elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F38C287.343C667B@cloud9.net>...
> > [snip for length]
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > As you know, that's an unworkable challenge. A well-known analogy to
> > the theist-atheist argument is a court case in which one side says
> > there exists a legally binding contract, and the other side says there
> > is no contract. Of course, the onus would be entirely on the former to
> > prove the contract exists. Now suppose a third, "agnostic" side
> > entered the court and says "there *could* be a contract." The agnostic
> > must explain how there is a real possibility that the contract exists,
> > or be deemed irrelevant to the dispute.
>
> That's not the way I see it at all, but I'll use your analogy. In
> Scottish courts there also exists a verdict of "Not proven". I submit
> that the existance of a contract is unproven, and being of a
> metaphysical nature, unprovable.
Seems like a bit of evasive wordplay. By "metaphysical" you appear to
be implying the contract as no tangibility, no testable qualities, no
observable impact, no influence or presence. And that's a good
definition for "non-existence." How'd you ever pass the metaphysical
bar exam?
> ....
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Let's not confuse the question which, I think, hasn't been about
> > producing a proof but rather about how agnostics and atheists deal
> > with the evidence with which everyone is familiar. The non-existence
> > of gods is provable to my satisfaction, it goes without saying, in
> > much the same way "invisible skunks on the moon" can be disproved. It
> > seems to me the agnostic position is to place an exceptional standard
> > of proof on a sensitive subject, so forcing him to entertain silly
> > notions against all good sense.
>
> Silly me, asking for proof. You say you're satisfied w/ the proof, but
> what proof do you have of the nonexistence of gods?
I'm not inclined to present one, but will say there's no single
formulated proof, and mine would probably reference psychology and
mythology, physics, and the history of religion, keeping in mind that
the arguments *for* a god's existence make no sense. Nothing that
would surprise you. One would also need to know what sort of god is to
be disproved: an all-powerful monotheistic Creator god, a Zeus, a
demi-god, Reginald God the brass knob salesman?
> There may be some element of gods being an exceptional case, but that is
> only because that is the main superstition being shoved down our
> collective throats. Also, the farther we range into the metaphysical,
> the less room there is for the use of empirical evidence. My common
> sense is in place, but I'd rather not waste my time trying to
> demonstrate a conviction for which I have no physical proof.
"Gods" surely is an exceptional case. You haven't asked me to present
an argument against the existence of invisible skunks on the moon, for
instance. Precisely because it's "the main superstition being shoved
down our collective throats" is why it's particularly odious.
> > A problem I perceive with agnosticism is that is conciliatory towards
> > religious faith, which is still a pervasive deleterious force.
> > Agnosticism is an fuzzyily-defined position that may encompass those
> > who are tilting towards faith and those who simply wish to be
> > non-confrontational with religionists. It seems impotent to
> > scandalize, insult, or damage religion.
>
> Lets not confuse "weak" and "strong" agnosticism. There are different
> flavors of atheism as well. All a strong agnostic is saying, is that
> the existence of gods can't be conclusively proven. I doesn't have to
> imply any fraternizing w/ religion. I don't feel like I'm going out on
> a limb whem I say I don't believe in gods. Neither do i mince words
> when I declare religions to be merely sociological and psychological constructs.
If by "conclusively" you mean with complete certainty, I thought we
agreed that wasn't necessary. A proof has only to be sufficiently
convincing for a conclusion to be made, and propositions like
"invisible skunks on the moon" or "God is Mickey Mouse" are
disprovable in my opinion. An irony of the agnostic position as you've
presented it is that while it hopes to be rooted in principles of
science it allows the possibility of phenomena that, if they existed,
would annul the foundations of science.
> I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that there are
> things that I don't know, that no one knows, that no one may ever know.
> Such as... what existed before time? How did time come into existence?
> If time always existed, how is that possible?
No argument. These are perplexing questions, but irrelevant. Do they
make the question of the existence of gods more perplexing? Not
really. The latter question is fairly simple in comparison.
> Sure, there are many interesting theories and mathematical constructs,
> but how do we test them? Can the small limited beings on this tiny
> world really conceive of the infinite, or are we limited to what we can
> actually see and touch... light travelling for billions of years or
> matter invisible to the naked eye. The farther we travel from places
> which have human scale the less certain we may be.
>
> Perhaps humanity will evolve into a position to answer these questions,
> but for now they are beyond our ken.
Again, there are things there are no good answers for, but also things
which there *are* good answers for. It seems to me ingenuous to insist
a thing can't be known until demonstrated beyond even an unreasonable
doubt. Were that the case, "know" may as well be marked "archaic" in
the dictionary.
> > > > > 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
> >
> > It was interesting, but the parts it snagged me on had nothing to do
> > with any convictions I may have. Mainly on semantical things like is
> > it "justifiable" to take such-and-such a position. Well, sure it is,
> > people justify it all the time. But when I personally find lack of
> > sufficient justification in the position, I'm apparently logically
> > inconsistent. Wonder how someone like Thomas Aquinas would have
> > scored.
>
> I think most people would end up w/ some inconsistancies merely because
> few of us are razor sharp at all times. That is why I liked the test.
> Even though it is a bit tricksy, it forces one to think about and
> justify beliefs which may sometimes be taken for granted.
That's as close to a rule of thumb as I have: one should interrogate
their beliefs whenever they become apparent. If the belief passes
muster for now, catch it again on the next go round.
> "Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought
> to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought
> to do."
> -- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Two Precepts of Charity
"Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to not buy
anything you don't need, to not spend more than you have to, and a jar
of Saint Tom's New Improved Extra-Greasy Salvation Salve for
Beneficence of Soul and Preferred Body Parts."
-- Saint Thomas Quinine, Two Purses of Clarity
-- 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 |
|