Consistent or Delimited Agnosticism

[notme2000]

What is illogical about not believing in God(s)?

It is illogical to "know" there is a God, because there is no evidence. It is illogical to "know" there is NO God because there is no proof. It IS logical to have a conviction towards there not being a God because of LACK OF evidence.

Athiesm and Theism are just as illogical because they both require faith. Theism requires faith because you must believe in a God that cannot be proven, ever. Athiesm requires faith because you must believe there is NOT a God, which cannot be proven, ever. Faith is silly. Without faith, you only have probability.

Nope. 'For certain' has nothing to do with it. It is a common misinterpretation of agnosticism

The definition of agnosticism I've become familiar with is:


1.a) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Source: Dictionary.com

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by notme2000

What is illogical about not believing in God(s)?

It is illogical to "know" there is a God, because there is no evidence. It is illogical to "know" there is NO God because there is no proof. It IS logical to have a conviction towards there not being a God because of LACK OF evidence.

The term 'reasonable ' would be better than employing 'logical' in the vernacular.

Originally posted by notme2000
Athiesm and Theism are just as illogical because they both require faith

So you say.

Originally posted by notme2000
Theism requires faith because you must believe in a God that cannot be proven, ever. Athiesm requires faith because you must believe there is NOT a God, which cannot be proven, ever. [emphasis added - CA]

Many atheists distinguish between "a belief in no God(s)" and "no belief in God(s)", and identify with the latter. You can, if you wish, follow in the footsteps of Humpty-Dumpty and pay the words extra to mean only what you want them to mean, but don't delude yourself into believing that you have thereby presented a logical argument.

Originally posted by notme2000
Faith is silly. Without faith, you only have probability.

Probability has two distinct meanings, what are termed the "subjective view" and the "relative frequency view". The former expresses an opinion with regards to likelihood, while the latter expresses the occurrence frequency of an event within a predefined sample space.

So, to rephrase your fortune-cookie: Faith is silly. Without faith, you only have opinions with regards to likelihood. OK.

Originally posted by notme2000
The definition of agnosticism I've become familiar with is: ... Source: Dictionary.com

You might have also "become familiar with" Huxley's meaning had you not limited yourself to a dictionary.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'll stop. I think they are all similar in that "I do not know my knowledge of the square and circle to be complete, therefore I cannot say with absolute certainty that one is not the other, except in my interpretation thereof". I believe that is the best that I've been able to summarized my agnosticism to date.

While I might take issue with 5.5 above, I generally agree. A couple of points, however ...

First of all, there is a difference, in my opinion, between saying:

• "The square circle is possible, although that possibility/probability/likelihood is exceedingly rare." - and
• "The square circle is logically impossible given my understanding of the items under discussion."

The first pays obeisance to some Clintonian caution with regards to word definition, while the latter simply states an a priori (i.e., definitional) truth.

Secondly, methodological naturalism relies on the a posteriori. It's truths are never absolute, always contingent and approximate. It derives its humility from the tentative character with which it treats all 'truth'. In this sense, it acknowledges the possibility of God(s) in precisely the same was that it acknowledges the possibility of a galaxy made of jellybeans.

When all things/events other than the locically impossible are deemed possible, the term 'possibility' becomes, in my opinion, wholly superfluous: to assert the possiblity (low probability) of God(s) and pixie dust is to say absolutely nothing. If all you wish to convey by the assertion is that our knowledge is contingent and tentative, it seems to me best to assert: "Our knowledge is contingent and tentative."

As I said before, where 'agnostic' is used to convey 'undecided', I prefer the latter term. Where 'agnostic' is used to assert that 'God(s)' is/are unknowable, I agree, but note that there is nothing in this epistemic stance to preclude such an 'agnostic' from being a theist or an atheist. Finally, where 'agnostic' is used to focus on method, I would suggest that such agnosticism is simply the precursor of philosophical naturalism.

I am an adherent of philosophical naturalism and, as a consequence, an atheist. I am aware of nothing that warrants a belief in God(s).

 

[wesmorris]

CA - I think that explains it very well. I'll have to read up on philosophical naturalism to determine if there is a reason to proceed with this thread. Your use of the phrase is my first exposure thereof.

On related but purely opinionated note: You seem incredibly lucid and your analysis is most impressive to me (for what it's worth). I assume you're a Ph.D? A professor or author? I don't mean to pry, I'm just curious. Okay I'm fawning. Pardon, it's just that I'm very very impressed. I'll just shutup and leave it at:

Thank you

 

[notme2000]

The term 'reasonable ' would be better than employing 'logical' in the vernacular.

Agreed.

So you say.

So I observe.

Many atheists distinguish between "a belief in no God(s)" and "no belief in God(s)", and identify with the latter.

If you subscribe to the "no belief in God(s)" than that makes you a weak athiest / agnostic. Welcome to the club.

You might have also "become familiar with" Huxley's meaning had you not limited yourself to a dictionary.

Huxely's definition:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Looks like Huxley agrees with me too.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I assume you're a Ph.D? A professor or author? I don't mean to pry, I'm just curious.

Thanks, but the kind comments are undeserved and the assumption inaccurate. Perhaps you were thinking on notme2000, who garnered the support of Darwin's Bullgog no less.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Thanks, but the kind comments are undeserved and the assumption inaccurate. Perhaps you were thinking on notme2000, who garnered the support of Darwin's Bullgog no less.

Well, deserved or not I've only seen evidence of a few other minds of your caliber on this site, and of those you appear to me to have the greatest skill for debate. I enjoy being kind but in this case it is only a secondary motivation. I am highly impressed and honestly shocked that you claim not be a Ph.D. My guess is that you could write up a discertation today and defend it flawlessly tomorrow. That might be an exageration, but I would wager that it's less so for you that 99.999% of the populous.

I can't imagine why the others here don't seem similarly impressed. You would think that if one seeks the path to wisdom, one might learn to recognize it when it's right in front of their faces. You are obviously far more knowledgable than any who have posted in this thread. Lao Tzu is the only other that seems to be close to your level of understanding, and since he did not post much, it's difficult for me to discern.

Anyway, I've found this debate quite valuable and stimulating. I apoligize if my fawning has embarrassed you, it is just that I so rarely encounter someone with so much to offer on the topic. With that, I thank you and wish you a good day.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

If I was that bright, I would know how to spell Bulldog.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
If I was that bright, I would know how to spell Bulldog.

Eh, spelling went the way of the dodo via Bill Gates. Occasional mispelings are excpeted. If you didn't screw up once in a while I might mistake you for an AI.

 

[wesmorris]

CA,

Well, I was reflecting and thought I'd ask another question. In order to ensure that I understand what's been communicated, please answer (or reject the question) the following: What, if anything, can a a person be 100% sure of?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
What, if anything, can a person be 100% sure of?

I'm not sure but my guess would be a priori truths.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I'm not sure but my guess would be a priori truths.

I must be rather thick-skulled because based on your prior assertions I expected you to just reject the question as irrational. I can sort of buy the a priori truth thing, but hehe.. I'm not sure

I'm unsure because of this: 1 is 1 or 1+1 =2. Those are a priori truths correct? Does "a priori" collapse into "a posteriori" upon application to the real world (e.g. "there's one of those, there's another... hey look, now there's two")? What if I imagine this scenario? I've applied my imagination to a scenario where I count two things and surmise that addition reaches the same conclusion. I suppose it is still an "a priori" truth because I've only used reason and my imagination, hmm.. but I used "a posteriori" knowledge in my imagination to apply my "a priori" knowledge.

I thought you would likely either reject the question or go back to what you said was a cornerstone of methodological naturalism, "Our knowledge is contingent and tentative."

Doesn't that negate itself in a way? Sort of saying that really "knowledge is relational"?

Wait, what you said was "methodological naturalism relies on the a posteriori. It's truths are never absolute, always contingent and approximate." So basically, the quote I'm responding to was your version of a wisecrack - pretty good. That crack was wiser than I'm accustomed to, but at least I've proved my case regarding the thickness of my skull.

Does a priori knowledge exist? Isn't in like trying to "see" a quantum state, the act of observation collapses the function to a resultant? In other words, doesn't the act of reading of taking in the knowledge that leads to a priori knowledge inherently render it a posteriori?

Well, as you can see I'm rambling on, "thinking aloud" so to type.

Can you offer any clarity regarding these issues, or am I so lost as it to be pointless?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Does a priori knowledge exist?

I haven't fully thought this out, but might there not be a useful distinction between "a priori knowledge" and "a prori truth"?

I can assert with great confidence that a giraffe is not a goldfish, but I'm not at all sure that I've added much to the world's knowledge by doing so. Do definitions and tautologies constitute knowledge?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Can you offer any clarity regarding these issues, or am I so lost as it to be pointless??

Given the very real possibility that we could both be hopelessly confused, these are clearly not mutually exclusive states.

[ BTW: Are you absolutely sure that you are not toying with me? I keep waiting for you to set the hook. ]

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
[ BTW: Are you absolutely sure that you are not toying with me? I keep waiting for you to set the hook. ]

I assure you that I'm earnest in my inquiry. It's likely that my greatest weakness is that I'm almost compulsively honest. I'm just an explorer.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I haven't fully thought this out, but might there not be a useful distinction between "a priori knowledge" and "a prori truth"?

I agree, I'll have to think about it further. I only was thinking about it because you brought it up before... I wasn't sure exactly what it meant, thought i've heard it before. So I ended up here: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm#jdgts and started reading about what the differences were. Then it started to get cloudy (noted above) since I ask too many questions of myself.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I haven't fully thought this out, but might there not be a useful distinction between "a priori knowledge" and "a priori truth"?

I would imagine that given the context they should be synonimous. i.e. truth = knowledge. This must be since if knowledge is false it is not knowledge right?

BTW I agreed in the last post because I quite mistakenly misread that you were comparing "a priori" and "a posteriori" knowledge.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

You may well be right. In any event, I fear that we've wandered far from the initial topic, and the category of 'Religion" as well. Just don't let me hear you calling yourself an agnostic any time soon!

 

[wesmorris]

You're quite correct. You should start a thread in which to discuss "philosophical naturalism" or "methodological naturalism". I for one have not heard of it before, nor would I imagine have many of the others. You seem to know a lot about it.. spread the wealth!

 

[DoctorNO]

It seems that agnosticism, like atheism, supports 2 definitions:

1. I don't know {X}, and
2. {X} is unknowable

The 2nd form is binary in nature. You can't be 78% agnostic using this definition. On the other hand, there is nothing in this definition that precludes the agnostic from being either a theist or an atheist.

Perhaps this is more accurate:

• 
  a) I dont know any {x}
  b) The existence or non-existence of {x} is unknowable

Both holds true for me.

 

[everneo]

DrNo,
What is the significant difference.?