Agnosticism is not a logical stance

[Adrian Baker]

the _truth and others...

I love visiting this forum and have read many of your arguments, but as a scientist I do wonder WHY you have these discussions? Aren't they completely pointless? I totally agree with the_truth's argument above - it is excellent - but some people seem to like believing in God and others consider this idea to be utter drivel... However, from both a scientific and a religious point of view, any argument is a waste of time. Science can't prove religion - nor can it disprove it!

I'm sure it is genetic.. religion seems to be hard-wired into some peoples brains, whereas in others (like mine) it is as alien a concept as talking in chinese (I'm English)

I'm not 'dissing you guys (I really do love reading the discussions), but aren't these arguments a little like argueing about which is the 'best' colour of the rainbow?

 

[hypnagogue]

My standard of justification is based on what is correct or not. Therefore atheists and monotheists have a standard of justification which is based on what is not correct.

You have it backwards. We only agree on what is 'correct' and what is not on the basis of our standards of justification. You start with certain epistemic standards, whether they be explicit or implicit, and use those standards to arrive at a view of which claims are true and which are false.

Belief is intertwined with everything. If somone believed 1+1=3 and someone believed 1+1=2. It does not mean they are both correct. Belief is irrelevant. Atheists and monotheists have the same intelligence and access to evidence as I do, if their standard of justification was based on correctness they would reach the same conclusion as me as I am correct. As I have just proven.

Belief is not irrelevant, it's precisely what is at issue. We are certainly not concerned here to show whether theists or strong atheists have the correct view. We are concerned about what relationship obtains among agnosticism and theism/atheism.

You cannot be an atheist and an agnostic they are mutually exclusive. It is like saying 1+1=2=3.

This is the crux of the matter, and the plain fact is that neither being theist nor being atheist logically precludes one from also being agnostic. They are positions about different matters. If you believe they are mutually exclusive, show me the logical contradiction in this statement:

"I believe that God exists, although I do not believe that I can prove God exists."

You might argue that one should not believe in things that one cannot prove to some degree of certainty, but there is nonetheless no logical contradiction in doing so.

 

[hypnagogue]

All that is required to fit the general definition [of agnosticism] is no commitment to belief or disbelief in a God. The more technically accurate definition would be to say that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a God is unknowable. Either will do.

The second statement is correct, but the first is not. Agnosticism has nothing to do with commitment to belief or disbelief; it has to do with justification for belief or disbelief. Being an agnostic does not logically entail being a theist or atheist, but nor does it entail being neither of those.

Consider these propositions:
1. Whether God exists or not is unknowable. (agnosticism)
2. We should not commit to the stance that God exists, nor to the stance that God does not exist. (weak atheism)

Assuming (1) is true, we still cannot conclude (2). For that, we need an extra proposition:

1.5. A minimal pre-requirement for committing to the stance that X is true (or false) is that we be in possession of some reliable facts regarding X.

One can be an agnostic but also a theist or strong atheist by rejecting (1.5); to reject (1.5) is essentially to validate faith as sufficient grounds for belief. One might argue that we should hold (1.5) to be true (I certainly would), but that is beyond the scope of the current discussion. We're interested here in the logical coherence of a position like agnostic theism, not whether such a position is a good or bad one.

The definitions you used seem more complicated than necessary and there is no option for someone who can be T or N but not F. Or what if they believe T or F and not N.

One's own evaluation of the statement "God exists" must be limited to just one of either T (yes, God exists), F (no, God does not exist), or N (not sure). I listed weak atheism as N or F because, as I understand it, weak atheism is just the same thing as "not theism," and "not theism" covers both the F and N cases. For practical purposes, it would be helpful to identify weak atheism with the "not sure" position so we could sharply differentiate weak and strong atheism (as I did above with proposition (2)), although I'm not sure if this is how the term is commonly used.

In any case, if you were interested in referring to disjunctions of possible evaluations of G, all you'd have to do is create a new label and define it in terms of the disjunction, e.g. "not-unsure-theism: T or F but not N." I don't know why you'd be interested in doing that, but you could do it if you'd like.

If they believe God is F then they are atheist, T is theist, and if their mind changes to some form of N then they become agnostic. I don't see a reason for differentiation.

The reason for differentiation is simply staying true to what the words mean! As I hoped I've shown, being an agnostic does not imply that one cannot be a theist or strong atheist. This is not an artificial or ad hoc statement, but rather it follows directly from how the relevant terms are defined.

Although, I don't understand why non agnostic is used to define agnostics.

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[hypnagogue]

How do you classify someone that doesn't think he possesses the necessary case one way or the other, but thinks it is entirely possible that someone else does?

Actually, it looks like your weak and strong varieties of agnosticism have already been established elsewhere:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/strong_weak.htm

That's basically the way I feel. I've never seen a compelling argument or piece of evidence either way, and so I consider myself to be agnostic. That's always been my self-identification. That said, my belief isn't so strong as to wed me to the proposition that it is impossible for any human ever to know whether or not God exists. I used to feel that way, but lately I've felt some sympathy for the possibility that there may be genuinely religious experiences by which some person can come to know God and that I have just never experienced anything of this sort. It's just that it seems untenable for me to draw a conclusion about what someone can or cannot learn from a given experience if I've never had that experience myself.

My own view on this is that, strictly speaking, subjective experience alone can only reveal facts about experience qua experience (what it is like to experience X, it is possible that humans can experience X, etc.). To move beyond this, we need extra facts (and reasonable assumptions) that corroborate the subjective impression, or extend the range of what can be known from the experience. For instance, one kind of evidence that corroborates my impression that I perceive a world external to my mind is intersubjective agreement with fellow humans; if we could identify the neural correlate of a given experience E, we could infer upon experiencing E that its corresponding neural correlate is active; etc.

For this reason, I don't think any potential kind of experience as of God alone would be sufficient grounds for believing that God exists, anymore than hallucinating that I am being surrounded by elves would be sufficient grounds for believing that elves exist. A religious experience could certainly be informative and enlightening in a number of ways-- it could reveal new phenomenal/conceptual territory to the experiencer, change one's values and general outlook on life, give insight to classical concepts of God and other spiritual matters that recur through history, etc. In that sense, I think a religious experience could be invaluable for knowing the experience that humans have typically associated, or even identified, with God. But to move from the experience to belief in some objectively existing thing, I think further corroboration would be necessary. And of course, I haven't even mentioned ambiguities in what God is even supposed to be in the first place, etc., etc.

 

[hypnagogue]

the _truth and others...

I love visiting this forum and have read many of your arguments, but as a scientist I do wonder WHY you have these discussions? Aren't they completely pointless? I totally agree with the_truth's argument above - it is excellent - but some people seem to like believing in God and others consider this idea to be utter drivel... However, from both a scientific and a religious point of view, any argument is a waste of time. Science can't prove religion - nor can it disprove it!

This is not a discussion of whether God exists or not, or whether a given religious viewpoint can be proven, or even who among us believes in God and who doesn't. It's about what logical relationship obtains among the terms agnostic and theist/atheist. The actual truth of any of these positions is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

As for why to have a discussion about terminology-- apparently the terminology in question is widely misunderstood (it doesn't help that these misunderstandings have come to be expressed in colloquial language), so it needs to be cleared up.

 

[loseyourname]

My own view on this is that, strictly speaking, subjective experience alone can only reveal facts about experience qua experience (what it is like to experience X, it is possible that humans can experience X, etc.). To move beyond this, we need extra facts (and reasonable assumptions) that corroborate the subjective impression. For instance, one kind of evidence that corroborates my impression that I perceive a world external to my mind is intersubjective agreement with fellow humans.

For this reason, I don't think any potential kind of experience as of God alone would be sufficient grounds for believing that God exists, anymore than hallucinating that I am being surrounded by elves would be sufficient grounds for believing that elves exist. A religious experience could certainly be informative and enlightening in a number of ways-- it could reveal new phenomenal/conceptual territory to the experiencer, change one's values and general outlook on life, give insight to classical concepts of God and other spiritual matters that recur through history, etc. In that sense, I think a religious experience could be invaluable for knowing the experience that humans have typically associated, or even identified, with God. But to move from the experience to belief in some objectively existing thing, I think further corroboration would be necessary. And of course, I haven't even mentioned ambiguities in what God is even supposed to be in the first place, etc., etc.

I believe pretty much the same thing. It's just that this seems to be a purely intuitional belief and cannot itself be proven. I agree that it seems a huge leap to make from a religious experience to any theological conclusions. Even if a clearly very powerful being manifested himself and performed all manner of supernatural feats and told you he was God, how do you know he really is God and not just a really powerful, but not all-powerful, being that evolved just as we did?

Putting this rather outlandish scenario aside, though, let us consider the possibility of that whole one-consciousness idea. We can borrow from Spinoza and postulate that all individuals are modes of the one true substance, or God. If we can come to self-knowledge by introspective experience alone, shouldn't we be able to come to knowledge of God in the same way if we did indeed have this form of relationship with him? To say we cannot, it seems we must say that we cannot come to self-knowledge by introspective experience alone. To be honest, I agree with this. I don't think you can really know anything about yourself through introspection alone. You can come to have beliefs about yourself, but there is no way to know from introspection whether or not the beliefs are true. As an example:

I meditate on the subject until deciding that I love my wife more than I love my mother. Over the course of the next five years, however, I systematically neglect the needs of my wife, yet I behave quite lovingly toward my mother.

Empirical fact has proven me delusional. This is exactly why I've never trusted introspection and meditation as truly revelatory and I have always thought of it only as a means by which I can steer myself in the direction that seems to be right. However, this alone doesn't seem to prove, strictly speaking, that introspection cannot have any true revelatory power about empirical facts. Though I cannot imagine any situation in which it possibly could - as I said, I agree completely that experience can only prove facts about experience, i.e. my coming to believe something from introspection proves only that I hold that belief - but I cannot disprove the proposition that this is simply a failing of my imagination. That is why, pragmatically speaking, I'm a strong agnostic. I don't believe anybody that claims they know whether or not God exists and I never will believe anybody making that claim. I just cannot demonstrate conclusively that I'm correct to believe this, so philosophically, I must hold the weaker stance, as the rigors of good philosophy demand.

 

[cronxeh]

first there was Atheism is not logical thread, now Agnosticism;

Following this standard convention of attacking believes we will soon see threads that go after Buddhism and other religions and call them illogical; Why do moderators allow those threads started by bible thumpers in the first place?

 

[hypnagogue]

first there was Atheism is not logical thread, now Agnosticism;

Following this standard convention of attacking believes we will soon see threads that go after Buddhism and other religions and call them illogical; Why do moderators allow those threads started by bible thumpers in the first place?

Have you read the thread at all? The original poster was concerned about discussing the relationship between agnosticism and theism/atheism. Specifically, the OP was wondering if the word "agnosticism" refers to a position that is not already meaningfully covered by the term "atheism." Whether agnosticism is true or not is not being debated here.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Let's clarify the issue.
The agnostic position says they don't know if there's a god or not.
The theist position is that there is a "god", (and then go on to define the term, it's will, etc.)
The atheist position is not only that there is no such thing as "god", but object to those who say they believe in such a thing act on that belief as they do.
Realize this: There has never been a credible bit of evidence that both god exists or such a thing acts.
- It is not the responsibility of the non-believer to prove to all else that "god" does not exist. It is the responsibility of the believer to prove to all else that "god" exists because so-called "believers" act on that belief and that action is contentious and does affect all other lives. The atheist objects to what the theist does, not what they believe. The so-called justification for what the theist does is theism and theism is entire self-serving fiction - nothing more and nothing less.
- Theism, all told, is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. It has to be stopped and ended completely. That is the atheist position.

 

[Evo]

The atheist position is not only that there is no such thing as "god", but object to those who say they believe in such a thing act on that belief as they do. <snip>Theism, all told, is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. It has to be stopped and ended completely. That is the atheist position.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, the term atheist does not mean that they object to other's beliefs or that they need to be stopped. If an atheist has further personal agendas, it is outside of the basic meaning of the term and has nothing to do with atheism itself.

 

[cronxeh]

Naturalist, I do believe you are referring to iconoclasts. Yea you don't want those around your local church

 

[Jameson]

These points have been covered here before, but an explicit summary might be helpful.

Agnosticism and theism/atheism, strictly speaking, are not positions that lie along a continuum (although they can be taken that way colloquially, as loseyourname has pointed out). Agnosticism is an epistemological view about what we can know about God's existence, and (a)theism is a metaphysical view about whether God does, in fact, exist. For instance, consider the following statement: "God exists." Agnosticism is a position on whether this statement can be justified, and (a)theism is a position on whether this statement is true. These are evaluations of the statement along two independent dimensions. For instance, one might conjecture that Fermat's Last Theorem is true (or false), while simultaneously believing that it cannot (or can) be proven. The matter of belief in the theorem's truth or falsity is separate from beliefs about whether it can be proven (at least while no conclusive proofs have yet been demonstrated).

Thus, whether a person is agnostic or not has no logical consequence upon whether s/he is theist or not. Rather than thinking of theism, atheism, and agnosticism as lying along a continuum, we should think of them as being orthogonal to, or independent from, each other. If we decide to differentiate between strong and weak atheism, then we have six possible views arising from the possible combinations on the metaphysical and epistemological stances. In the following, let b(x) mean "believes that x," and let G be the statement "God exists."

agnostic theist: b(G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic theist: b(G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

agnostic weak atheist: ~b(G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic weak atheist: ~b(G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

agnostic strong atheist: b(~G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic strong atheist: b(~G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

Note that ~b(G) does not imply b(~G) if we allow statements to be evaluated in ways other than "true" (T) or "false" (F). For instance, we might allow a third possibility sitting on the fence between truth and falsity, along the lines of "not enough information to decide" or "no commitment either way" (call this N). Then ~b(G) means that an individual evaluates G as either F or N, but not T. By contrast, b(~G) means that an individual evaluates G as F.

Also note that taking a definite stance on G does not require one to believe that the converse cannot proven. For instance, a non-agnostic strong atheist might firmly believe that God does not exist, but might nonetheless be open to changing his mind upon presentation of what he would consider sufficient evidence that G is true.

This post wonderfully articulated the point I attempted to make when starting this thread. I will not even comment on the topics because you perfectly covered all of them eloquently and profoundly.

If I was a moderator, I would close this thread. Discussion is over. Everyone take notes from the above post.

Jameson

 

[Jameson]

Let's clarify the issue.
The agnostic position says they don't know if there's a god or not.

I started this thread because of this stance on agnosticism. This is not the definition of agnosticism, read the above post.

 

[Evo]

The agnostic position says they don't know if there's a god or not.

I started this thread because of this stance on agnosticism. This is not the definition of agnosticism, read the above post.

Like it or not, that is a correct definition, hypnagogue was just elaborating, and did a fine job, but you cannot pretend the definition of "agnostic" is wrong.

From Merriam Webster

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

From Oxford Dictionary

agnostic

• noun - a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

From Dictionary.com

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

From Wikipedia

Agnosticism is the philosophical and theological view that spiritual truth, such as the existence of God, gods or deities, is either unknown or inherently unknowable

Perhaps the wikipedia article will help you to understand what agnostic means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Variations

 

[Jameson]

The only point I was making was that being agnostic doesn't mean you do or do not believe in God, it isn't the middle of the two choices. It pertains to whether one believes that their belief can be proven or not, just as your definitions concur.

The problem I feel is that most people separate categories pertaining to theistic beliefs into 3 groups - theist, atheist, agnostic. This is very misleading about the philosophy of each of those classifications.

I am aware of the definition of agnostic, and you're definitions do not contradict anything I have said previously. I am sorry for the misunderstanding in my previous post and I hope I clarified it.

 

[Tigron-X]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "proving" something just a way for an individual to define the parameters of a conformed object within space and time, as well as the relationship the said object holds with oneself or another object that occupies and/or shares that same space and time as the individual?

So, does this mean we're essentially proving the existence of space and time by defining each individual conformed object within parameters we can observe, understand, and trace by assigning a set point or points to zero or another value that we eventually sum up or calculate to define our known existence within individual dynamics?

So above all, wouldn't proving God's existence require such similar pinpointing for one to witness his/her relationship to that object (God) within existence?

Furthermore, for one to even attempt to begin proving God's existence, wouldn't one need to assume that God is a conformed object within space and time that does exist and is not space and time itself?

Wouldn't that be a search for a finite being then?
Even if you considered God as space and time itself, wouldn't that also restrict God into a finite being?

The closest proof I can think of is:

0=1

because zero defines an unassigned position of value that is determined by an evaluation of applicated assortment of integers or equations that one predefines according to his/her initial judgment of objects moving in relation to oneself. In other words, the closest value to infinity is zero because both are undetermined values that when calculated reach a defined point of various dimensions, otherwise it's a single dimension. (represented by one) And what really is a single dimension but various dimensions viewed as a single point?


The answers to a question depends on the way one balances out an equation with respect to the applicable dimensions considered and the value one defines when assigning a point of origin. But even then, the result requires evaluation because every answer only expresses a certain sequence of logic that can be expressed many times over, but differently. And, that is the predicament with God. You can show the way God doesn't exist, and you can show the way God does exist. What that determines is your decision.

And, you can agree with me or not, but to me it's all the same... No one knows a God damn thing no matter how much we continue to learn, discover, and define. We just might be a bit more aware of one thing or another than the next person from time to time. If we were all a line, we'd be a tangent.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I have a thought. Theism, at least acquired theism, relies on a leap of faith. This leap requires no information, no knowledge. Hence it's a leap. There is nothing you need to learn or decide on to make such a leap. So, yeah... it is pretty illogical.

 

[Tigron-X]

Uhhh... except for the fact that one has to evaluate what he/she discovered each step of the way and then decide whether or not to take that next step and continue on the path with the ever pressing question, "how far to go?" Yeah, the first time you do it, it is referred to as a leap of faith, but eventually one sees it as walking in the light or finding enlightment.

But before you even get there, you have to figure out what all you're risking to take a leap into the unknown, and whether or not you're able to do it because it will change you for better or for worse. And, that depends on the heart of the individual. It's not easy. It can make you crazy. But, then there's the part where you can discover the most amazing things that you never dreamed of. There's parts you'll like, and there's parts you might not like. Taking a leap of faith will test you mentally, physically, and spiritually. You will learn a lot about yourself and maybe even the world. There really is no telling what one will go through.

It's only illogical if you put yourself through it for the wrong reasons because each reason can only take you so far. And each time you turn back, the harder it is to find that reason to keep going. Some people do it their whole lives and never find what one typically describes as his/her inner light. I've heard people say that some lose their faith in the end, but really you can't lose what you never had. In the end, what you get is invaluable. And, it can't be discovered without taking that walk free of all inhibitions to see past sight and sound in order to discover that endless moment. As illogical as that may seem, don't forget that time is relative, and that it all depends on the reason you take that step and the attachments you hold on to.

People that want proof of God's existence need to take a leap of faith, otherwise there's nothing to talk about because there's no other way. If there was an easier way, then don't you think someone would have mentioned it by now?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Uhhh... except for the fact that one has to evaluate what he/she discovered each step of the way and then decide whether or not to take that next step and continue on the path with the ever pressing question, "how far to go?" Yeah, the first time you do it, it is referred to as a leap of faith, but eventually one sees it as walking in the light or finding enlightment.

Well, I'm an athiest so I will bow to superior knowledge, but can you seriously decide whether or not to take a leap of faith? It makes no sense to me. If it's reasoned then it's not a leap of faith. A leap of faith requires putting aside doubts and uncertainty and commiting yourself to believe in something without empirical evidence. Since an agnostic has these doubts and uncertainties, and seeks to resolve them before making a leap of faith, the agnostic position is illogical. What do you mean by "how far to go"?

But before you even get there, you have to figure out what all you're risking to take a leap into the unknown, and whether or not you're able to do it because it will change you for better or for worse.

So you're saying theists believe for selfish reasons? "I'll only believe in God if I get something out of it!" Hmmmm.

People that want proof of God's existence need to take a leap of faith, otherwise there's nothing to talk about because there's no other way. If there was an easier way, then don't you think someone would have mentioned it by now?

Taking a leap of faith does not 'prove' God's existence. That's absurd.

 

[Tigron-X]

Well, I'm an athiest so I will bow to superior knowledge, but can you seriously decide whether or not to take a leap of faith? It makes no sense to me. If it's reasoned then it's not a leap of faith. A leap of faith requires putting aside doubts and uncertainty and commiting yourself to believe in something without empirical evidence. Since an agnostic has these doubts and uncertainties, and seeks to resolve them before making a leap of faith, the agnostic position is illogical. What do you mean by "how far to go"?

LOL... "A leap of faith," is a metaphor that basically means take a chance and explore the unknown with openess by using nothing but imagination and self awareness. Anytime someone looks into the unknown, he/she is believing something exists without empirical evidence. What that might be may or may not reveal itself. When you take a leap of faith, you learn how much you really overlook when observing the world that you pass judgment on because of the limits posed by your current state of mind. You simply don't know what you don't know. Of course not just "you", but everyone.

The idea is to change your state of mind to progress reality. Sure, you'll have illogical thoughts and things won't make sense. But come across enough illogical concepts, and you just might eventually stumble upon a logical one that makes you go, "hmm..." Explore it long enough and you just might find yourself sharing a concept that can't be proven to some without a change in mindset because the idea challenges one's current paradigm. It doesn't mean that they're wrong with what they find to be truth. It just means that he/she has a certain thought basis that can't take into consideration the thought you expressed because the value is beyond his/her range of judgment, thus it can appear illogical. It's like you inputed a larger number than the computer can compute because the program he/she is running needs upgrades or what not; how ever you want to look at it. And in the end, you may find that your concept was indeed incorrect. But, that doesn't mean you'll convert back into the mindset that never explored the idea. It just means you're ready to take another leap of faith if you're willing. The question, "how far to go?" is basically asking oneself, "how long will you explore the depths of your imagination before you reach your limit?" It's like you're testing your own discipline and free will by confronting doubts that you may have overlooked or failed to ackowledge for some reason. This would be similar to contemplating whether one's heart is as pure as one's faith. (another metaphor)

So you're saying theists believe for selfish reasons? "I'll only believe in God if I get something out of it!" Hmmmm.

That's one way of putting it, but your implication might be a bit off. We're all selfish to a point. Some more than others, and that can be bothersome depending on one's point of view and the judgment he/she passes. And, that can cause issues, one-after-another. But anyhow, yes, I believe in God because I get something out of it, but my reason for believing in God is to have that connection of openness; without that, it wouldn't matter what I get because it would be limited by my heart. And, I prefer my heart to be limitless. If I'm going to be selfish because of that, then that's the type of selfishness I have no problem dealing with. If people don't like it, I don't care. They can go get there own or do whatever.

Taking a leap of faith does not 'prove' God's existence. That's absurd.

I know. I never claimed that it did. I'm saying if you want proof then that's where you need to start. A b*tch ain't it? Kind of kills the anticipation of horns blasting, *DUN-DUNT-TA-DUN* with God swooping down "HERE I AM! GOD TO SAVE THE DAY!" or some crap like that. "YOU FOUND ME! Now, pass GO and collect $200."

 

[the_truth]

"I'm not 'dissing you guys (I really do love reading the discussions), but aren't these arguments a little like argueing about which is the 'best' colour of the rainbow?"

If no one argued about which is the best colour of the rainbow, or other similar situations, we would never have developped a large number of concepts which give us a greater understanding of the world. Preference being the most obvious, but I am sure there are others. The situation is the same here, there is confusion and disagreement, no one knows why.

***

""My standard of justification is based on what is correct or not. Therefore atheists and monotheists have a standard of justification which is based on what is not correct."

You have it backwards. We only agree on what is 'correct' and what is not on the basis of our standards of justification. You start with certain epistemic standards, whether they be explicit or implicit, and use those standards to arrive at a view of which claims are true and which are false."

This has not been done. Atheists and monotheists agree with my standards of justification, but have failed to defeat my argument in rational debate. As I have proven, if you cannot prove or disprove something it is logical to assume (but not actually believe 100%) that it is not true. If someone were to disagree then they could believe in anything they felt like, whether it could be proven or not, which is clearly madness. I could logically prove why this would be incorrect, but the example saves on the trouble.


""Belief is intertwined with everything. If somone believed 1+1=3 and someone believed 1+1=2. It does not mean they are both correct. Belief is irrelevant. Atheists and monotheists have the same intelligence and access to evidence as I do, if their standard of justification was based on correctness they would reach the same conclusion as me as I am correct. As I have just proven."

Belief is not irrelevant, it's precisely what is at issue. We are certainly not concerned here to show whether theists or strong atheists have the correct view. We are concerned about what relationship obtains among agnosticism and theism/atheism."

The relationships between agnosticism and other beliefs concerning god are irrelevant as only the evidence and what is correct is relevant. Belief is not relevant as a part of this discussion, it is only relevant as it's usage as a concept. It's like describing the meaning of the number 1, before going on to prove that 1+1=2. Everyone knows what 1 is and everyone knows what belief is and they are part of the proofs, but they have nothing to do with the new concepts being proven.

In terms of agnosticism and other beliefs, only their definitions matter, not incorrect beliefs or ambiguous terms which have nothing or little to do with the definitions and proofs. In this case the following evidence and concepts at hand are relevant.

Believing in something which can neither be proved or disproved is illogical.
God cannot be proved
God cannot be disproved
Therefore it is illogical to believe that god exists and that god does not exist.
Also, it is illogical to assume that god exists.
Therefore it is logical to assume that god does not exist.

Everything else is irrelevant, the words used to define certain properties shown here are irrelevant in discussion and only relevant in terms of their ability to convey messages. The definition for a person who believes the correct view point and the appropriate words are as follows.

A person who does not know whether god exists or not, but assumes god does not exist.

Reading the definition of Agnostic again I have come to the conclusion that the word is too ambiguous to be used to classify the correct belief concerning god's existence.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
This definition implies that the person believes 100% that you cannot know whether there is a god or not, when this is illogical as if something occurred which implied god exists or does not exists, then the agnostic would assume this not to be true and be illogical.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Heavily ambiguous.


"This is the crux of the matter, and the plain fact is that neither being theist nor being atheist logically precludes one from also being agnostic. They are positions about different matters. If you believe they are mutually exclusive, show me the logical contradiction in this statement:"

A person can both believe in god, not believe in god and not know whether god exists at the same time, however there are hundreds of different ways a person's mind can be used and be defined in this manner. Only definitions are relevant in this instance and in no way is this person necesarily an atheist, an agnostic and a theist. A weak atheist is not an atheist. An agnostic who assumes atheism is correct is not an agnostic or an atheist. There is no word for a person with such a belief so this person's belief must be reduced to it's definition. It would be the equivalent of saying (6 or 5 or 4 or 2) + (-3 or 8) = (8 or 5 or 9) or saying a + b = c on it's own.


"Consider these propositions:
1. Whether God exists or not is unknowable. (agnosticism)
2. We should not commit to the stance that God exists, nor to the stance that God does not exist. (weak atheism)

Assuming (1) is true, we still cannot conclude (2). For that, we need an extra proposition:

1.5. A minimal pre-requirement for committing to the stance that X is true (or false) is that we be in possession of some reliable facts regarding X."

1 is irrelevant, we don't know whether God is unknownable or not, the definition of agnosticism of which I have curiously just criticised. Assuming 1 is correct after all, then it is still irrelevant as proposition 2 is incorrect as so far there is nothing to suggest that assuming god does or does not exist is correct.

1.5 is extremely relevant however as it outlines the basics for determinng whether something is true or not. Unfortunately we have no evidence to begin with so the only choice would be to evaluate how we deal with something which can neither be proven or disproven.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

LOL... "A leap of faith," is a metaphor that basically means take a chance and explore the unknown with openess by using nothing but imagination and self awareness.

I may be out on a limb here, but that is not, to my knowledge, what a leap of faith is. A leap of faith is what is required to have faith, i.e. to except truths with no evidence. It is not, in any context I have ever seen or heard the phrase used, a journey in which you explore the unknown and decide how far into it you want to go. Quite the opposite.
It is, on its most basic level, the point at which you cease using reason to arrive at a conclusion, and instead take truth 'on faith', be it in the appraisal of another human being, or the subscription to a religion.
As a cynical non-believer, I'd explain it better as the point at which you opt out of the great existential crisis but pretend you're not. But no theist would ever agree with that, fair enough. But that's how I'd describe it to another non-believer.

 

[the_truth]

So it's settled then.

You can neither prove or disprove god and it is illogical t oassume something which cannot be proven in the first place exists, so it is logical to assume god does not exist until proved otherwise.

I was right to begin with, but my argumnet was ambiguous. Now it's crystal clear and there is no longer any confusion about this isssue whatsoever, apart from the millions of petty foibles which make us humans deny aspects reality.

 

[Jameson]

So it's settled then.

You can neither prove or disprove god and it is illogical t oassume something which cannot be proven in the first place exists, so it is logical to assume god does not exist until proved otherwise.

I'm sorry to keep this discussion going, as I was satisfied with it a while back, but your statement is just not universally true. Maybe it's settled in this forum that God cannot be proven/disproven, but their are many people who believe otherwise. There is a famous book titled "Atheism: The Case Against God" in which the author states that he believes God can be disproven and I personally say he does a good job of.

This leads me back to the original topic of this thread, agnosticism. You believe that God cannot be proven/disproven, so you are an agnostic.

Jameson

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm sorry to keep this discussion going, as I was satisfied with it a while back, but your statement is just not universally true. Maybe it's settled in this forum that God cannot be proven/disproven, but their are many people who believe otherwise. There is a famous book titled "Atheism: The Case Against God" in which the author states that he believes God can be disproven and I personally say he does a good job of.

This leads me back to the original topic of this thread, agnosticism. You believe that God cannot be proven/disproven, so you are an agnostic.

Jameson

Because the concept of God is not well-defined, reasonable people can disagree about the effectiveness of a proof either way, existence or nonexistence. This is obvious to anyone who has read all the to and fro on these or any philosophy forums. It is a firm consequence of this that arguing whether god exists or not is a mug's game. Like the two old ladies arguing over the back yard fence, you can never agree because you argue from different premises.

 

[Jameson]

Oh I agree. I don't think I've ever seen two people debate on God's existense and come to an agreement. I was just pointing out that not everyone is agnostic. Why don't we just have a thread titled "The God Question: Once and For All, because we're all so tired of listening"?

 

[the_truth]

"Maybe it's settled in this forum that God cannot be proven/disproven, but their are many people who believe otherwise. There is a famous book titled "Atheism: The Case Against God" in which the author states that he believes God can be disproven and I personally say he does a good job of."

People are usually wrong so this isn't a very compelling argument, you have't proven otherwise, tell me how this author proved that god does not exist. Maybe you made a mistake and in fact this author reasonned that it is illogical to believe in god as I have done, we'll have to see. I am also not an agnostic, I assume agnosticism is correct, but if I came across evidence which is contrary to agnosticism I would not ignore it.

 

[Tigron-X]

I may be out on a limb here, but that is not, to my knowledge, what a leap of faith is. A leap of faith is what is required to have faith, i.e. to except truths with no evidence. It is not, in any context I have ever seen or heard the phrase used, a journey in which you explore the unknown and decide how far into it you want to go. Quite the opposite.
It is, on its most basic level, the point at which you cease using reason to arrive at a conclusion, and instead take truth 'on faith', be it in the appraisal of another human being, or the subscription to a religion.
As a cynical non-believer, I'd explain it better as the point at which you opt out of the great existential crisis but pretend you're not. But no theist would ever agree with that, fair enough. But that's how I'd describe it to another non-believer.

Let me put it this way... if one does not explore the truths he/she believes in, then one will never see past the reality he/she perceives. So, whether one believes something to be true or not, doesn't mean his/her concept of reality is aware of reality on a whole. He/she only sees what he/she wants to see. Also, a person having faith in something he/she does not understand is indeed irrational. Why would someone believe in an irrational thought? It's physiologically impossible. You cannot deny your own senses. You can deny the beliefs others express if you do not see what one describes, but that doesn't make one view hold true over the other. It only states that one's concept of reality can conflict with anothers. One's judgment of reality is confined by one's applied understanding of logic. So, what may seem irrational may become rational once the concept expressed is explored. But, unless you believe in certain possibilities, then there is no reason for you to explore the logic. In the end, it doesn't matter unless you're looking to change your concept of reality because reality can't be changed; only the way we see existence. Though, that does affect the way we live. Every person has a certain degree of faith. It's what we believe in that changes everything. In the end, we all believe in the samething, but just at a different degree because we all start and end from various defined points of origin.

You can have faith in something and not understand what you believe in, but then that's having blind faith.

Is all faith blind?

No.

 

[Jameson]

People are usually wrong so this isn't a very compelling argument, you have't proven otherwise, tell me how this author proved that god does not exist. Maybe you made a mistake and in fact this author reasonned that it is illogical to believe in god as I have done, we'll have to see. I am also not an agnostic, I assume agnosticism is correct, but if I came across evidence which is contrary to agnosticism I would not ignore it.

I was in no way attempting to disprove God by that statement. What I was saying is that their are people who do believe that God can be proven beyond a doubt and those who believe that he can be disproven just as such. Not everyone subscribes to the belief that God is unknowable.

If you are interested in the book, I would suggest you to read it. There is no way I could summarize the points into something easy read here.

Jameson

 

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

I guess in a way every human is agnostic, it isn't whether you believe whether GOD exists, but rather whether there is a supernatural force that causes life and space and time etc. to exist. The question "Does God exisit?" is not to declare your affiliation to a certain religion, but rather to assert the existence of such a force that we call "God". Agnosticism doesn't deny the existence of God like Atheists do, but rather than go to either extremes of professing blind faith, and denial, they question the existence of a sole force, "God", and yet they do not loose faith in "God". It's not about whether or not you believe in God in the end is it? 'cos one never really knows what the true outcome is to the question of "Does god exist?" One can say NO, but then question the existence of life and all that we believe is true, and one can say YES and be questioned prove it, to which they'd have no idea how...