Conceiving of agnosticism
Reply to Tom Storm
Here's an argument from long ago, reposted without suitable reconsiderations...
The possible range of beliefs are:
A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)
Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore.
The law of excluded middle appears to invalidate (C), but this is superficial. It is true that either god exists, or that god does not. No other possibility is available. It is also true that either one believes that X, or one does not. But belief statements can contain existential statements wholly within their scope. They are predicates of the second order. Placing the two possible existential statements within the scope of the two possible belief statements delivers four possibilities. One can:
i. believe (god exists)
ii. not believe (god exists)
iii. believe (god does not exist)
iv. not believe (god does not exist)
Each of these can then be paired, thus:
a) A theist will accept both i and iv.
b) An atheist will accept both ii and iii
But there are two other permutations; (i and iii), and (ii and iv). One cannot consistently believe both (i) and (iii), since they would imply that one could:
v. believe (gods exists and god does not exist)
that is, believe a contradiction.
But one can consistently believe (ii) and (iv), since they would, by the same process, imply that one could
vi. not believe (god exists and god does not exist)
that is, believe a tautology. This gives us a third mode of belief,
c) an agnostic will accept both ii and iv
We are left with three possible forms of considered belief:
Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief.
Here's an argument from long ago, reposted without suitable reconsiderations...
The possible range of beliefs are:
A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)
Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore.
The law of excluded middle appears to invalidate (C), but this is superficial. It is true that either god exists, or that god does not. No other possibility is available. It is also true that either one believes that X, or one does not. But belief statements can contain existential statements wholly within their scope. They are predicates of the second order. Placing the two possible existential statements within the scope of the two possible belief statements delivers four possibilities. One can:
i. believe (god exists)
ii. not believe (god exists)
iii. believe (god does not exist)
iv. not believe (god does not exist)
Each of these can then be paired, thus:
a) A theist will accept both i and iv.
b) An atheist will accept both ii and iii
But there are two other permutations; (i and iii), and (ii and iv). One cannot consistently believe both (i) and (iii), since they would imply that one could:
v. believe (gods exists and god does not exist)
that is, believe a contradiction.
But one can consistently believe (ii) and (iv), since they would, by the same process, imply that one could
vi. not believe (god exists and god does not exist)
that is, believe a tautology. This gives us a third mode of belief,
c) an agnostic will accept both ii and iv
We are left with three possible forms of considered belief:
- Committing to a belief that god exists
- Committing to a belief that god does not exist
- Not committing to either belief
Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief.
Comments (49)
I've noticed, assuming my powers of observation are any good, that the word "agnostic" has become a general term for uncertainty e.g. people say, "I'm agnostic about ghosts, fairies, and leprechauns." Uncertainty is the meat and potatoes of skepticism - a refusal to commit to a position, any position which appears in the form of a disjunction for a given proposition p viz. p v ~p.
Though there's a similarity between religious agnosticism and skepticism as displayed in their concordance on God which is either God exists or God doesn't exist and nothing further is known or can be known, the difference is that in religious agnosticism, good justifications exist, it's just that specific justifications for God's existence/nonexistence aren't good i.e. they can be refuted while in skepticism, the existence of good justifications is a question mark.
It seems possible to make the case that religious agnosticism, taken to its logical conclusion is nothing but skepticisim - agnosticism, after all, is the claim that God's existence isn't known (failure of individual justifications) or can't be known (are there such things as good justifications? or more accurately insofar as skepticism is concerned, is it possible that there are no good justifications?). Talking to an agnostic is like talking to skeptic just as talking to an engineer is like talking to a physicist.
That post was cut from a thread now lost in the depths of time, and I'm not going back to look at what it was a reply to.
You and I might be the only ones here who recall those names....
A few agnostics holding both positions (not thinking) are indistinguishable from very lazy atheists; and none of these positions are interesting or that important. It's basically positing a non-cognitive attitudes. In other words, water be wet.
We should question the agnostics that hold their "beliefs" with strong conviction in both assertion and practice because it all depends on what god claims they are agnostic about.
Regarding Panpsychism
It seems a bit too coherent to throw in and measure along side the definitions of a Christian God that are usually the subject of the debate. But, it doesn't come with any greater amount of evidence. The concept was tossed out by the church and then later by logical positivist so it was probably right. It's a bit new to me, guess I'm D on this one.
On consideration, it's the emphasis that counts: Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief; as opposed, I suppose, to a valid form of knowledge - as might be suggested by "gnosis".
@Tom Storm?
As I said on the atheism thread, I always thought that you could be an agnostic atheist, in as much as atheism refers to your belief and agnosticism to knowledge.
I don't believe in a God, but I do not know that god doesn't exist.
Before I gave much thought to the matter of God, I had an intuition that God was a non-starter for me. I don't seem to need a ground of all being. The idea of a god seems contradictory and incoherent. It had no explanatory power that could not also be provided by aliens (as a for instance). Why is there something rather than nothing? Aliens. Who made the earth? Aliens. Why does there seem to be order in nature? Aliens put it there. Etc.
You are either convinced of something or you are not. I am not convinced a God exists. That's the belief part taken care of for me.
But what about knowledge? I can't imagine even hypothetically how a god or gods could be known either in principle or in practice. Are the arguments I use to support my lack of belief anything like knowing something to be not the case?
P.S. I think many so-called agnostics are actually atheists in as much as they live as atheists (without a belief in a God) they just use the word agnostic because in some contexts it may be a more socially acceptable (softer) label.
Nice. The important qualifier for me is 'considered belief'. I have had more than a few people insist there is another option - 'don't care'. But we wouldn't call that 'considered'. These folk are generally nascent atheists.
Also, it might be a false menu to start with as beliefs can range through anything that is mental content.
You need to add E:
E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot).
This is a possible natural, organic consequence of having thought and read and discussed about the issue a lot, from different perspectives.
I don't follow what panpsychism has to do with anything here (which I guess is why my brain autocorrected to "pantheism", as that would make a cromulent question on the topic of this thread).
What does "not committing to a belief" here mean? Is it the quasi performative (because internal) act of open-mindedness?
The reason I'm asking is because to me, the whole crux of the issue is whether or not there is actually a mental state that corresponds specifically to agnosticism about anything, as distinct from the mental state of simply having a belief or position that one is very unsure about (and that consequently might shift constantly).
Quoting Banno
There is always the semantic problem that someone might consider only i. to actually be a theist position, and anyone not holding (at least) i. is therefore an atheist, since they lack the explicit belief "god exists".
Going back to what I said above, it seems to me that splitting the quasi-epistemological position from the ontological one only makes sense if "not believe" refers to an actual mental state, rather than simply the absence of any mental state concerning the ontological statement at all.
Should you ask "theism, atheism or agnosticism?" first or something like "how does mental content exist in a physical universe?"?
Quoting Tom Storm
You say you don't believe in a God, but you do you disbelieve in a God? You say you are not convinced a God exists, but are you convinced a God does not exist?
The important difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the former is convinced that a God does not exist.
Yes, that is a significant, and on an uncharitable reading, tendentious omission on the part of the @Banno!
I have heard no reasons to accept the proposition that a God exists. So I don't believe in God. But I cannot say that I know God does not exist. Show me how belief and knowledge can't be separate things.
It's nothing to do with conflating belief and knowledge. Have you heard reasons to accept the proposition that God does not exist? Do believe there is no God?
I'll give an upvote for including not having an opinion as one of the ways of addressing the existence of God, even though you don't include it in your further evaluation. That's not an option normally considered.
(A) If realist, then:
Is theism true or not true?
If true, then theism obtains.
If not true, then non-theism (e.g. atheism) obtains.
If, however, neither true nor not true, then (B) non-realism (non-cognitive theism) obtains.
corollary – If non-realism (non-cognitive theism), then ignosticism – religious observance or not – obtains.
Whence "agnosticism" (other than as a polite, 19th century euphemism for religious skepticism)? :chin:
I've already stated my belief. Putting it in the negative makes no discernable difference so it is true that I believe there is no God.
OK, good, you hadn't stated that clearly before, and that does make a difference.
In my view, ‘God’ refers to a qualitative relation. I believe that the possibility of ‘God’ exists, and yet I won’t commit to a belief in the existence of a necessary being, let alone one that is omniscient, omnipresent and omni-benevolent. The way I see it, there is a difference between believing that infinity exists and believing it exists as a quantity.
I think there is philosophical usefulness in imagining the existence of a relational absolute such as ‘God’, without necessarily conceptualising it beyond a formless quality or idea, a paradox. That I can entertain or dismiss such an unjustifiable belief points to a relational or qualitative aspect of experience from which the limits of logic or reason may be understood. But about this (true to Wittgenstein) I cannot speak - not in any way considered reasonable. It’s like Kantian aesthetics without an object.
So, while I have no argument against those who feel they can commit to a belief either way, I disagree with those who insist that only one can be true, or who form arguments either way on logical grounds. It’s a pointless exercise, in ignorance of their affected position - the arbitrary commitment (of attention and effort) they have made in relation to a paradox.
I can go along with that.
This sets up an argument for being a theist from a pragmatic point of view.
What is learned from considering the various "proofs" for the existence of God is that none of them succeed and that they're all largely contrived. They don't succeed because there is no force of logic alone that will force god into existence and they are contrived because I've really not met anyone who was convinced there is a god by relying upon those arguments. I do think some hold more sway than others to theists (like the teleological argument), but I just don't know that an atheist ever changed his stripes after reading Paley.
So, if your argument is correct that agnosticism is reasonable, then it would hold that theism is reasonable as well as long as you acknowledge that your belief in God is not necessitated, but instead chosen. In other words, if I sit here, the helpless agnostic, not knowing if God is or is not, then I can choose to believe if that choice better serves me. A pragmatist doesn't have to claim the agnostic or the atheist is factually wrong, and in fact, he can honestly claim he has no real idea what the Truth is, but that doesn't restrain him from acting and deciding and seeing how things turn out based upon what belief he has chosen.
The value of a belief relates to how it affects your life, your happiness, your sense of meaning and those things personal to you. A life lived and died with a lesser degree of happiness is not superior because you demanded a rigid fidelity to the indecision that agnosticism entailed or because you insisted upon choosing atheism because it seemed more consistent with contemporary norms. This isn't to say there aren't happy agnostics and atheists, and, if there are, they get no judgment from me. But, if we accept your premise that atheism, agnosticism, and theism are all reasonable beliefs, I would question why someone would choose, from a pragmatic perspective, one that yields less meaningful results and would wonder why anyone or any society would criticize a theist whose beliefs offer meaning to him.
No, this is actually an instance of the fallacy of the excluded middle. While it may be true that either god exists or doesn't it is not true that either one believes something or does not. I have no belief on the existence or the non-existence of god.
The conclusion was that agnosticism is valid, not that it is reasonable.
Nor I think is pragmatism to do with happiness so much as mere utility. Were we having this conversation in 15th century Europe, we would doubtlessly both be avowedly and devoutly Catholic, regardless of what we might believe. Because there is more to what one does than just what one thinks.
Not sure how that is supposed to work. Try reading the OP again, perhaps, and noting that it is about how it is not true that either one believes something or does not.
But could you. pragmatically starting out from a genuine agnosticism, arrive at a genuine belief either way? I doubt it; I think the best that could be arrived at from that starting point would be a decision to commit to "thinking and acting as if"; the entertaining of a kind of provisional hypothesis that one stipulates shall not be provisional (or necessarily entertaining).
On the other hand you could go with your intuitions in the matter, if your rational deliberations have led you to agnosticism; you could choose to be moved, as you can be by art, to the entertainment of a fantasy, only in this case it is a fantasy to which you have granted lifelong commitment (at least for now). Sounds like fun; I might try it one day!
Quoting Banno
If validity is the logical following of conclusion from premise, and the premise is lack of evidence either way, then agnosticism is indeed the most reasonable position to hold. Unfortunately many people cannot be comfortable with the realization that they don't know, so they contrive to pretend that they can and do know, and thus we have theists and atheists, and the constant arguing and carping ad nauseum between them. This annoying argumentation inevitably happens as each thinks they must be right, and cannot countenance the disagreement of others because it makes them feel insecure..
Pretty much my position exactly, nicely put!
Do you think it reasonable?
Quoting Banno Could be both. Utility can be measured by happiness as well. That's how that often works. Quoting Banno
Nah, I'd be a persecuted Jew. Anyway, today we don't labor under such religious oppression and persecutions. Secular governments have now assumed that role.
Next to the aforementioned E option, I can think of another one:
F) arriving at the belief that if God exist, God is [insert set of particular characteristics].
I believe that if God exists, God is a Trumpista (and everything that comes with that).
How else do we explain that a certain person has just so much luck, so much is going his way, he always comes out on top? At some point, divine protection seems like the only plausible explanation left.
If god supports Trump, I'm joining the rebellion.
Here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/562253
I mean seriously. How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life????
Justice is made, by us; not a gift from god.
Quoting baker
I don't see how these differ.
In that in E, there is no element of choice. It's the state of mind when one has throughly considered the issue, but ends up, even literally, with an open mouth and nothing comes out; it's bewilderment.
This doesn't address my concern. The fact is that some apparently very bad people have it very good in life. You say justice is made by us. Well then, how is it justice that some apparently very bad people aren't prosecuted by people? Why is there so little actual will and success to do so?