Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Gnostic Atheist


Wertbag

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Inductive reasoning does not result in certainty. Just probability. So it doesn't get you proof.

 

True.  However we are not doing math.  Proof is for mathematics because math is idealistic.  Real world knowledge rests on data and that is rough around the edges.  All I am doing is applying the same principles to knowing about God as I do to anything else.  We don't have absolute certainty about anything, especially if we include any and every ridiculous ad hoc objection that has no basis in fact.  That is why I qualify my gnostic atheism as being held to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  All of our knowledge has an asterisk by it.  Anything can be overturned if later we discover new information that falsifies what we thought we knew.  But we still act like we have knowledge anyway.  God should not be any different.

 

I realize I'm not going to change your mind.  That's fine.

 

5 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Some specific Gods have been well defined. It is possible to be a gnostic atheist with respect to these. Zeus, for example, does not exist. One can simply climb Mount Olympus to prove this.

 

Not to the standard of beyond all doubt.  You can never prove Zeus is not real beyond all doubt because you can't prove anything to that standard.  Even math proofs do not reach the standard "beyond all doubt" because the assumptions of math prevent that standard.  If you climb Olympus you can't prove that Zeus didn't choose to become temporarily incorporeal.  But if you use my standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you could say you examined the evidence and found Zeus is imaginary.   This is what I was talking about regarding epistemology.  Gods should be held to the same standard as anything else.

 

6 hours ago, disillusioned said:

But as I said in my previous post, there are lots of different views of God. Some of them are remarkably coherent. Some are not. Some are well defined, but not accessible, and hence not testable. As this is the case, I don't think it is possible to say that we can prove that no God of any kind exists.

 

You look at all these gods and see that there are an infinite number of possible gods.  I look at the exact same thing but what I see is people imagining gods.  Of course people can imagine gods in an infinite number of different ways but all talk about gods has always come from people imagining that we are at the center of attention of amazing beings.  Gods are like story characters. 

 

Like I said, I could be wrong.  If a god shows up or gets discovered then this new information will overturn our current knowledge.  But that is the nature of knowledge.  But to be a god something must have either created our universe or taken an interests in humans and interfered in the lives of humans.  That is the core claim of religion.  A fantastic being in deep space that didn't create our universe and isn't interested in us cannot be a god.

 

 

6 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I agree that most forms of theism are nonsense, and some are directly disprovable. But to go all the way to gnostic atheism is to go too far. This is not special pleading. This is exactly how I treat all truth claims. It is much easier to be convinced that something is true than it is to actually prove it (see: Fermat's last theorem). But in the absence of proof, knowledge cannot be claimed.

 

Then the ramification is that you do not know anything.  Nor would I if I accept that standard.  I disagree with you regarding the nature of knowledge.  I'm going to treat knowledge as if it is something that is possible even though proof is not possible (outside of math).  In my view we can know something if we can verify it through objective means.  My take leaves knowledge as incomplete, limited and sometimes we make mistakes and have to go back to the drawing board.

 

 

6 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Also, the kind of God you are talking about here is not by any means the only kind of God that people believe in. There are plenty of deists, panthesists, moderates from the mainstream religions, and others who don't label themselves but nevertheless think that there is something beyond the universe which they call God. We cannot say with certainty that these people are wrong. We just can't.

 

I understand if you are not comfortable with it but I am.  Beyond a reasonable doubt they are wrong.  We have learned much about the origins of our universe and all that we have learned points to a natural origin.  Of all the fantastic beings that might live in our universe why would any of them take an interest in human life?  Statistics show that no religion has any real advantage so there is no god behind the scene stacking the deck.  At best there might be an alien species that might watch us like we are a bacteria specimen or perhaps a sitcom on TV.  But the further away they are then the more of our universe they would have to see in order to see us as well.  And humans are just not that interesting.  The idea that we are the center of attention plays to the human ego.

 

I mean if you could access all the information of millions of different galaxies would you focus on silly primates?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

No one's saying you're a gnostic atheist based on faith in some gnostic atheist leader. So let's not keep trying to go there. 

 

I was trying to respond to the idea that I am on equal footing with the theist.  But we can drop that if you wish.

 

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

These examples you're reaching for each fall short in terms of making the untenable, tenable.

 

How do you know that gnostic atheism is untenable?

 

 

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

We may have to cross over into the depths of reality for a moment, and then walk our way back up to our current experience.

 

We don't perceive anything as it actually is. All perception, everything from our senses, are merely representations of reality we never perceive in a direct way. So that's our reality, an indirect version of reality. Science is always working from uncertain foundations. We deal in terms of fitness, not so much in terms of truth. And things that have become evolutionary advantageous for survival. 

 

The foundation of reality is uncertainty, not knowing. 

 

I agree with all of those statements so we are on the same page so far.  

 

 

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

God, a theoretical suggestion, is addressed to ultimate reality, absolute truth, transcendent of all knowledge ( beyond gnosis), etc., etc. 

 

Yeah, that is God's demo mode.  That is the hook.  It's the sale pitch.  We also have a long, well established history of thousands of scam artists running the "god" scam.  I think we should look at gods from the direction of how they are used to control others.

 

To put it another way (and this one is intended as an analogy regarding gnostic atheism) how many times did you need to get an e-mail from a Nigerian prince before you figured out there is no Nigerian prince?  The first one I got looked very suspicious.  There was no way I was going to accept the invitation but when I got a second e-mail from a different Nigerian prince that is when I knew there wasn't one.  Eventually I had hundreds of invitations from hundreds of different Nigerians.  

 

God as a theoretical suggestion has no empirical foundation but there are millions of people who were convinced to give money to the messengers of the gods.  We should learn to see through this scam.  I think it's safe to say we know gods are imaginary.

 

 

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

None of this compels me to belief, obviously. I find it highly unlikely, and a slim possibility that ultimate reality is anything other than natural. Or that transcendent of our knowledge or ability to conceive, is anything other than an extension of the natural cosmos of existence which extends beyond our ability to perceive, or know directly. In my opinion, beyond our indirect perceptions, I've rejected the suggestion of beyond time and space as having any merit, as both space and time would necessarily extend out infinite and unbound, by default. So I'm not very moved by the suggestion of a god who is beyond time and space, for instance. For every supernatural suggestion about reality, there is a natural and more reasonable counter part about reality.  Uncertainty doesn't give supernatural assertions a leg up in any way. 

 

This all serves to suspend belief, even in the face of an uncertain reality. 

 

It's agnostic atheism, based on whatever gnosis we have to try and work with, for whatever it's worth. 

 

 

It has lead to interesting conversation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mymistake, this is seeming more and more like a semantic difference between you and I. Just to clear a couple things up:

 

I don't say that knowledge does not exist, or that I don't know anything. I say that knowledge reduces to firmly held belief. But on certain assumptions, some things can be proved deductively. This is the kind if proof I require to claim knowledge.

 

For example, I know that right now there is not a tarantula on my left foot. On the assumption that I can trust my senses, and on the standard definition of tarantula, this follows directly. I consider it proven, and so I say I know it to be true.

 

If I have to resort to inductive reasoning, then I stop short of claiming knowledge. I've never seen a tarantula in my house, they aren't indigenous to this part of the world, and I can't see any evidence of one another anywhere that I look.  So there probably isn't one in my house, but I don't know that there isn't one. There might be.

 

So you see why I don't claim to know that no God exists, even though I think it is the case. It seems your standard of proof is not the same as mine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
10 hours ago, mymistake said:

I was trying to respond to the idea that I am on equal footing with the theist.  But we can drop that if you wish.

 

 

gnostic theism and gnostic atheism both are "knowledge" claims which are untenable. Theirs are faith based, sure, but go further than faith by claiming knowledge that they couldn't possibly have. Again, this has more to do with false claims of knowledge than it does with issues of faith.

 

10 hours ago, mymistake said:

How do you know that gnostic atheism is untenable?

 

Because it's a claim to have knowledge which is impossible to have, so untenable. 

 

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

If I have to resort to inductive reasoning, then I stop short of claiming knowledge. I've never seen a tarantula in my house, they aren't indigenous to this part of the world, and I can't see any evidence of one another anywhere that I look.  So there probably isn't one in my house, but I don't know that there isn't one. There might be.

 

So you see why I don't claim to know that no God exists, even though I think it is the case. It seems your standard of proof is not the same as mine.

 

This has been outlined  by disillusioned and myself several times, but for some reason you think there's a way around it. And that the philosophers are wrong and such. You've told me before that you're not all that savvy in the area of philosophy. That is likely why we're not getting through to you about knowledge claims in this instance. It is a philosophical issue. It seems that you're inclined to just hand wave dismiss it in favor moving forward with claims to knowledge which are untenable to make, because these deceptive and crooked religionist con men need to be stopped and shut down. 

 

Well they do need to be shut down from scamming people. All scammers do, actually. It should probably be illegal the same as any other scam. But we can't very well shut them down by lying in response to their lies. 

 

Claiming to have the sort of absolute knowledge that goes into the claim "I know god does not exist," isn't possible as a true statement, and inductive reasoning can not justify it. 

 

This has become an interesting discussion, though. Like I said, prior to a few of you here claiming gnostic atheism, I would have argued that it doesn't exist in the real world and that no atheist's would actually make such a claim. I was wrong. And I'm some what surprised by it. I suppose that if some atheists turn a blind eye to philosophy and the application of logic towards argumentation and discourse, such an idea can and has emerged. Prior to this I would have told theist's that gnostic atheist claims are a straw man caricature of atheists, and demanded evidence of any atheists making such knowledge claims before accepting them as valid and real. 

 

Dan Barker in the opening video, was clear NOT to make these claims, in fact. He said several times going into it, "this is evidence that god doesn't exist, it doesn't prove that god doesn't exist." He said that at least twice in the first segment. He understands the limits of making gnostic claims about god. So he's careful in his speech and assertions, while at the same time promoting hard atheism. That shows his level of experience and disciple in the game. And the same is true of just about any front man for atheism. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

@mymistake, this is seeming more and more like a semantic difference between you and I. Just to clear a couple things up:

 

I don't say that knowledge does not exist, or that I don't know anything. I say that knowledge reduces to firmly held belief. But on certain assumptions, some things can be proved deductively. This is the kind if proof I require to claim knowledge.

 

For example, I know that right now there is not a tarantula on my left foot. On the assumption that I can trust my senses, and on the standard definition of tarantula, this follows directly. I consider it proven, and so I say I know it to be true.

 

If I have to resort to inductive reasoning, then I stop short of claiming knowledge. I've never seen a tarantula in my house, they aren't indigenous to this part of the world, and I can't see any evidence of one another anywhere that I look.  So there probably isn't one in my house, but I don't know that there isn't one. There might be.

 

So you see why I don't claim to know that no God exists, even though I think it is the case. It seems your standard of proof is not the same as mine.

 

 

Yes, I am using s different standard for proof and for knowledge as well.  I would say I can know something if I can verify it.  In the tarantula-on-the-foot example I would say that is verified but not proven because in my mind proof has an idealistic standard that is difficult to reach.  Since we can't prove most things I don't require that impossible standard in order to reach knowledge.  So that is one reason we reach different conclusions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This has been outlined  by disillusioned and myself several times, but for some reason you think there's a way around it. 

 

Okay, I won't keep bugging you guys about it.

 

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

It seems that you're inclined to just hand wave dismiss it in favor moving forward with claims to knowledge which are untenable to make, because these deceptive and crooked religionist con man need to be stopped and shut down. 

 

I think you and I are operating on different theories of knowledge.  You might think my view of knowledge is wrong and that is okay with me.

 

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Claiming to have the sort of absolute knowledge that goes into the claim "I know god does not exist," isn't possible as a true statement, and inductive reasoning can not justify it. 

 

Please note that I don't see knowledge as absolute.  I see knowledge as a working model that gets updated as we learn more information.  In my opinion knowledge will have setbacks and it will be limited.

 

If knowledge were absolute that raises the problem that we never know that we know something.  It's that whole justified true belief thing when truth is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, mymistake said:

Please note that I don't see knowledge as absolute.  I see knowledge as a working model that gets updated as we learn more information.  In my opinion knowledge will have setbacks and it will be limited.

 

Then it should follow, that with knowledge as limited you can never make such a gnostic claim about gods existence. You can have the opinion god doesn't exist, like the rest of us, due to the limitations of knowledge concerning the existence of god, but you could never know that to be factually true. 

 

Not unless you travel out to infinity, personally surveying the expanse of never ending cosmos and documenting every step of the way, coming back to this universe, and the earth, with a fully documented and filmed report "proving" that there aren't any gods whatsoever, anywhere, in the whole of existence as far out as existence reaches, most likely forever without end. No different than going to mount Olympus and filming all around "proving" that Zeus does not exist at the top of mount Olympus. 

 

How do you propose to "prove" this about the suggestion of a god transcendent of the entire universe? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Then it should follow, that with knowledge as limited you can never make such a gnostic claim about gods existence. You can have the opinion god doesn't exist, like the rest of us, due to the limitations of knowledge concerning the existence of god, but you could never know that to be factually true. 

 

Not unless you travel out to infinity, personally surveying the expanse of never ending cosmos and documenting every step of the way, coming back to this universe, and the earth, with a fully documented and filmed report "proving" that there aren't any gods whatsoever, anywhere, in the whole of existence as far out as existence reaches, most likely forever without end. No different than going to mount Olympus and filming all around "proving" that Zeus does not exist at the top of mount Olympus. 

 

How do you propose to "prove" this about the suggestion of a god transcendent of the entire universe? 

 

 

We are using different theories of knowledge.  You don't prove Zeus is not real by visiting Olympus because you have no way to detect a being that uses miracles to become incorporeal at will.  If I were to invent a "super observer device" that can photograph every corner of the universe at the same time that still doesn't prove there are no gods because you don't know there is no miracle power of invisibility to defeat it.  Nothing gets proven beyond all doubt.  Not ever.  So I don't expect something to be proven beyond all doubt before calling it knowledge.  If something can be verified with a high quantity of empirical evidence and no reasonable objection against it can be found then I call it knowledge.  (I'm sure trained philosophers will cringe.  Sorry.)

 

I would dismiss Zeus as false because we discovered how thunder works and also we learned to harness electricity.  We also discovered most of the forces attributed to Zeus' companion gods.  All of that turned out to be natural.  The Greek pantheon fits right in with all the other gods and goddesses created by ancient cultures which establishes that humans create gods.  But most importantly, there is no empirical foundation for any claim that Zeus is real so such claims are unreasonable until such evidence is uncovered.  So I think it's safe for me to say I know Zeus is imaginary.

 

But please remember when say I know something that isn't the same thing as when you say you know something.  We disagree on epistemology.  When I talk about knowing something I understand that I could still be wrong.  In my view knowledge is imperfect, limited and has set backs.  It's not a claim that we can prove something beyond all doubt.

 

Now let me ask you, how many things do you think you could prove beyond all doubt?  If you had to deal with ad hoc objections, with unknown magic, with unknown miracles, any and all of it then could you prove anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
44 minutes ago, mymistake said:

(I'm sure trained philosophers will cringe.  Sorry.)

 

That's one of the problems with the type of assertions of knowledge your making. 

 

44 minutes ago, mymistake said:

We are using different theories of knowledge.  You don't prove Zeus is not real by visiting Olympus because you have no way to detect a being that uses miracles to become incorporeal at will.  If I were to invent a "super observer device" that can photograph every corner of the universe at the same time that still doesn't prove there are no gods because you don't know there is no miracle power of invisibility to defeat it.  Nothing gets proven beyond all doubt.  Not ever.  So I don't expect something to be proven beyond all doubt before calling it knowledge.  If something can be verified with a high quantity of empirical evidence and no reasonable objection against it can be found then I call it knowledge

 

Yes, my example of knowledge of Zeus's non-existence doesn't even work. Due to other factors, invisibility, etc., I could scour Mt. Olympus with a camera and still fall short of gnostic atheist claims to know that Zeus doesn't exist. A high degree of empirical evidence and no reasonable objection against it, doesn't represent knowledge of such in a way that settles the issue. We're still talking probability and opinions in the above, not a strong assertion of "knowing" it. 

 

You're trying to stretch out the definitions of knowledge in an apologetic way, on behalf of the claim of gnostic atheism, after the fact, as a type of back peddle to justify the claim. This has turned into gnostic atheist apologetic's along the way. 

 

Gnostic Atheist

 

"If I can know this, this or that which has nothing to do with god, and call that knowledge, and none of it is 100% certain, granted, then I can say god doesn't exist and claim to have that knowledge as well without 100% certainty."

 

This is trying to apologize for using "gnostic" in front of "atheism." 

 

I can imagine a gnostic theist trying to make the same sort of apology, in response to discourse with an agnostic theist trying to get through to the gnostic theist about what sort of knowledge claims can and can not be made with any credibility. 

 

Gnostic Theist

 

"If I can know this, this or that which has nothing to do with god, and call that knowledge, and none of it is 100% certain, granted, then I can say god does exist and claim to have that knowledge as well without 100% certainty."

 

The reason things mirror so perfectly between gnostic theism and gnostic atheism, again, has to do with two polar opposite views trying to go beyond what can reasonably claimed about having knowledge of the existence or non-existence of something like god, something asserted as beyond the universe. Making comparable claims about something within the universe doesn't help the case. It's not like the spider, it's not like going to Greece and Olympus. It's not like claiming to know anything within the realm of observation. These claims to knowledge, by both opposing sides, are being projected out to place that they couldn't possibly know. 

 

Regardless of the apologetic's being proposed so far. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

A high degree of empirical evidence and no reasonable objection against it, doesn't represent knowledge of such in a way that settles the issue. We're still talking probability and opinions in the above. You're trying to stretch out the definitions of knowledge in an apologetic way, on behalf of the claim of gnostic atheism, after the fact, as a type of back peddle to justify the claim. This has turned into gnostic atheist apologetic's along the way. 

 

Well I could be doing this all wrong.  I'm not afraid of trying and failing.  But just to be clear I formed my theory of knowledge first before I decided gnostic atheism was justified.  It wasn't the other way around.  My views on knowledge are what led to me dismissing gods as imaginary.

 

9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

"If I can know this, this or that which has nothing to do with god, and call that knowledge, and none of it is 100% certain, granted, then I can say god doesn't exist and claim to have that knowledge as well without 100% certainty."

 

This is trying to apologize for using "gnostic" in front of "atheism." 

 

Okay but you left off the part about "since we can't be 100% certain beyond all doubt regarding anything".  Am I wrong about this point?  Is there something that we can be 100% certain about beyond all doubt, no matter how silly or unreasonable that doubt might be?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I found a cross reference discussion of gnostic atheism at "The Thinking Atheist" that we can contrast our discussion with: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-WTF-is-a-Gnostic-Atheist

 

The few who took a shot at claiming gnostic atheism used similar reasoning to what's been stated here. I didn't see anything we haven't already covered. Any one trying to argue for gnostic atheism had the same problem of trying claim knowledge that god doesn't exist. And tried similar ways of trying to claim knowledge without claiming 100% certainty. And tried to justify the claim of knowledge in that way. 

 

So that's pretty much it. Gnostic atheism consists of knowing that you can't claim to know god doesn't exist 100%, but then trying to claim that you can have knowledge that god doesn't exist, despite not knowing 100%. 

 

That's where it digresses into apologetic acrobatics in order to try and claim to have knowledge that god doesn't exist, without actually having that specific knowledge. Since you don't know 100%, by default, you're more than likely still agnostic because not knowing, after all, isn't knowing. This is an admission to not really knowing, but trying to manage a claim to know anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
37 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

Well I could be doing this all wrong.  I'm not afraid of trying and failing.  But just to be clear I formed my theory of knowledge first before I decided gnostic atheism was justified.  It wasn't the other way around.  My views on knowledge are what led to me dismissing gods as imaginary.

 

 

Okay but you left off the part about "since we can't be 100% certain beyond all doubt regarding anything".  Am I wrong about this point?  Is there something that we can be 100% certain about beyond all doubt, no matter how silly or unreasonable that doubt might be?   

 

I'm glad to see that you're open to the possibility that gnostic atheism may not work. I'm trying to allow it the chance to rise above criticism. We could end a lot of problems if in fact we could truthfully assert, with conviction, that we "know" god doesn't exist by any stretch of the imagination. That would be a very useful claim to be able to make for an atheist. 

 

37 minutes ago, mymistake said:

"If I can know this, this or that which has nothing to do with god, and call that knowledge, and none of it is 100% certain, granted, then I can say god doesn't exist and claim to have that knowledge as well without 100% certainty."

 

I didn't think I left out, "since we can't be 100% certain beyond all doubt regarding anything."

 

I included that sentiment by saying if we can know these other things, "and none of it is 100% certain." 

 

I completely get the reason for this analysis, as religionist's we wanted conviction. We wanted to make strong claims and statements in favor of god. Turning the other way, there's still the psychological issue of wanting conviction and strong claims in the other direction. If we could only level the opposition by countering their claims of knowledge that god does exist. 

 

That's not really where the battle is won, though. 

 

The battle is won by showing how improbable belief in their respective gods is. And getting through to them that there's a much higher possibility that they're wrong about their gods, rather than right. It's really about going one way or the other based on a strong analysis of the situation. There's no complete home run for either side. 

 

You're on the side of high probability. Taking all known factors into account, belief in god has to be blind belief by nature, there's no evidence for the existence of god. Philosophy has failed, over the course of history, at proving god does exist. We don't see a god. We don't see evidence of any creation stories being confirmed as literally true by science and observation. This all goes into the 6.9 stance. I'm definitely there. In my mind, the existence of god is a very slim possibility. A possibility that I only grant on account of the philosophical problem of claiming to know god doesn't exist. And it's the same for Santa, or fairies, or anything else. Because of technicalities, claiming 7 becomes untenable. But a 6.9 is untouchable to those who could rattle the cage at 7. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh I'm still not getting what I need.  I reject philosophy's take on epistemology because I think they are wrong.  What can you know beyond all doubt?  Using your definitions, your way I still don't think you get anything to the criteria of "beyond all doubt".  

 

I took Intro to Phil 101 in college.  I know it's not the same as a minor, let alone a major, but I was completely unimpressed with everything except the chapter on logic (which I loved).  I got an A in the class by regurgitating the nonsense part back but I don't believe it.  I think technology offers a better model of knowledge then what we find in philosophy.  Human progress over the millennia provides a long chain of evidence.  I realize I won't be changing the mind of anybody who was formally trained but it seems to me that philosophy inconsistent.  The justified true belief model means that we can't know when we actually know something because someday down the road we might discover it wasn't true.

 

Disillusioned's take on knowledge is only as good as the chain of assumptions he bases each bit of knowledge upon.  So he will eventually experience moments where knowledge fails.  It happens to humans as a whole.  We thought we knew something and it turns out we didn't.  My model incorporates that pattern.  It's the nature of learning.

 

If you can't name anything that you can be 100% certain about beyond all doubt, even the unfounded and unreasonable doubts then how is the standard philosophical theory of knowledge better than mine?

 

 

Edit:

Or is your position that you can't prove anything beyond all doubt but you don't need to because you are careful to never take on the burden of proof?  Is that what you have been getting at?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

 

Disillusioned's take on knowledge is only as good as the chain of assumptions he bases each bit of knowledge upon.  So he will eventually experience moments where knowledge fails.  It happens to humans as a whole.  We thought we knew something and it turns out we didn't.  My model incorporates that pattern.  It's the nature of learning.

 

Yes, this is reasonable. This is roughly how science works too. The thing is, though, science never claims to generate absolute truth. We can say that we  know that the Earth is round, but the justification of that statement necessarily rests on a number of assumptions which simply cannot be  known to be true. If it turns out that those assumptions are wrong, then our knowledge will change. I agree that this is how science, and learning in general work.

 

7 hours ago, mymistake said:

If you can't name anything that you can be 100% certain about beyond all doubt, even the unfounded and unreasonable doubts then how is the standard philosophical theory of knowledge better than mine?

 

MM,  I don't really think your view of knowledge is substantively different from the standard philosophical one. Nor is mine. The difference is what we are accepting as justification or acceptable proof. More on this in a minute.

 

7 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Edit:

Or is your position that you can't prove anything beyond all doubt but you don't need to because you are careful to never take on the burden of proof?  Is that what you have been getting at?  

 

No, I can definitely prove some things beyond all doubt. Formal statements can be proven in this way. The proof shows that the statement is true beyond all doubt, but only on a particular system. It is true beyond all doubt that 2+2=4. But it isn't absolutely true.

 

Here's an issue that I think I'm seeing. You seem to want to claim absolute, 100% knowledge, but at the same time deny that any such knowledge is possible. It seems that your argument looks like this:

 

I can't show that A is false, but there is no reason to think it is true, and we have a lot of reasons to think it is probably false. Therefore A is false.

 

Theories of knowledge aside, this is not a good argument. The conclusion doesn't follow. You are treating an inductive argument as a deductive one, which it isn't.

 

Your justification for this seems to be that all human knowledge is basically constructed in this way. That we learn by trial and error, and at a certain point we are justified in generalizing. And sometimes we are wrong, but in those cases we deal with it when it becomes a problem. Ok, but this means that your knowledge claim is much weaker than a standard knowledge claim. So when you say you know that God does not exist, you are not actually saying what the words imply. You're just saying "I think God does not exist" and calling it knowledge on your own terms. Fine. But your terms include a much lower standard of proof than that which we require for things which we claim to know in the usual way. I would argue that this is problematic.

 

Your level of certainty that God does not exist is not, and can never be, as great as my level of certainty that 2+2=4, or that the Earth is round. So why should we behave as if it is by calling all of these things knowledge?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly I'd like to make it clear that my ramblings are purely brain droppings, just random thoughts as my mind wanders through the questions.  I don't hold a strong position on gnostism, it sounds right to my mind but I can see both sides of the debate and find such discussions very educational.  Even just understanding the arguments against makes you consider how you would answer that if asked in the street.  You have to see if you can whittle the reasoning down to just a sound bite size response as that is likely all the time you will have in many such discussions, and yet have a more indepth understanding of the possible viewpoints so you can respond if questioned further.  

 

15 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Then it should follow, that with knowledge as limited you can never make such a gnostic claim about gods existence. You can have the opinion god doesn't exist, like the rest of us, due to the limitations of knowledge concerning the existence of god, but you could never know that to be factually true. 

 

Not unless you travel out to infinity, personally surveying the expanse of never ending cosmos and documenting every step of the way, coming back to this universe, and the earth, with a fully documented and filmed report "proving" that there aren't any gods whatsoever, anywhere, in the whole of existence as far out as existence reaches, most likely forever without end. No different than going to mount Olympus and filming all around "proving" that Zeus does not exist at the top of mount Olympus. 

 

How do you propose to "prove" this about the suggestion of a god transcendent of the entire universe? 

 

The mistake is trying to disprove a god by pointing to an empty piece of space and saying "Look theres no god there".  It isn't a Where's Waldo book, we need to look at what is being claimed.  The hardest god to disprove is the irrelevant god.  A being who does nothing, is nothing, doesn't communicate and doesn't care about humans.  Such a being is not claimed by any religions and really is nothing more than a force of nature.  You couldn't even say such a god is an intelligent, thinking creature.  All of the gods of religions are in some way interacting with the physical world, and as soon as such claims are made those can be tested and falsified.  What we need to understand is the characteristics claimed of this being.  Does it materialise?  Does it communicate?  Does it want us to know it?  Does it answer prayers?  Does it react to human/animal sacrifice?  

The definition is critical.  The problem can be considered as looking at an infinite data set.  An endless data set leaves nothing that can be said about it, so the only way we can make any claims is by limiting that data set to a finite number of data points.  The irrelevant god is an infinite data set, but as soon as characteristics are claimed it reduces to a finite set.  The Christian god is a perfect example.  If He was just an invisible watcher who does nothing, then it would be very hard to disprove, but as we have tons of claims made about Him we have a finite set of data to work with.  He is meant to answer prayer, meant to want us to know Him, help his chosen people, meant to be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful.  As per Dan Baker's video once you have such claims you can clearly show that specific entity is an impossibility.

The same can be said about the term supernatural.  If it is undefined then it could be anything, but as soon as specific physical effects are claimed we can set James Randi on them.  It is a fact that 100% of supernatural claims/powers have been shown to be false when tested.  If there is no such thing as the supernatural and god is claimed to be supernatural, then He doesn't exist.  Or perhaps you could say imaginary things do not physically exist, god is man made so is solely in the mind and therefore does not exist.  We can say all religions can be shown to be wrong and all of their claims can be shown to be without merit and void of substance.  In proving that you have a null set.  Religion is a null set.    

 

It feels like there is a subjective layer to facts which I believe is what is meant by "facts reduce to strongly held beliefs".  If you run a test a hundred times and get the same result every time it would be understandable to say "based on experience I know result X will happen under these circumstances", but perhaps test 101 won't be the same.  Maybe you run the test a million times and still get the same result.  At what point can you say you have proven that fact?  I think there will be varied answers to that question.  At a certain point it is unreasonable to continue to expect a different result, as the old saying goes "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results".  The question of knowledge is therefore an individual thing.  The amount of evidence required for a piece of information to be verified to your personal requirements will differ.  Peer review helps, but again at some point the second person has to come to the conclusion that the testing has been so thorough as to remove all reasonable doubt.  I would say "I know gravity keeps me firmly planted on the ground" while a flat earther would say the facts I used to come to that knowledge are wrong.  

I don't consider this discussion "apologetics" or "changing the definition" but rather just attempting to clarify the definition so we are all looking at the question from the same angle, or at least understanding the other persons view.  If you cannot get a clear definition of any term then open discussion is impossible.  You will simply end up talking pass each other without addressing each others views.

 

You also mentioned that maybe we were worried by saying we are agnostic, which is certainly not the case.  Really the discussion about agnostism vs gnostism very rarely, if ever, gets raised in debates.  At least for me it is more about testing labels and trying to see if there is a version that fits in addition to atheist.  Atheists are such a wide ranging group, sure we all disbelieve in gods but other than that there is nothing asserted about anything.  It leaves me feeling like there should be more accurate terms, but perhaps it is simply a case that the correct terminology doesn't exist.  Or maybe I'm a-terminologist :P 

 

I do love that we have this website as a place where such discussions can occur and remain civil.  So rare on any discussion boards on the internet, just about any other site would have devolved to an expletive filled flame war by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

your knowledge claim is much weaker than a standard knowledge claim.

 

Just a quick clarification.  What is the "standard" for knowledge?  How much proof is "usual" for anything to be called a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
10 hours ago, mymistake said:

If you can't name anything that you can be 100% certain about beyond all doubt, even the unfounded and unreasonable doubts then how is the standard philosophical theory of knowledge better than mine?

 

Because you're setting out to try and prove a negative, with the assertion of "I know god does not exist." Gnostic atheism amounts to the burden of proving a negative. 

 

That's why nearly across the board atheist spokesman won't touch it. 

 

Here's an example of a professional philosopher trying to refute the premise that you can't prove a negative: https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

 

He does so by appealing to induction throughout the paper, as you've done here. I'm going to outline his first example: 

 

Quote

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record. 3. Therefore, unicorns never existed

 

This is very poor reasoning, though. What if we simply haven't found evidence for unicorns in the fossil record? We actively find new things in the fossil record, because we obviously haven't scoured every inch of the soil around the globe. It would be nice to close the door and tell unicorn believers that we "know" that unicorns never existed and the whole thing is completely over.

 

But that over steps what we can honestly claim. So we can't actually prove a negative in this instance, even though it's bloody obvious that unicorns are fairy tale's. What if we're wrong? And as I read further it's transparent that his motivation is to try and shut down believers who point to the various problems with using induction as a reason to continue believing, much like you two guys have expressed here about theists trying to use agnostic atheism as an excuse for continued god belief. This is his personal bias going into the effort of trying to refute the premise, "you can't prove a negative." 

 

Did any of his efforts actually prove a negative? 

 

I'd say no, it wasn't a good enough argument to prove that unicorns, bigfoot, or god doesn't exist, and therefore to have knowledge that they don't exist. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Here's an issue that I think I'm seeing. You seem to want to claim absolute, 100% knowledge, but at the same time deny that any such knowledge is possible. It seems that your argument looks like this:

 

 

I've tried to explain to you and Josh that I don't claim knowledge is 100%.  I see knowledge as a working model that fits the known facts.  It is subject to setbacks, mistakes, misunderstandings.  We often say we know something and find out later that it was wrong.  And we never know ahead of time which bit of knowledge will be overturned by new information.  So everything we know could be temporary.

 

I want a theory of knowledge that better matches what actually happens with our technology.

 

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I can't show that A is false, but there is no reason to think it is true, and we have a lot of reasons to think it is probably false. Therefore A is false.

 

Theories of knowledge aside, this is not a good argument. The conclusion doesn't follow. You are treating an inductive argument as a deductive one, which it isn't.

 

 

 

I think it depends on the strength of how much is a lot.  If A is tested and fails a million times wouldn't you treat it like it is false?  If not, would you reconsider after it fails a billion times or a trillion times?  I think at some point we just have to carry on as if A is false.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

So when you say you know that God does not exist, you are not actually saying what the words imply.  

 

Hmmm . . . now that is something I find very persuasive.  I will consider that.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
10 hours ago, mymistake said:

Or is your position that you can't prove anything beyond all doubt but you don't need to because you are careful to never take on the burden of proof?  Is that what you have been getting at?  

 

This is true, at a 6.9 I have not claimed to know god doesn't exist, therefore I have no burden of proof requirement to substantiate such a claim. I don't know that, and can't know that, so I don't make the claim. The theist's can't force me into proving a negative at 6.9. It's a safe space as far as that goes. And I don't need to justify my lack of belief in god by proving a negative. 

 

All of the burden of proof rests on the persons making the claims. It rests on gnostics, either way, basically. An agnostic theist hasn't made the claim to know god exists, he just believes god exists and doesn't have to prove it to me or anyone else. If I ask, can you prove god exists? They will say, "no." I can then ask, "so why believe it?" They may respond, "because I have faith in the claims of the bible." They might ask me, "why don't you?" I can respond, "because I've studied the bible in depth and have learned where it's wrong, and don't believe the claims." 

 

It's somewhat civil between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists because we're not making unrealistic claims of knowledge. There's something in the way of respect that can happen between the two parties. I've noticed this in debates between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

It is a fact that 100% of supernatural claims/powers have been shown to be false when tested.  If there is no such thing as the supernatural and god is claimed to be supernatural, then He doesn't exist.  Or perhaps you could say imaginary things do not physically exist, god is man made so is solely in the mind and therefore does not exist.  We can say all religions can be shown to be wrong and all of their claims can be shown to be without merit and void of substance.  In proving that you have a null set.  Religion is a null set.    

 

The simplicity you're after breaks down to this question, does any of this really prove a negative?

 

It's been understood, traditionally, that you can not prove a negative. I gave an example of a philosopher trying to prove a negative anyways, and it still doesn't seem to work. So most atheist's will say to theist's, when asked if we can prove god doesn't exist, "you can't prove a negative,"  and, "no one is claiming to prove a negative."

 

And then move on to outlining all of the problems with their positive claims about gods existence and putting the focus where the focus belongs. If they're claiming to prove that god does exist, it's not up to us to prove that he doesn't in order to lack belief in their positive claims and assertions. It's entirely up to them to prove their assertions. Our only assertions should be that we simply don't buy what they're selling, that's it. And we can list our reasons for not buying it. As you've listed. They're good reasons. 

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

You also mentioned that maybe we were worried by saying we are agnostic, which is certainly not the case.  Really the discussion about agnostism vs gnostism very rarely, if ever, gets raised in debates.  At least for me it is more about testing labels and trying to see if there is a version that fits in addition to atheist.  Atheists are such a wide ranging group, sure we all disbelieve in gods but other than that there is nothing asserted about anything.  It leaves me feeling like there should be more accurate terms, but perhaps it is simply a case that the correct terminology doesn't exist.  Or maybe I'm a-terminologist :P 

 

If you look back, you'll notice that my position began as combining gnostic and agnostic atheist into a coherent framework where each claim functions according to it's capabilities. We can be gnostic to the extent that knowledge will allow us, but then beyond that point we can necessarily default to agnostic atheist. Such as, we can prove the things you've listed above with knowledge claims, but when we get down to proving a negative we don't have knowledge any longer, hence gnostic rolls over into agnostic. 

 

And since the dictionaries define an atheist by lumping both agnostic and gnostic claims together, describing either one who lacks belief in god or believes god does not exist - rather than argue about which of the two rightfully describes atheism (which has been huge argument among atheists), I've tried embracing them both and putting each in their respective places of atheism. We know certain things about certain gods, but ultimately we can't prove a negative. We're gnostic and agnostic atheists. 

 

But apparently my proposition wasn't suitable to mymistake, and I assume to you either. Because that's what launched us into the discussion thereafter and all of the unfolding that has taken place this far. I'm trying to be generous and throw gnostic atheism a bone, rather than stomp it out like some atheists have tried doing.

 

At this point in the discussion do you see any better value in my proposition than you did on the first page? 

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I do love that we have this website as a place where such discussions can occur and remain civil.  So rare on any discussion boards on the internet, just about any other site would have devolved to an expletive filled flame war by now.

 

I agree with the above. I hope that we can always properly represent what being ex christian can be like. I wouldn't want our opponents to post examples all over the web of ex christians as chaotic and implosive. I think they'd love the opportunity to paint us that way, if they were able. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
46 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

So when you say you know that God does not exist, you are not actually saying what the words imply.  

 

Hmmm . . . now that is something I find very persuasive.  I will consider that.

 

 

I would say this shows that your gnostic position is mixed with agnostic as I've been proposing as the solution. Because when you say that you know god does not exist, you aren't actually saying what the word implies. Where you're saying you know, you don't actually know that. You know many things, but not the ultimate conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

Just a quick clarification.  What is the "standard" for knowledge?  How much proof is "usual" for anything to be called a fact?

 

Ah, see that's a tricky question.

 

I'm not a philosopher, but I have known a few people who are, and I have studied philosophy as it pertains to mathematics, science, and education. A standard definition of knowledge (the tripartite definition) is "justified true belief". What exactly is meant by "justified" and "true" can vary, depending on the view that one takes.

 

Personally, I've found that most people who claim "knowledge" that a proposition is true mean that the statement is provable deductively. But there are different kinds of knowledge. One can claim knowledge of a person, or of a language, for example, and clearly this means a different thing. 

 

In general, though, I think that something can be called a fact if it can be directly observed, or shown to be true deductively. MM clearly thinks that inductive reasoning can result in facts. This seems to be where he and I differ the most.

 

More on philosophy of knowledge here and here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

I've tried to explain to you and Josh that I don't claim knowledge is 100%.  I see knowledge as a working model that fits the known facts.  It is subject to setbacks, mistakes, misunderstandings.  We often say we know something and find out later that it was wrong.  And we never know ahead of time which bit of knowledge will be overturned by new information.  So everything we know could be temporary.

 

I want a theory of knowledge that better matches what actually happens with our technology.

 

So you're just being pragmatic. You're interested more in what practically works, not what is necessarily true. Fair enough. I also try to be pragmatic, but I try to separate treating things as true from claiming knowledge that they are true.

 

6 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

I think it depends on the strength of how much is a lot.  If A is tested and fails a million times wouldn't you treat it like it is false?  If not, would you reconsider after it fails a billion times or a trillion times?  I think at some point we just have to carry on as if A is false.

 

Yes, I would treat it like it is false. I'm 100% with you here. We should treat the question of God as if it is decided. The alternative is just being silly. So we carry on as if A is false, but we don't actually know that it is false. Maybe this is just representative of me being picky, because of too much time spent studying formalisms. 

 

Again, MM, practically there is no difference between you and me. I just think that the question "Is it possible that there is a God" has the answer "yes, depending on what 'God' is supposed to mean". As long as that is the case, I can't be intellectually honest and say that I know there is no God. I really think there is no God. I behave as if there is no God. But there could be. So I don't know it. Again, though, I think this comes down to you and I meaning different things when we say "know", and perhaps when we say "God".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

So you're just being pragmatic. You're interested more in what practically works, not what is necessarily true. Fair enough. I also try to be pragmatic, but I try to separate treating things as true from claiming knowledge that they are true.

 

It is not my intent to claim absolute certainty beyond all doubt so if that is what gnostic atheist entails then I will find a different way to communicate my views. 

 

I appreciate both you and Josh being patient.

 

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

Again, though, I think this comes down to you and I meaning different things when we say "know", and perhaps when we say "God".

 

And in the interests of good communication I should adopt the standard meaning as recognized by society.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This knowledge/gnosis discussion started and has distilled into a typical semantic discourse.  Granted, there are volumes of writings concerning knowledge, belief, justification, etc., from Plato forward, much of which makes my head hurt.  Precision in the use of terms certainly generates more accurate communication.  However, many terms/words have alternate/different meanings and often the alternatives and differences are not considered, acknowledged or admitted, resulting in poor communication.

 

I understand both (i) Mymistake's and (ii) disillusioned's and Joshpantera's positions and arguments.  Both are "right", in their own way.  And it is rather nice to see how each recognizes the other's position and affirm it with all reaching consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.