Consistent or Delimited Agnosticism

[wesmorris]

Re: Wesmorris...OT

Originally posted by The Marquis
Now, Wes, I'm disappointed. Think of it like a car. A big V8 certainly has the starting power necessary to win most races, but they won't beat the worked 6 cylinder all the time, will they?

A high IQ is useless unless used to think. Consider a rocket scientist who can't debate religion because he's never really thought about it. A lower IQ might end up wiser in the long run because it's owner has considered things more often and more completely than his "more intelligent" counterpart.

*edit - a better example. Some are born more muscular than others. In a race, though, the one born less well muscled but putting more effort into training has a better chance of winning.

Dude, I've stated what I mean. The deal is, as I always have, some people are SO freakin sharp that they intimidate me a little. That won't stop me, but I'm sure as shit not going to front like I'm not somewhat intimidated. *shrug* I'll throw what I have out there and duck. Oh, and I really did think that they'd reach some meaningfull conclusion without the need for my input. Then after a while and a post in another thread, I felt compelled to give it a go.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Please don't call my brain juicy.

Hehe, as you wish.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
How, if at all, would you distinguish between "faith" and "belief"?

IMHO, "faith" is a tentative "belief".

 

[fadingCaptain]

But the 1st form is different and, I would think, probabilistic.

Most commonly referred to forms of agnosticism are of the probabilistic variety, ie. "I do not know if god(s) exist. "

The problem is that many terms are ambiguous and overlap.

Now, to simply things let's give 3 options:

a) Belief there is a >50% chance that god exists.
b) Belief there is exactly a 50/50 chance that god exists.
c) Belief there is a <50% chance that god exists.

If a: I consider this to be a theist. If you believe there is a greater than 50% chance that Marco Polo existed, you are not agnostic in regards to Marco Polo. You believe he existed.

If b: This is a highly improbably position to be in if one has put much thought or research into it. However, I suppose it is possible and this I would consider agnostic. There is an exact balance in the either possibility. I am trying to think of an example but I can't.

If c: This person is atheist. I won't get into the weak vs. strong argument. But if there is more possibility of the non-existance of god than existance...you are at least a weak atheist.

In summary I believe most 'agnostics' are truely atheists that use the term agnostic to differentiate them from the improbable strong atheist argument. If you believe chances are there is no god, you are an atheist. Go ahead and make the plunge...

Like I said, definitions are fuzzy but that is how I see it.

*edit to clean it up a little

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

For some, the term agnostic is more or less equivalent to the term undecided. When asked about God(s), this agnostic does not know (or is not sure) what to believe. Note that s/he is making no assertion as to the possibility of resolving the question, but is simply noting that the question is currently unresolved. As such I find the term undecided preferable.

For others, the term agnostic is constrained to the domain of epistemology. When asked about God(s), this agnostic notes that God(s) is/are unknowable. So, for example:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

• You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler as quoted in
- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection by Doctor Barbara Forrest

Note that there is nothing in this usage of the term to preclude its use by atheists and theists alike. Because of this, for me to declare that I am an agnostic is, while correct, not typically very useful: I could be a theist whose belief system is founded on faith alone.

Note also that this agnosticism is absolute: you cannot have a Pantheon or a Daoine Sidhe that is 78.43% unknowable.

Finally, the term agnostic can refer to method (as per Huxley quoted above) and represents the generalization of its epistemic cousin. I suggest that Huxley's agnosticism was simply the precursor of methodological and philosophical naturalism.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Like I said, definitions are fuzzy but that is how I see it.

While I like what you're doing there, you are kind of backwards in my opinion. Consider the question: Does god (in the classical sense) exist? There are three possible straightforward answers.

1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know

That rearranges your categories to:

1) 100%
2) 0%
3) Everything in between.

or in my opinion (and people seem to like to play with labels and get creative about how they label themselves, but I think it's improper given this reasoning):

1) Theist
2) Aitheist
3) Agnostic

In my opinion theists are liars because in 99.99999% of cases people doubt their own convictions from time to time. If in my opinion you've ever doubted or will ever doubt your conviction regarding being a theist, it drops you into category 3. I do believe however that it is easier for an aitheist not to doubt their convictions, but not that much.... maybe like 90% of them will doubt at some point... those people too drop into category 3.

So in conclusion, via this simplistic analysis, almost everyone is actually agnostic, though they may not label themselves as such. By this measure yes, it might be a somewhat pointless label, since it's like saying "I'm a human." but I do think there is a point.

There is great value in the realization that at any point in time all the assumptions you've made can crumble into nothingness. The most important aspect of this realization is to open your mind to all possibilities in all things.

I think of it as follows: Think of a problem in linear algebra... you want to create an optimal solution to profit function. If you make assumptions, you decrease the size of your solution space. What if the optimal solution was in the space you just assumed yourself out of? Do your best in life to minimize the chance that you assumed yourself out of the optimal solution.

Eh, some crap like that.

 

[fadingCaptain]

So in conclusion, via this simplistic analysis, almost everyone is actually agnostic, though they may not label themselves as such. By this measure yes, it might be a somewhat pointless label, since it's like saying "I'm a human." but I do think there is a point.

I agree that if categorizing the terms in the way, virtually everyone would be agnostic. There is a possibility that god exists, so I am agnostic, right?
Well, like you said, the problem with that is it renders the term meaningless and basically puts everyone in the same bucket, though they may have widely different beliefs. It would be much more clear and simpler if people went by the reasoning I laid out. This would mean alot of people would have to declare themselves atheists or theists when they do not want to make that committment or be associated with that term. But hey, if the shoe fits...?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
So in conclusion, via this simplistic analysis, almost everyone is actually agnostic, though they may not label themselves as such.

So, in your simplistic sense, have you rendered the term superfluous or tautological?

Originally posted by wesmorris
... at any point in time all the assumptions you've made can crumble into nothingness.

That statement is obviously false. Think about it.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I agree that if categorizing the terms in the way, virtually everyone would be agnostic. There is a possibility that god exists, so I am agnostic, right?

hehe.. you already know what I've said about that.. of course!
(oh, and on a side note, that IS a correct statement as of current knowledge as far as I know, it IS possible that god exists, then again.. maybe not.. )

Originally posted by fadingCaptain

Well, like you said, the problem with that is it renders the term meaningless and basically puts everyone in the same bucket, though they may have widely different beliefs.

As was said aptly in Kevin Smith's "Dogma", BELIEFS are pretty much the problem. (I'm not trying to quote it, just saying it was said well there) People should have IDEAS about this stuff, that would keep them from killing each other. Beliefs are not maleable, they cannot be rationally discussed. IDEAS are perfectly maleable and grow when discussed. *shrug*

Originally posted by fadingCaptain

It would be much more clear and simpler if people went by the reasoning I laid out.

I disagree, I think you've got a good idea, but you're not following logic. That's why I attempted to show you the flaw with the three answers and the bizness. Further, you're somewhat incorrect on your "50/50" assertion that it would be exactly that. In probability if you do not know the answer you assign a probability of 50%. That's the default. It really means "I have no fucking clue, flip a coin bro."

Originally posted by fadingCaptain

This would mean alot of people would have to declare themselves atheists or theists when they do not want to make that committment or be associated with that term.

Yes it would but I disagree per above. Plus in my opinion the whole "ideas" thing per above would greatly suffer from this. (not like it ultimately matters I suppose because ultimately, people will do whatever they want)

Originally posted by fadingCaptain

But hey, if the shoe fits...?

Then you can be pretty sure that you got the right sized shoe.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
So, in your simplistic sense, have you rendered the term superfluous or tautological?

Eh, it isn't superfluous until you reach the conclusion, then it is rendered so. I do believe however, that the journey to the conclusion is why it's not pointless. It takes a lot of "soul searching" and intense reflection (for one of my simplistic ilk) to reach such a conclusion, so while it IS rendered superfluous, I do not think it pointless.

I would ask, do you think the term (once rendered superfluous) just means "human"? Does it subsequently effect and potentially nullify the terms "theist" and "aitheist"? Do they just become "human" as well since they are almost farcical in nature? Is farcical a word?? Pardon.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

That statement is obviously false. Think about it.

Okay, at any future present all assumptions could crumble? Is that what you meant? LOL, shit, my assumption that you'd understand what I meant just crumbled. (okay it might have been the assumption that what I said made sense, but it did to me)

 

[fadingCaptain]

that IS a correct statement as of current knowledge as far as I know, it IS possible that god exists, then again.. maybe not..

Of course, hence any discussion involving 100% or 0% belief is irrational.

BELIEFS are pretty much the problem.

My usage of the term 'belief' is synonymical with 'idea'. Feel free to exchange them. I agree that the specifics of the idea or belief is the important part. But isn't it easier if they are somewhat categorized?

I disagree, I think you've got a good idea, but you're not following logic. That's why I attempted to show you the flaw with the three answers and the bizness.

Ok, but I do not see how yours is more logical than mine. Just different with different results.

. In probability if you do not know the answer you assign a probability of 50%.

That is what I meant. 50/50 means 50% probability.

Plus in my opinion the whole "ideas" thing per above would greatly suffer from this.

How so? People would still have the same 'ideas'.

Then you can be pretty sure that you got the right sized shoe.

So put it on and wear it dammit!

 

[LaoTzu]

Just to Summarize

My apologies for any repetitions, but I would like to reassert the following:

A) Atheism and theism are theological stances, unconnected to agnosticism.

B) Agnosticism is an epistemological stance stating that "one cannot know X." As to what that means, it could be that "it is absolutely impossible to know X," but could also be interpreted as "it is impossible for one to know X with one's current set of knowledge."

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
How so? People would still have the same 'ideas'.

I guess it's just semantics, so I'll let it go.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Just to Summarize

Originally posted by LaoTzu
My apologies for any repetitions, but I would like to reassert the following:

A) Atheism and theism are theological stances, unconnected to agnosticism.

B) Agnosticism is an epistemological stance stating that "one cannot know X." As to what that means, it could be that "it is absolutely impossible to know X," but could also be interpreted as "it is impossible for one to know X with one's current set of knowledge."

Well, it depends on which definition of each word you use. For instance, when looking at the definition:

from http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

it is hard to say that agnosticism is not related to theology. As a matter of fact, your initial assertion is inherently only somewhat correct because the epistemological nature of agnosticism underlies one's perspective when applied to theology. Therefore they are inherently connected, while at different "levels", one underlying the other. Interesting assertion though, I didn't understand it fully until you just repeated it, so thanks.

For instance, if one is agnostic, his stance is inherent regarding theology? Hmm.. I think so, aren't they then connected? I think so. What do you think?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Ok, but I do not see how yours is more logical than mine. Just different with different results.

Well, I would say it is because of this part:

Consider the question: Does god (in the classical sense) exist? There are three possible straightforward answers.


1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know

That rearranges your categories to:

1) 100%
2) 0%
3) Everything in between.

Whereas it appeared to me that the categories you chose were based well, but didn't correlate 100% with the possible straightforward answers to the question as posed above.

 

[fadingCaptain]

didn't correlate 100% with the possible straightforward answers to the question as posed above.

Ahh...I see now. Ok, good point. Yes, people tend to generalize for simplicity sake and give one of your three straitforward answers. However, I would argue that everybody actual falls somewhere within the 0-100% range, though they may not like to admit it. I still see my model as more workable in this sense.

The point is that I see everybody as being agnostic according to your definition. Perhaps I am wrong and people are actually more delusional than I give them credit...

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Okay, at any future present all assumptions could crumble? Is that what you meant?

{P} ::= {at any point in time all the assumptions you've made can crumble into nothingness.} Is {P} an assumption?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Just to Summarize

Originally posted by LaoTzu
A) Atheism and theism are theological stances, unconnected to agnosticism.
B) Agnosticism is an epistemological stance stating that "one cannot know X.

Precisely!

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
{P} ::= {at any point in time all the assumptions you've made can crumble into nothingness.} Is {P} an assumption?

I do apoligize but I'm still not sure I understand. Please bear with me. Are you saying it's circular? I'm not sure that the notation "::=" means. You're using {} to denote a set?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
There is great value in the realization that at any point in time all the assumptions you've made can crumble into nothingness.

I erred in taking exception to your statement. As presented, it is clearly an assumption, and I believe that there is, indeed, "great value in the realization that " it's false.

Conversely, I "assume" that you will not transform into a pixie and fly through the air on the back of a mauve unicorn, eliminated pollution by counteracting the smog with unicorn farts. Now show me the "great value" and basis for 'realizing' that such an assumption is wrong?

Originally posted by wesmorris
The most important aspect of this realization is to open your mind to all possibilities in all things.

I can think of extremely few phrases that I hold in greater contempt. It is the universal prelude to an argument from ignorance.