Parry wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes, I agree with that. In a philosophical sense I have no problem with
limiting myself to relative certainty. I'm also well aware of subatomic
"uncertainty" and other such quandries.
> If one considers the god theory less likely than "invisible skunks," there's
> a degree of certainty there that overrides the tendency towards
> agnosticism.
I'd consider gods to be a whole lot of invisible skunks. I'll believe
it when I see it. If someone can come up with a good tool for measuring
those invisible skunks, I'll be willing to look at that evidence.
Now, try and prove to me that there are no invisible skunks.
>
> > 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.
Let's just stick to relative certainty, shall we. Within my frame of
reference, I can use certain tools to measure the physical world, which
is the only world I have. Other people can in most cases confirm those
measurements in the external world.
I'm aware that perception is changeable and that individual points of
view can often be in conflict. Yet, under standard conditions the laws
of gravity remain constant, ripe peaches taste good, and poking someone
in the eye invites a broken nose.
I have tools. I use them. When I consistently get the same results as
everyone else, I believe I've achieved relative certainty of the results.
>
> 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.
I have no problem with results being tentative. Still, there are things
called laws which onder specific conditions are a whole lot less
tentative than most other things. I think it's okay to depend on them
since the likelihood of failure is remoter.
I drop a ball and it hits the ground. I put a cup of hot lead in front
of my air conditioner and it cools and solidifies at a certain rate.
I'm relatively certain that if I drop the ball and a feather in a vacuum
they will hit the ground at the same time.
My knowledge of the is mostly local, but I don't see any reason that I
can't extrapolate my local knowledge on a wider basis. One day someone
may have the chance to test those extrapolations and I patiently await
the results. Until then I'll play the averages.
>
> 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.
I'd just assign a probability to the contention. It's highly unlikely
(approaching cerainty) that the dark side of the moon is ruled by
invisible skunks, as there is no evidence of it. Indeed there is no
evidence that they exist at all.
In fact I'd most likely say "prove it".
There is no god!
There is no god?
Then prove it.
...or better yet... why bother... I'd recommend going off and developing
a more efficient solar battery instead... another better pursuit might
be smelling wildflowers in the forest. One doesn't need gods for either.
>
> > 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?
Strictly speaking, agnostic. I believe in all gods to the same degree.
Gods can make for amusing tales; they seem to be examples of early
cultures attempts to understand the world around them; they served as a
convenient method of controlling the local populace. All of those are
interesting, and I think, fairly likely theories. The theories apply to
all gods, demigods, demons, elves, nixies, spirits, etc.
BTW, here's an interesting "test" of your convictions (and mine)
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
|
| 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 |
|