified and logical, since its existence has not been proved, or at least, not in a commonly acceptable way. On the other hand, the agnostic holds that nothing is known --this is too evident!-- or can be known about the existence of God. See, he also adds the impossibility to ever know anything about God. So, in a way he does rule out his existence, contrary to what you state. And with this, he also gets into a logical trap: you cannot claim that nothing can be known about something that is not known!
So, I personally like an atheist, more than an agnostic! :smile:
Agnostics don't get into the logical trap, because their attitude is open, not decided and subject to further thoughts and investigations for the matter. The logical argument on the atheists was my own logical reflection, which has nothing to do with agnosticism. I was not arguing from agnostic point of view at all, but it was just my own passing logical argument, and it has nothing to do with agnostic.
Obviously the poster saying that agnostic is in logical trap is confused with the whole thing for some reason.
Agnostic is a better position to be, because it is opening the possibility for further investigation and changing their views in the future depending on the personal experience, change of thoughts through reading and discussions, personal feelings and / or logical reflections on the topic.
Hi!
I have responded to your topic --you asked "What are your thoughts?"-- but I I have not received a response from you ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/583919
This isn't anything special or unique to agnosticism, there's nothing about atheism or theism that prevents one from investigating further or changing ones view if warranted by the evidence. One can be atheist or theist, and open-minded, or agnostic and closed-minded. They're just separate things.
And this idea that agnosticism is somehow more rational or warranted because it occupies the middle-ground, so to speak, reminds me of the fallacious bothsidesism we see in political discourse: i.e. the assumption that the truth or most rational position lies precisely in the middle. But sometimes, maybe even oftentimes, one side is just wrong. And its certainly possible with the case of theism. Especially certain forms of theism: evangelical literalist young-earth creationist Christianity, for instance, is just flatly wrong, conclusively disproven by the empirical evidence (evolutionary, geological, cosmological, etc). Being agnostic about the existence of such a deity would not be rational or justified, because the evidence very clearly and unequivocally supports one side over and against the other.
There might be certain god-claims or conceptions of deity that do warrant agnosticism... but by no means all, and this is by no means a given in general. You have to take them case-by-case.
Doubting theist? Unsure atheist?
But the definition of theist means that they are the ones who are fully committed to believing in God.
Atheist means the ones who do not believe in God.
If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists. Unsure about their own belief that God does not exist are not atheists either. In real life, these are possible, but clearly they are contradictory, which are unfit for logical discourse.
[b]Why agnostics have to be viewed as the middle position only? It is not some geographical concept.
Agnostics can be also dualists, who can believe and at the same time disbelieve in God. It is the privilege that only agnostics can take. [/b]
Because agnostic means, doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding any subject of dispute.. Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.. The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.. The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable.
Uncertainty doesn't mean either belief in the existence or nonexistence. Its position is uncertain, not in the middle. This is only applicable concept to the agnostics.
We are not particularly talking about only Christianity here. It would be God in general sense. You would need another separate thread to discuss what God is.
No, nothing about the definition of theist or atheist says anything about their level of commitment, certitude, or open-mindedness. These terms denote a certain belief (or disbelief): either in, or against, the existence of God. One can hold that belief with varying levels of commitment, certitude, or closed/open-mindedness, without being any more or less a theist or atheist.
This is a self-contradiction. A doubting theist is still a theist. "Doubting theists are not theists" is trivially/logically/definitionally false: you said it yourself, they're a doubting theist. So they're a theist... one with doubts.
And yes, we are talking about specific cases, including the example of evangelical literalist Christianity. Because, as I mentioned, some cases of theism may warrant atheism, while others do not: wrt the literalist young earth variety of Christianity, agnosticism is not warranted- atheism is. There's no reason to think either theism, atheism, agnosticism must be most rational or warranted across the board, and every reason to think it will vary from case to case, which is the more appropriate position for a given variety of theism or god-concept.
Where did you get the doubting theist definition from? Where does it say theist are people who doubt?
Just screaming out "This is self-contradiction" is not making sense.
We are talking about the OP. Not every religion in the world. If you want to extend it to this far, then I tell you read the OP again. It is not clear which religion he is talking about. It is vague. We must assume that the OP is talking about general God in philosophy of religion. If you want to talk about a particular religion, then you must start a separate topic for the religion.
Quoting 180 Proof
:chin:
Its explicitly a self-contradiction. "A doubting theist is not a theist" is like saying "a doubting racecar driver is not a racecar driver". If they're a doubting theist, then it follows necessarily that they're a theist. And there is no definition of "theism" or "atheism" that says anything about varying levels of commitment or certitude. Theism is a view or belief. People can hold beliefs, to varying degrees of commitment or certitude, or with varying levels of open-mindedness to reconsidering that view, and theism/atheism is no exception. You're conflating things that are completely separate- whether one is a theist, and how committed, certain, or open-closedminded they are about their theism.
I think you are self-contradicting yourself grossly. In no reference of history, theist is the people who doubt. Theist is people who believes. Not doubt.
He can doubt of course he can, but then from the moment he is not a theist.
And I never said anything about "every religion in the world". We're talking about theism. And theism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of views that differ greatly in the content of their claims, and the available evidence for/against those claims.
Given this diversity, its not clear whether (and actually fairly implausible to suppose that) the most appropriate position wrt one form of theism (say, evangelical young earth Christianity) will also be the most appropriate position wrt another completely different form of theism (deism, for instance). Chances are, what is the most appropriate will differ from case to case, such that e.g. atheism is the most appropriate response to one type of theism, while agnosticism is more appropriate to others.
You didn't have to bring out Christianity into this thread. Or were you intending to confuse?
I mean c'mon, this is literally freshman level logic here. A doubting theist is a theist. If they aren't a theist, then they're not a "doubting theist". Are you even thinking about what you're saying at this point?
What? Are you a good bad man? Is it not self-contradictory? Does it sound freshman level logic enough to you?
Yeah I am saying that it was not relevant.
Yes, whether a doubting theist is a theist or not is definitely freshman level logic: this is a logical truism, a tautology. Replace "theist" with any other word. If you can't understand such an elementary point of logic, I'm not sure what you're doing on a philosophy board.
Do you honestly not see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"? :roll:
theist
/??i??st/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
"I am a hardcore theist and the person most close to me is my God"
adjective
denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
"most atheists were were raised in a theist tradition"
Where does it say doubt? Where does it even suggest doubting?
I'm saying it is relevant, and gave an argument why; different forms of theism warrant different responses.
If you can't rebut the argument, or provide a counter, then merely saying its irrelevant doesn't mean anything.
But answer the question: do you see the word "theist" in the phrase "doubting theist"?
You said theist doubts. Not me.
This is not logic. I am not sure what you are after.
You said theist can doubt, so the definition theist believes in God is self-contradictory. I am saying you are just trying to break the formal concepts.
Do you think you are in some TV game show?
Just screaming out self contradictory for everything you see is not philosophy or logic.
All you ever try to do is just breaking and distorting the formal concepts, then reasonable discourse is impossible with you.
Agnostics don't know. (They can and must doubt, because they are not sure.)
Atheists don't believe. (They don't doubt. They have nothing to doubt about.)
Theist do believe. (They must not doubt. If they doubt, they are not theist.)
The whole thing is about belief here. Indeed who is the agnostic you have been talking about?
Your division seems a bit "just so" and contrary to how most people would understand the interaction of belief and certainty.
"I believe X" is a statement of sentiment, i.e. that the utterer assents to the truth of a proposition.
"I know X" is statement of sentiment to the extent it can be reformulated as the claim "I believe I know X", but it is more importantly a claim about epistemic warrant, i.e. that the criteria for knowledge of the utterer are met.
"I believe my mother is my mother" is a sentiment.
"I know my mother is my mother" is a claim.
Depending on definitions, it may be that your mother is not your mother, e.g. you were stolen as a baby and raised by someone pretending to be your mother in a context where all available evidence indicates that she is your biological mother despite her not being so.
On the one hand, the epistemic claim is prone to intersubjective analysis (or even self-analysis) in-so-far as we can both identify the epistemic criteria and the facts/claims/etc. relevant to that criteria and make our own decision about whether the utterer knows his mother is his mother or not. That is to say, we can respond "You are wrong!" to a claim of knowledge, but not to a claim of belief (though we could question the accuracy of the self-report of belief). Both of these things are aside from certainty.
"I am certain x" is a sentiment about both knowledge and belief.
When one is certain, one is stating their belief that both a) they assent to the proposition "X is true" and that b) they assent to the proposition that "There are no further factors relevant to my epistemic criteria that could change my claim to knowledge." Again, this is the sort of thing subject to analysis such that at the end we can say, "Despite your certainty, you were wrong."
As this relates to atheism and theism and agnosticism, earlier posts have variously touched on these themes. Atheists and theists are generally making a statement of belief, i.e. "I do not believe in X" or "I do believe in X" without necessarily expressing their claim as to epistemic warrant for belief or claims of knowledge or their belief as to whether additional information is available that would change their evaluation of knowledge.
An agnostic seemingly withholds belief as a result of their commitment either to belief only in the face of certainty or belief after sufficient epistemic warrant to claim knowledge. In some cases the agnostic makes the claim that there can be no factors which are relevant to epistemic analysis and so both knowledge and certainty are impossible. Regardless, the lack of certainty is not a feature exclusive to the agnostic.
Consider a much less loaded case - you are sick and wish to see a doctor. You may very well have doubts about whether the doctor can help you and you are far from certain that they will, and yet you believe that the doctor will help you.
Sure EE. A good post. I like your points backed up by the argument.
I see your points.
But my reply to that point would be, religious beliefs are not the same class as the sentiment or epistemic beliefs or knowledge.
I feel that religious beliefs are more stringent beliefs than normal beliefs, because they arrived at the beliefs not by their sentiments or epistemological evidence. They are likely to have arrived at their beliefs via personal religious experiences or some form of mental events that is more than simple sentiments or epistemic evidence. Or maybe some theists must have read, studied reflected and reasoned into their faiths. But whatever way they have reached there, their beliefs are far higher level than the normal epistemic knowledge or sentimental beliefs.
Simply seeing all the beliefs as same type is just not right and not meaningful at all for the argument.
If you read Kant, I think his view on the religious faith is that one must take a transcendental leap which is powered by the practical reason in order to see God. It is a totally different class of belief and faith you need in order to be able to say, I believe in God, to saying I believe it will rain tomorrow, or I believe my book is in the living room.
So, no I don't agree with your points and suggestions on the topic.
:nerd:
Though there is some romantic appeal to the idea that beliefs arise from some sort of mental evaluative process, I don't think that I agree, especially when it comes to things like "God".
Whatever Kant thinks about the topic, a six-year-old believes in God long before they would say "I believe it will rain tomorrow." People are socialized to certain sorts of belief and engaging with those beliefs as if they arise from abstracted naval gazing is off.
For my part, finding useful distinctions of belief is related to the context. When discussing what is meant by "I believe in God" by the average theist or "I don't believe in God" by the average atheist or "I don't know if I believe in God" by the average agnostic, trying to parse between belief that stems from higher thought or lower thought is neither the difference between the views nor relevant to the way by which the holders of the views came to them. Sure, belief in god seems awfully more important than "I believe it will rain tomorrow," but that is a fact about how we think about god talk rather than belief being a special case when talking about god.
I feel that religious beliefs are totally different types of beliefs to other beliefs in that it doesn't need rationalising, evidence or explanation.
I find it hard to imagine how religious beliefs could be even thought of in comparison to other types of beliefs.
Because when one is committed to a religion, they don't need any form of standard reason, logic or evidence for their beliefs. It is even irrational in the sense that one would believe all the contents in the holy scriptures, and they would even sacrifice their lives for their faiths and beliefs.
And your example of a 6 year old believing God before he could believe in other things, should we call that a theism? Could we call him a theist?
Genuine religious beliefs are not just simple beliefs or knowledge about something, but it is a belief which has been hardened by not just the reasonings and logics of the religion itself, but also the believers own reasoning and their own logical justifications and personal experience too, all mixed and formed into a concrete slab of hard shell faith. I wouldn't call a 6 year old naively calling out for God because he /she saw it on TV soaps.
Now how one could possibly try to convince anyone with that type of hardened beliefs, same as sentimental beliefs or epistemic knowledge, I couldn't imagine. Sorry.
This is probably the trouble. Beliefs simply are - the way that they arise is the subject of study in a variety of fields. You seem to have reached a conclusion about how "religious beliefs" arise that is totally counterfactual, arrived at through no rationalizing, evidence, or explanation, but will now hold firm to your conviction. Is your feeling a religious belief?
One need only to look at the similarity of theistic expression to see that it is a cultural phenomenon constructed in individual interactions, explicit schooling, communal expression, etc. Indeed, someone's theistic commitments can be viewed as an interpretive lens through which to evaluate "evidence" and "explanation." For instance, if someone is narrowly missed by a car speeding past them, a theist might say, "What a wonderful example of God's providence" and add the experience to the otherwise overflowing pool of evidence of god's presence in the world, while a non-believe might say, "About time Musk got those damn Tesla's to stop driving in to people in crosswalks" and not even assign the experience to the "evidence for/against god" bucket. Same experience, different epistemic placement, and belief about god utterly unchanged.
Reasons are hardly any different and even in formal language, one evaluates the soundness of an argument by whether a false statement is the conclusion of true premises. Bearing in mind that argument has no relationship to truth (we can argue about theories of truth later), if someone's truth, i.e. "God does not exist" is denied as the conclusion of an argument, one can be relatively confidant that the person will deny the reasoning as being sound just as assuredly as they will attack the premises. Regardless, reason is often the tool used to convince other people to believe what we want, not the tool we let others use to change our beliefs.
The issue is not that theist lacks evidence of necessity, but that certain sorts of theists maintain beliefs in a god whose attributes do not lend themselves to typical epistemic evaluation. There are many non-religious beliefs that suffer the same trouble, e.g. that what is is reliable indication of what was or what will be. After I demonstrate to you that memory is constructed and human reasoning is flawed, you will still go on believing what you will even though there isn't a stitch of "evidence" that you could produce that would support your belief.
Quoting Corvus
Certainty is hardly justified here. I'm sure you can imagine lots of things if you were willing to be a little less certain.
There is no trouble here. Things are crystal clear, but you seem to make it unclear. I am not religious myself. So I don't belong to any of the isms, and I am not even an agnostic. I am only discussing it on a philosophical level.
I am not ignoring the linguistic element in beliefs. But in religious beliefs, there are more than linguistic elements in the nature of the belief.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
It depends on how firm and narrow your definition on these things are. You could make it wide and loose and be uncertain and allow anything and everything to be something, or you tighten up the definitions to more logical manner, and then things get clearer and simpler.
Regardless, the problem remains unaddressed. You place “religious belief” in a category of belief defined by criteria that are not features of religious belief except on your definition
Quoting Corvus
I wonder what you make of religious existentialists who spend lots of time doubting and making it abundantly clear that certainty is far from their minds.
If religious beliefs were the same kind as sentimental or epistemic beliefs, then there would be no place for Philosophy of Religion. But there is the official subject called Philosophy of Religion, and Epistemology of Religion is discussed in the subject. I don't believe my definition of religious belief is unique, and if it were, I wouldn't be worried about it.
I am certain that the existential philosophers of religion would take my definition of the beliefs, because they would believe that religious belief is different from other beliefs in that it tends to be absurd, irrational and based on personal religious experience and insights rather than sensory perceptions, reason or objective evidence and contextual nature.