Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: parry@perfectmail.com (Parry)
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: 14 July 1789
Date: 29 Jul 2003 03:42:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <36a623f.0307290242.1f3aa74f@posting.google.com>
References: <3F124E55.A4BA3D3B@cloud9.net> <44df026a.0307140902.56ad3c12@posting.google.com> <3F14BD7B.B816BADC@cloud9.net> <3qm9hvknftknf4e6erqug6hd58om7nof40@4ax.com> <3F150994.640B1A94@blueyonder.co.uk> <3F18C249.AC79B0EA@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0307210308.3053e8c@posting.google.com> <3F1F866C.9040AC03@cloud9.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.91.182.246
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1059475332 24756 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2003 10:42:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jul 2003 10:42:12 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:228
elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F1F866C.9040AC03@cloud9.net>...
> Parry wrote:
> >
> > elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F18C249.AC79B0EA@cloud9.net>...
> > > Paul Heslop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > prefuse 73 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > lucat bene, der elag <elag@cloud9.net> goh, a hunnert truxx inero,
> > > > > sumwit kowz n' sumwit duxx on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:50:43 -0400:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Emilie Gruchow wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If anything, Jefferson's manner of speaking certainly counters any
> > > > > >> arguments that the founding father was a devoted man of the Christian
> > > > > >> church. Though I do agree with his acceptance of humanity's tendency
> > > > > >> to duke it out in large groups every 150 years or so, I would shy away
> > > > > >> from assigning it to a higher calling of nature (ie Deism). I am not
> > > > > >> completely dismissive of religion myself, though I am skeptical, but
> > > > > >> conducting one's primeval head butting in the name of some higher
> > > > > >> power seems a stretch even to the agnostics on this side of the pond.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Personally I'm agnostic, I don't believe in gods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > based on what you've just typed, you are 'atheist'. *not 'agnostic'.
> > > > >
> > > > > according to merriam-webster:
> > > > >
> > > > > an 'atheist' is someone that denies the existence of (a) god.
> > > > >
> > > > > an 'agnostic' either doubts the truth of religion (noun), or is one
> > > > > that is uncertain of all claims to knowledge (adjective). an apropos
> > > > > synonym would be 'doubter'.
> > > > >
> > > > > so, what are you again?...
> > > > >
> > > > > i, for one, am 'atheist'.
> > > > >
> > > > I always thought I was an atheist until I read that... now I doubt that
> > > > I am :O)
> > >
> > > As Bunuel used to say: "Thank god I'm an atheist".
> > >
> > > As for me... I hold to Thomas Huxley's definition of agnosticism.
> > > Huxley used "agnostic" to describe not a creed, but a method." This
> > > method of thought
> > > advocates that people "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which
> > > are not
> > > demonstrated or demonstrable." An agnostic doesn't necessarily believe
> > > or disbelieve in a god -- he or she doesn't profess to know if there's a
> > > god at all. Huxley's writings suggest that it's impossible to ever know
> > > if a god exists or not.
> > >
> > > So, I would say I that I don't believe in gods, and that the existence
> > > of gods is unknown and unknowable. An Atheist declares that there is no
> > > god, which is somewhat different.
> > >
> > > This has been a public service announcement.
> >
> > Actually, "a-theist" means one without belief in gods.
>
> Of course I know that. In the general sense both I and Huxley could be
> considered Atheists. Atheism is also commonly understood to imply the
> denial of the existance of god. This can be seen to mean a declaration
> that there is no god.
>
> It is in reaction to the certitude of this declaration that Huxley
> sought to adress by the use of the term agnostic.
>
> > Or, to paraphrase the old joke, an atheist is someone who believes in one
> > less god than a christian does. I consider an "agnostic" to be someone
> > who feels there is no story too ridiculous to be discounted.
>
> Although agnostic means "does not know" and could in a general sense be
> used to describe the "know nothing" attitude of which you speak, this is
> not what Huxley is getting at.
>
> It is intended to be paralell to the scientific method, which Huxley
> practiced in his professional life. It's clear to me that he is saying
> that religion, based on faith, can not be empirically proven or
> disproven. So, it is not for the unbeliever to justify his perversity;
> the believer must justify his belief, to show why he should be taken seriously.
>
> In short, there is no need for gods to explain what we see around us for
> there are other more consistent methods of doing so.
>
> > If Huxley's standard of demonstrability were extended to matters beyond
> > religion -- and there's no reason it shouldn't be, no reason why
> > religious belief should be made a special case -- the agnostic
> > position would effectively be that one cannot make conclusions about
> > anything, for there is vanishingly little about reality that is
> > absolutely certain.
>
> Not at all, there are physical laws which work as advertised and
> describe quite well much of the reality which we see. Things that are
> less certain may be called theories... or if something, like the sun,
> acts in a consistent way over a long period, we might assign a
> probability to its actions approaching certainty.
>
> Absolute certainty isn't always necessary, but the sun will still come
> up tomorrow.
"Absolute certainty" may not even be possible. Certainty -- if the
word is to be used, and I'm not advocating it shouldn't -- should be
understood in relative terms, with the spin of an electron being
certainly so and "invisible skunks" being certainly not. If one
considers the god theory less likely than "invisible skunks," there's
a degree of certainty there that overrides the tendency towards
agnosticism.
> In a general way I do apply an agnostic filter to everyday life but that
> doesn't keep me from making conclusions.
> Hypothesis-Theory-Experiment-Conclusion goes on below the radar all the
> time. Sometimes we say "Insufficient Evidence" or "Unproven".
> Sometimes a Hypothesis is trashed before it reaches paper.
>
> As Huxley says, it is a "method of thought (which) advocates that people
> "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated
> or demonstrable." Nearly everything apart from faith & superstition is demonstrable.
I shouldn't think so. It's Philosophy 101 that everything after
"cogito, ergo sum" is shaky ground. The solipsist's argument is
basically irrefutable, only discredited for being distasteful, but
that's where talk of certainty leads. If the scientific approach is to
be agnostic towards everything which cannot be empirically tested,
that would include fundamentals of reality, which casts the whole
edifice in doubt.
And, in fact, I think the scientific approach is to view all knowledge
as tentative and vulnerable to revision. That's a strength, not
undermined by untidy areas such as the strangeness of particle physics
or the inconclusiveness about the strength of gravity. It's questions
which fuel science.
So is atheism unscientific or even anti-scientific? I would define
science as being a systematic application of reason to the study of
phenomena, rather than being something that resides entirely in
"demonstrability" or "repeatibility." Where empirical testing can't be
applied effectively, one finds theoretical science or soft sciences
like statistical analysis. Where the usual methods can't be applied,
one can still bring reason and experience to bear on a problem. If a
theory doesn't seem likely or possible, it can be dismissed with more
or less ease depending on the theory. Is it unscientific to dismiss
the claim that "the dark side of the moon is ruled by invisible
skunks," even though the claim cannot be empirically tested? If it is,
so be it, for even science must be subservient to the faculties of
reason. But it's certainly not unscientific.
> But of course people make conclusions all the time
> > and thus avoid wasting time with any number of silly propositions.
> >
> > Would you say you're agnostic about the Roman pantheon of gods?
>
> Who needs 'em? Water boils at 100 c and freezes at 0 c whether I
> believe in them or not. Slitting my carotid artery kills me whether I
> believe it does or not. Of course, Zeus, Hermes et al could just be
> hiding under my teapot.
>
> I believe it's time for bed.
But you dodged the question. The Roman gods aren't any more or less
demonstrable than gods of living religions. So I'm curious, is your
position towards them atheistic or agnostic?
-- Parry
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 |
|