Is agnosticism the only honest position?

[birch]

Faith basically means 'trust'. It doesn't necessarily exclude having reasons, even good reasons, for what is trusted. Each time I take a step, I have faith that the "law" of gravity hasn't been repealed. That doesn't mean that I don't have what I feel is good inductive reason for trusting gravity. It isn't 100% certainty and I can't really answer Hume's skepticism about the logical status of induction, but it's good enough for me in my daily life.

Some people honestly think that the design argument is persuasive. (I don't.) Other people honestly trust their own religious experiences. Still others honestly insist that science contradicts and discredits supernaturalism.

Lots of people believe lots of things for lots of different reasons. Their reasons might be very good or very bad, but even stupidity and credulity don't imply that people are lying.

i would say that faith is also a lot like hope. people are hoping it's true while others believe it to true for the purpose of making their reality or world according to their beliefs.

i would also say that there is an unnoticed aspect to religion. while the distracting focus among debaters of either side is often on the existence of a creator or not, most believers believe for more local reasons or may be the real reason. whether to push their agenda with the name/concept god attached which gives the illusion that it's not at all personally motivated, for moral values, god concept may appeal to, representative of or serves their megalomania or with some people and some cases, the opposite; that god represents a source of protection from others and also a concept that can be used to dissolve responsiblilty to others by citing their responsibility to god more important as well as to consider something beyond themselves (others) etc. all the motivations are not negative or duplicitous though but they can be used that way.

in other words, right or wrong, god concept can appeal to, be used and be representative of many different things to many different people by their own nature and for their own purpose.

 

[ejderha]

I get an agnostic theist. In agnosticism there is already a probability suggested.

How can somebody be an agnostic atheist?

It doesn't make any sense. There is an essential conflict. A person is either an agnostic, or an atheist. Or going through a process of being an atheist.

 

[SolusCado]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with you here. Believing you will the lottery is basically HOPING you will win the lottery. You don't know if you will or not until the numbers come up. There is also a certain chance that you will win the lottery, even if you don't buy a ticket because you could find the winning ticket on the floor and for some reason nobody else claims it (long odds on that one ).

Regarding belief in a deity I think it could be considered delusional in the same way someone that is convinced werewolves and vampires are real could be considered delusional. The is nothing but anecdotal evidence to go on.

In this sense we are all agnostic, none of us can be certain there is a God yet some of us choose to believe (although I would argue it is hope, not belief) there is one since that fits our upbringing, education, World view, etc. I don't believe in God, werewolves, vampires, celestial teapots, etc because there is no evidence and my view on the universe around us doesn't require that there ever would be evidence. Sure, if a werewolf attacked me I would change my mind pretty quickly.

And that is basically my position. I most definitely think you can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. It's the leaving off the agnostic part that I believe to be dishonest (or delusional). If you think you KNOW there isn't a God, or if you think you KNOW there IS a God... then you are either lying to yourself or delusional.

 

[ejderha]

But of course I am an agnostic myself. I am also an atheist. When I deny the existence of a deity described to me, it's because the logic and reasoning put forward to support it are fallacious. We falsify the hypothetical using logic, nothing more, we aren't making claims of absolute knowledge. Being an agnostic, it's kinda hard to take anybody seriously that claims absolute knowledge. But I prefer to refer myself as an atheist anyway, because too many see agnosticism as an apologetic faith based position, rather than a statement about knowledge.

You are actually an agnostic. But you think agnostics are not taken seriously or agressive enough, so you refer to yourself as an atheist?

 

[phlogistician]

I get an agnostic theist. In agnosticism there is already a probability suggested.

How can somebody be an agnostic atheist?

It doesn't make any sense. There is an essential conflict. A person is either an agnostic, or an atheist. Or going through a process of being an atheist.

I don't understand why you 'get' the position that makes the least sense. I don't believe anyone can know there is a a god, and I don't take god on faith either, hence I am an agnostic, and an atheist.

But if someone admits they can't know, but 'feels' there is a God, they have to admit to it being subjective, and then how can faith have no doubt?

 

[phlogistician]

You are actually an agnostic. But you think agnostics are not taken seriously or agressive enough, so you refer to yourself as an atheist?

Atheism is about faith, agnosticism about knowledge. Too often, people think agnosticism is about not knowing one's own mind, and being undecided. That isn't correct. Agnosticism is not some apologetic mid ground between theism and atheism.

 

[birch]

Too often, people think agnosticism is about not knowing one's own mind, and being undecided. That isn't correct

you are right, that's why most have to refer to themselves as atheists to err on the side of most clear.

But if someone admits they can't know, but 'feels' there is a God, they have to admit to it being subjective, and then how can faith have no doubt?

i think the reason why we allow it is because people often label what they feel inside or their life spark, god. when many are arguing with others about the concept of god, they feel it personally threatening this association(which they've made consciously or unconsciously) and it's dire because to deny the existence of god is denying that they exist or who they are.

 

[Lori_7]

Believing in something because it makes you feel good might be a good reason personally, but it isn't evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. It's trust in something for no reliable reason, and thus it's not intellectually honest. Intellectually honesty is not the same as honesty in regular life. I'm not suggesting they are lying, but they are being dishonest when they claim that science supports their faith.

it has nothing to do with feeling good, for me anyway. i don't see how being a theist makes you feel any better than being an atheist, or agnostic. you could argue the ignorance is bliss stance from either side, but ignorance doesn't make everyone happy.

science doesn't necessarily support my faith in many ways, but it doesn't contradict it either. it's just not interested.

and faith is not belief in the absence of evidence, it is trust in something you know, and you know via interaction and experience, which is the evidence that you base your trust on.

 

[ejderha]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with you here. Believing you will the lottery is basically HOPING you will win the lottery. You don't know if you will or not until the numbers come up. There is also a certain chance that you will win the lottery, even if you don't buy a ticket because you could find the winning ticket on the floor and for some reason nobody else claims it (long odds on that one ).

Regarding belief in a deity I think it could be considered delusional in the same way someone that is convinced werewolves and vampires are real could be considered delusional. The is nothing but anecdotal evidence to go on.

In this sense we are all agnostic, none of us can be certain there is a God yet some of us choose to believe (although I would argue it is hope, not belief) there is one since that fits our upbringing, education, World view, etc. I don't believe in God, werewolves, vampires, celestial teapots, etc because there is no evidence and my view on the universe around us doesn't require that there ever would be evidence. Sure, if a werewolf attacked me I would change my mind pretty quickly.

Your examples are invalid. And there can't be an 'anecdotes' with werewolves and vampires in it, they don't exist. An anecdote is a real situation actually happened in the past with real people so one could use it to refer the condition.

What you are trying to do is building an anology I guess, but it's incorrect.

Even you don't know if you will win the lottery or not, there is a possibility to win no matter how low, because quite a few people already won the lottery. We know this, we watch them losing all the money in stupid ways.

We haven't seen or witnessed anyone chatting with the creator about his brilliant plan.

You or anyone will never get attacked by a werewolf or a vampire because they don't exist. Even one day if science manages to combine wolf and human dna and that creature attacks a human it won't be a werewolf attack. It will be an attacked casued by a failed biological experiment.

Believing god and believing vampires&werewolves are not the same kind of delusions.

Claiming -in any sense- everybody is agnostic at some point also means the idea of agnosticism covers every concept related to fundemental questions which in the first place is the reason of conflict. It refuses to cover them.

 

[ejderha]

I don't understand why you 'get' the position that makes the least sense. I don't believe anyone can know there is a a god, and I don't take god on faith either, hence I am an agnostic, and an atheist.
But if someone admits they can't know, but 'feels' there is a God, they have to admit to it being subjective, and then how can faith have no doubt?

Why it's the least position that makes sense? I can't understand how somebody be two exactly opposing things. Where did I 'get' the least position that makes sense before?

 

[SolusCado]

If you are allegedly an agnostic theist, just what does one believe in, exactly?

You can't believe God is real, because you have admitted doubt, surely? I guess I don't understand faith, so can't get my head around the idea of holding a belief I can't justify. Your thoughts?

Why can you not believe God is real simply because you have admitted doubt? I would argue that it isn't belief UNLESS there is doubt. Remember Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? The part where he was supposed to "take a leap of faith", and when he did realized there was a stone bridge that he couldn't see at first? If he could have seen it, it wouldn't have been a leap of faith, would it?

 

[Raithere]

If you are allegedly an agnostic theist, just what does one believe in, exactly?

You can't believe God is real, because you have admitted doubt, surely? I guess I don't understand faith, so can't get my head around the idea of holding a belief I can't justify. Your thoughts?

They aren't unjustified, they just change their epistemological position or methodology. I don't find this inherently fallacious, I don't think it's possible to maintain a single stance for everything. But it is typically unexamined and often people will switch stances without argument whenever they find it convenient which I do find invalid.

Most often the primary position is empirical but then switches to provide justification of belief in god. As with a Christian who holds to scientific methodology except where their personal experience of god trumps it. Technically it's still an empirical stance but the methodology has changed, I tend to call it revelatory to distinguish the difference.

As I stated though I don't think it's true possible to maintain a single stance though, the error lies in not providing sufficient argument. For example, even though for most purposes I take a scientific position at some point a reductive argument forces me to move to rationalism to establish a priori propositions (I exist, my perceptions are in some way congruent with reality or can be validated to be so).

~Raithere

 

[wsionynw]

Your examples are invalid. And there can't be an 'anecdotes' with werewolves and vampires in it, they don't exist. An anecdote is a real situation actually happened in the past with real people so one could use it to refer the condition.

What you are trying to do is building an anology I guess, but it's incorrect.

Even you don't know if you will win the lottery or not, there is a possibility to win no matter how low, because quite a few people already won the lottery. We know this, we watch them losing all the money in stupid ways.

We haven't seen or witnessed anyone chatting with the creator about his brilliant plan.

You or anyone will never get attacked by a werewolf or a vampire because they don't exist. Even one day if science manages to combine wolf and human dna and that creature attacks a human it won't be a werewolf attack. It will be an attacked casued by a failed biological experiment.

Believing god and believing vampires&werewolves are not the same kind of delusions.

Claiming -in any sense- everybody is agnostic at some point also means the idea of agnosticism covers every concept related to fundemental questions which in the first place is the reason of conflict. It refuses to cover them.

Not true, there are plenty of examples of people that claim to have been bitten by a vampire, or seen a ghost, and so on. If the person making these claims believes them to be true then they are presenting anecdotal evidence.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0027380#m_en_gb0027380

My point is that it is similar to claiming a belief in a God(s), little more than imagination fueled delusions, sometimes combined with wishful thinking.

By the way, how do you know vampires and werewolves don't exist?

 

[phlogistician]

Why can you not believe God is real simply because you have admitted doubt?

How can you think something you doubt, is real? Surely, all it can ever be, is a case of 'I Want to Believe'?

 

[NetJaded]

I think the only way to be an honest atheist or person of religion is to be mentally imbalanced.

So yes, there are people who truly believe wholeheartedly in something they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF, they just aren't sane people.

I think that sane people can only truly be agnostic, any sane atheist or theist I ever met eventually became agnostic because they never really believed the hype, but they wanted to.

Hell, we all wanted to believe in the imaginary things we were taught as a child that allowed us to divide people into categories of good and bad. It's a little disheartening to know that we are all just people.

 

[Raithere]

If you think you KNOW there isn't a God, or if you think you KNOW there IS a God... then you are either lying to yourself or delusional.

I KNOW that Zeus (a powerful, corporeal being, resembling a large human, and living in a palace on top of Mount Olympus) does not exist. - We have photos of Mount Olympus and no one is living there.

I KNOW that Jehovah (a god who answers people's prayers and heals them preferentially) does not exist. - We have studied the healing effect of prayer and it falls inside the margin of error.

You have to define god first.

~Raithere

 

[birch]

I think the only way to be an honest atheist or person of religion is to be mentally imbalanced.

So yes, there are people who truly believe wholeheartedly in something they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF, they just aren't sane people.

I think that sane people can only truly be agnostic, any sane atheist or theist I ever met eventually became agnostic because they never really believed the hype, but they wanted to.

Hell, we all wanted to believe in the imaginary things we were taught as a child that allowed us to divide people into categories of good and bad. It's a little disheartening to know that we are all just people.

the thing most theists don't consider is that even if god/creator were proved to be true, it doesn't mean anything would change.

it doesn't mean god would suddenly be agreed with or that it would be worshiped either. for example, one can identify the president or those in power but that doesn't mean all agree with their decisions. some may want to kill it or some may like/dislike. hypothetically, it may be best that god doesn't show up.

if a creator really did exist and showed itself with the ability to communicate with us, it would receive more requests for change than not.

so, either way, it is largely irrevelant except to give hope to people that there is a good reason for keep going and being a positive change. the reasons may be real and valid but the concept may not be and that is where many get stumped, confused or they need a mental concrete image (god is an entity with xyz characteristics) in order to validate purpose. if they need it or it's real to them, then so be it and that's what works for them.

 

[ejderha]

Not true, there are plenty of examples of people that claim to have been bitten by a vampire, or seen a ghost, and so on. If the person making these claims believes them to be true then they are presenting anecdotal evidence.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0027380#m_en_gb0027380

My point is that it is similar to claiming a belief in a God(s), little more than imagination fueled delusions, sometimes combined with wishful thinking.

By the way, how do you know vampires and werewolves don't exist?

Sorry, I cannot take you seriously.

 

[Yazata]

The problem I have with agnosticism is that the agnostic position isn't held consistently across all matters.

I consider myself an agnostic with regards to transcendental matters. But I don't have any problem believing that I have knowledge about a great many mundane earthly matters.

By 'transcendental', I guess that I mean something like supposed beings and realms that lie 'beyond' the natural world revealed by our senses and/or 'beyond' our human powers of cognition. That's why I typically respond to transcendentalist claims with epistemological questions. If somebody starts making assertions about supposed "higher realities", my first instinct is to ask what persuasive account they can give for how they know the things that they say they know.

Bottom line: For me at least, agnosticism depends upon the nature of the object about which knowledge claims are being made, and upon the kinds of epistemological difficulties that those knowledge claims raise. Some knowledge claims are going to be more problematic than others.

 

[wsionynw]

Sorry, I cannot take you seriously.

Well I can't imagine why not.
It's a simple question, since it is not possible to prove the non-existance of either werewolves or God.

I don't KNOW God doesn't exist, nor do you KNOW werewolves don't exist.
I don't believe in either of them, for the same reason; both are made up by man.