Consistent or Delimited Agnosticism

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
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.
Click to expand...

Pardon once again please, because your sentence is a bit confusing. I'm assuming that you're saying this statement: "There is great value in the realization that at any point in time all the assumptions you've made can crumble into nothingness." is exactly false?
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

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?
Click to expand...

Well, I hold that the great value is in that we should remind ourselves constantly that things may not be as they seem. While I agree that the odds of scenario you described (oh, and "eliminated pollution by counteracting the smog with unicorn farts", extremely entertaining, thanks) and becoming reality are extremely low (pretty much impossible), I think it is EXTREMELY important to realize that it IS possible, however unlikely. It's importance is to me, personal I suppose. It's that I think when you fail to realize that things may not be as they seem, you might be dinner, literally or figuratively. That's all, a very basic point.

Maybe I'm a little mixed up because as I review, this last bit seems as if it is really a matter of attitude.. but to ME, it's still important. I do not think it really possible that your scenario will happen, but I do think it possible that I don't know the limits of possibility. In my mind, this is a way to make sure I keep in mind that the solutions to problems are often contrary to my inclination.
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

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

Well, I regret inciting a contemptuous reaction from you, for I hold your analysis in high regard. This statement was just an offshoot from my promotion of attitude as listed above, I'll try to remember to reconsider such phrases when using them in the future.
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
While I agree that the odds of scenario you described (oh, and "eliminated pollution by counteracting the smog with unicorn farts", extremely entertaining, thanks) and becoming reality are extremely low (pretty much impossible), I think it is EXTREMELY important to realize that it IS possible, however unlikely.
Click to expand...
So, "it is EXTREMELY important to realize that it IS possible". Interesting claim: please substantiate it.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
So, "it is EXTREMELY important to realize that it IS possible". Interesting claim: please substantiate it.
Click to expand...

I cannot substantiate it any more than I can substantiate that God exists. I suppose that I could have been more succinct if I would have said "I have a hard time asserting that anything has a probability of zero." Again, this is as I've said above, just a way to constantly remind myself things may not be as they seem. You would hold that the probability of of the most ridiculous event you can imagine is zero?
 
The Flight Of The Pixie And The Taste Of The Polygon

Originally posted by wesmorris
You would hold that the probability of of the most ridiculous event you can imagine is zero?
Click to expand...
Interesting question, since it revolves around the question: Are all things possible? If your answer is "no", the issue is more or less settled, but that seems a little too simple.

If, however, your answer is yes, the situation complicates rapidly for, if all things are possible, one of those things is the assertion that "X is impossible", whatever X might be.

So my quick and dirty response to your question is: Yes, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude the existence of a set of imagined things and events with a 'probability' of zero, a set which includes, but is not limited to, logical impossibilities such as the square circle.

So, do you fin? this set more or less probable than my pixie/unicorn event?

On some other level I am a noncognitivist with respect to the question, placing it in the same category as
  • What's north of the North Pole? - or
  • What does a polygon taste like?
So what does this have to do with religion? I am again prompted to offer my favorite quote:
The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge.

We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.

-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest; emphasis added - CA
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Flight Of The Pixie And The Taste Of The Polygon

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Interesting question, since it revolves around the question: Are all things possible? If your answer is "no", the issue is more or less settled, but that seems a little too simple.

If, however, your answer is yes, the situation complicates rapidly for, if all things are possible, one of those things is the assertion that "X is impossible", whatever X might be.

So my quick and dirty response to your question is: Yes, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude the existence of a set of imagined things and events with a 'probability' of zero, a set which includes, but is not limited to, logical impossibilities such as the square circle.

So, do you fin? this set more or less probable than my pixie/unicorn event?

On some other level I am a noncognitivist with respect to the question, placing it in the same category as
  • What's north of the North Pole? - or
  • What does a polygon taste like?
So what does this have to do with religion? I am again prompted to offer my favorite quote:
Click to expand...

I'll respond but first, I'm curious, can you see how I'll counter before I do so? Do you already know what I'm going to say? Have you "heard it all before"?
 
Re: Re: The Flight Of The Pixie And The Taste Of The Polygon

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'll respond but first, I'm curious, can you see how I'll counter before I do so? Do you already know what I'm going to say? Have you "heard it all before"?
Click to expand...
Is this an effort to fawn or ridicule?
 
Re: Re: Re: The Flight Of The Pixie And The Taste Of The Polygon

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Is this an effort to fawn or ridicule?
Click to expand...

It is an earnest curiosity. I have no foul intent.
 
Re: The Flight Of The Pixie And The Taste Of The Polygon

To move on then,

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Interesting question, since it revolves around the question: Are all things possible?
Click to expand...

My answer is "probably not".
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

If, however, your answer is yes, the situation complicates rapidly for, if all things are possible, one of those things is the assertion that "X is impossible", whatever X might be.

So my quick and dirty response to your question is: Yes, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude the existence of a set of imagined things and events with a 'probability' of zero, a set which includes, but is not limited to, logical impossibilities such as the square circle.
Click to expand...

I believe I understand, but I prefer to leave things "open ended". I believe I do this in order to compensate for subjectivity. By that, I mean I don't find it difficult to imagine a perspective from which a circle is indeed square, thusly it is impossible to someone, it could happen. I suppose it would be wise to inform that person that they didn't understand the definitions of the words they applied, but as I'm sure we're both aware of.. that doesn't neccessarily help. I suppose the way I've been looking at it, the person's truth, while not objectively true, is still a form of truth. Honestly at this point my head hurts a bit and I'm completely unsure about what I've just asserted. Would you say that their interpretation has no bearing on the universal truth?
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

So, do you find this set more or less probable than my pixie/unicorn event?
Click to expand...

More, definately, but as of yet I still haven't ruled the pixie/unicorn event competely impossible.
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

On some other level I am a noncognitivist with respect to the question, placing it in the same category as
  • What's north of the North Pole? - or
  • What does a polygon taste like?
Click to expand...


  • So you find your statement so obvious as to completely nullify what I've said? Well, from a "one truth" perspective I suppose you're right. Is there only one truth? I think you are definately correct from the perspective of absolute knowledge.
    Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

    Click to expand...
So what does this have to do with religion? I am again prompted to offer my favorite quote:
Click to expand...

In regards to your quote, I would only add that I've always thought it shortsighted to think that our level of understanding of the universe.. and the truth therein, was anywhere close to the "ultimate" truth might be. I guess I'm just holding that truth through reason and science as of yet is always a better and better approximation of what is happening external to the subjective experience. Is that naive?
 
Last edited:
Curiouser and Curiouser

Originally posted by wesmorris
... I don't find it difficult to imagine a perspective from which a circle is indeed square, thusly it is impossible to someone, it could happen.
Click to expand...
Then you win, and I gladly leave you to your side of the Looking Glass.
 
Re: Curiouser and Curiouser

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Then you win, and I gladly leave you to your side of the Looking Glass.
Click to expand...

I was only trying to say that I don't neccessarily agree with you about the nature of knowledge, how it effects the universe (shroedinger) and who has the authority to assert it. You say this puts me on the other side of the looking glass as you? You no longer want do talk about it? You don't find this stimulating at all? You can't find ANY value in continuing this conversation/debate?

I don't want to "win". I want to understand, to grow, to be wise such that I can help to develop the minds around me (and obviously my own). Do you find my input so pointless? Regardless, thank you for your input. I've enjoyed it.
 
CA,

Oh and you may have missed it, but I have been attempting to show you the respect you seemingly deserve. You are obviously very very bright, you seem much more knowledgable and in command of more processing power than I have available. I do think I have some interesting points that might soften an otherwise hard argument, but I'm not sure about it... that's why I find it entertaining to discuss such things... don't you? Eh. I'll let it go.
 
Re: Re: Curiouser and Curiouser

Originally posted by wesmorris
I was only trying to say that I don't neccessarily agree with you about the nature of knowledge, ...
Click to expand...
As is certainly your right. And I can find no better response that that of Strahler quoted above, i.e.
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.
Click to expand...
At the same time, while I am more that pleased to leave you in the good graces of Lewis Carroll, you might wish to consider whether or not your 'agnosticism' is simple a place-holder for some future argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
Re: Re: The Flight Of The Pixie And The Taste Of The Polygon

Originally posted by wesmorris
..., from a "one truth" perspective I suppose you're right. Is there only one truth? I think you are definately correct from the perspective of absolute knowledge.
Click to expand...
Parenthetically, I reject "the perspective of absolute knowledge" assuming, of course, that by that phrase you mean awareness of some absolute truth. Nor am I a big fan of the relativism so compatible with all forms of insipid New Age drivel.
 
Re: Re: Re: Curiouser and Curiouser

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
As is certainly your right. And I can find no better response that that of Strahler quoted above, i.e.At the same time, while I am more that pleased to leave you in the good graces of Lewis Carroll, you might wish to consider whether or not your 'agnosticism' is simple a place-holder for some future argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Click to expand...

Once again I find myself somewhat confused... to me it seems as if you've implied that knowledge is real and knowable without accounting for perspective. I've said I think perspective plays into it and you've now written me off as promoting an "argumentum ad ignorantiam"? I don't see it. I'm sure you can show me, would you mind?
 
CA,

I doubt you'll "waste your time" with me, but I have to ask... would you then show me how your position of aithiesm is more logical and less of an "argumentum ad ignorantiam" then my position of agnosticism? Would it be more appropriate for me to ask "You are an aithiest as a consequence of what?".
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
I've said I think perspective plays into it and you've now written me off as promoting an "argumentum ad ignorantiam"?
Click to expand...
My mild preference is to defend what I've said, rather than what you assert that I've said.
Originally posted by wesmorris
Would it be more appropriate for me to ask "You are an aithiest as a consequence of what?".
Click to expand...
I am an atheist as a consequence of the ongoing success of methodological naturalism:
  • I do not believe in God(s).
  • I believe that God(s) do not exist.
  • I assert that the belief in God(s) is unwarranted.
As for the probability of God, neither the work of Shroedinger nor the work of Lewis Carroll render the question meaningful in my opinion.

Please understand that I am not at all dismissing you. You make claims that are beyond the scope of science. You live in a world where the possibility of pixies and unicorns and square circles are, in your words, "EXTREMELY important ". I can do no better than advise you that it's your world, not mine.

When you can propose a effective, repeatable, and extensible method for evaluating the differential probabilities of God(s), pixies, and unicorns, we can and should resume the dialogue.
 
It really does make sense though. Descartes put it best "I think therefore I am". All you can truly "know" is that, in some form, you exist. I guess it all depends on your definition of knowledge... But you never 'know' something without there being even a slight possibility of being wrong, therefore you don't really 'know' anything, you just believe alot of things... While everything is possible, it is not possibility that matters, it is probability. While it is possible that I have 5 unicorns in my backyard, it is EXREMELY unlikely. This is how you decide what to 'believe' and what not to. I concider God as likely as the 5 unicorns, but I must realize that I don't KNOW for sure God does not exist, but I have lots of reason to BELIEVE he doesn't. But it's healthy to question our beliefs every day.

Hope that's better than just a fortune cookie.
 
, it is not possibility that matters, it is probability
Click to expand...
Exactly. Hence my argument against agnosticism because of the extremely unlikely chance of an exactly 50% probability in the existence of god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top