Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[Asimov]

So then Asimov's claim reads like:

 

Agnosticism is not consistent with or based on an explaination of the cause of some phenomenon.

 

If I reason that, there is no convincing evidence to support or deny the existence of god( then I cannot believe or not believe in the existence of god), then i satisfy the requirments of what it is to be rational.

 

If you agree with me thus far then agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable stance to take. Agnostics cannot believe god exists or that god doesn't exists. They just cannot take those claims to be true.

 

 

I was with you on everything up until this point. I think this stems from sometimes my inability to properly state what I mean.

 

My claim is that agnosticism is redundant as it pertains to theology because we cannot know (at this point in time) whether or not a God exists. If it is true that we cannot know, then calling oneself an agnostic is philosophically self-evident.

 

Agnosticism is acceptable as a stance to take as it pertains to knowledge, however, since theology is based on a position of belief and not knowledge I cannot accept that agnosticism is relevant to the case.

 

Second...denying or disbelieving in something requires absolutely no evidence when there isn't supporting evidence to show that there is a God. The very lack of evidence to show that there isn't a God is basically evidence itself.

[Padreko]

 

I was with you on everything up until this point. I think this stems from sometimes my inability to properly state what I mean.

 

My claim is that agnosticism is redundant as it pertains to theology because we cannot know (at this point in time) whether or not a God exists. If it is true that we cannot know, then calling oneself an agnostic is philosophically self-evident.

 

Agnosticism is acceptable as a stance to take as it pertains to knowledge, however, since theology is based on a position of belief and not knowledge I cannot accept that agnosticism is relevant to the case.

 

Second...denying or disbelieving in something requires absolutely no evidence when there isn't supporting evidence to show that there is a God. The very lack of evidence to show that there isn't a God is basically evidence itself.

 

I want to reply to the last part of your post first. In science, the lack of evidence of some phenomenon p, doesn't mean that p is not true, and obviously it doesn't mean that it IS true. Actually, some people have this weird notion that you can not actually prove something. But rather its your inability to disprove it that gives that something merit. So the lack of evidence for the claim that God exists, in my mind is not evidence. We do not have the ability to disprove it.

 

Back to theology vs knowledge.

I'm not sure if this is a symantical argument, but if a person doesn't take something to be true or false, what is that? Christians BELIEVE that god exists, but Atheists BELIEVE that god doesn't exist. Are you saying that agnosticism cannot apply to theology? Why? Should I then say, I just don't believe anything? What if I say, I believe Christianity is is uncertain and I believe Atheism is uncertain? I think that is perfectly reasonable.

 

If you agree with very crude, unrefined, but easily understandible theory of knowledge (TAK) then imo agnosticism can apply to theology since

 

Agnosticim = not knowing god and not knowing [not god].

 

This breaks down to a problem in argument.

 

1. S believes god does not exist.

2. It is true that god does not exist.

3. S is justified in believing god does not exist.

 

Conclusion: S knows god does not exist.

 

So for the agnostic, he/she cannot know god exists(or doesn't exist) because, they don't have 1. Agnostics don't believe that god exists. Agnostics don't believe that god doesn't exists. 2 cannot be established. So Anostics cannot know either. Christians and Athiests cannot know, because 2 still cannot be established. So belief and justification are the only two things left, both of which are established for the christian and the agnostic.

 

Essentially what I'm saying is that

 

"Agnosticism is acceptable as a stance to take as it pertains to knowledge, however, since theology is based on a position of belief and not knowledge I cannot accept that agnosticism is relevant to the case"

 

doesn't make sense.

 

Knowledge is a conclusion of beliefs, truth , and justification - you cannot have knowledge of something unless you satisfy the latter three parts. You can't compare beliefs to knowledge.

 

 

I seriously hope i didn't stick my foot in my mouth....

[Vigile]

I want to reply to the last part of your post first. In science, the lack of evidence of some phenomenon p, doesn't mean that p is not true, and obviously it doesn't mean that it IS true. Actually, some people have this weird notion that you can not actually prove something. But rather its your inability to disprove it that gives that something merit. So the lack of evidence for the claim that God exists, in my mind is not evidence. We do not have the ability to disprove it.

 

Padreko has you here Asimov.

 

As far as this whole debate is concerned, is it fair to say that agnostics at a minimum entertain the idea that god could exist, while atheists using Oscam's razor reject the posibility without the injection of more (read some) evidence?

[Asimov]

I want to reply to the last part of your post first. In science, the lack of evidence of some phenomenon p, doesn't mean that p is not true, and obviously it doesn't mean that it IS true. Actually, some people have this weird notion that you can not actually prove something. But rather its your inability to disprove it that gives that something merit. So the lack of evidence for the claim that God exists, in my mind is not evidence. We do not have the ability to disprove it.

 

I really don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

 

I think you can prove CERTAIN concepts or things to be true. However, in the case of God I think there is justification for saying that we cannot 100% prove that God exists/doesn't exist.

 

I'm not saying the lack of evidence proves that God does not exist, and I don't think I ever said that. I said that the absence of evidence in this case is evidence of absence, not proof of absence. There is corroborative argumentation to support my claim that we are justified in concluding God doesn't exist, despite our lack of knowledge in an epistemological definition.

 

Back to theology vs knowledge.

I'm not sure if this is a symantical argument, but if a person doesn't take something to be true or false, what is that? Christians BELIEVE that god exists, but Atheists BELIEVE that god doesn't exist. Are you saying that agnosticism cannot apply to theology? Why? Should I then say, I just don't believe anything? What if I say, I believe Christianity is is uncertain and I believe Atheism is uncertain? I think that is perfectly reasonable.

 

Because it isn't an issue of whether or not x is true or false! Since we've determined that it cannot be determined if x is true or false, the issue of knowing is out the window!

 

Belief != knowledge, I'm sure even basic epistemology says this.

 

I'm saying in the context of "do you believe God exists", agnosticism cannot apply since it is a given that we cannot know if God exists or not. Agnosticism is generally redundant as it applies to theology.

 

Let's not complicate the issue by stating a specific God such as Christianity. Atheism isn't the opposite of Christianity.

 

So for the agnostic, he/she cannot know god exists(or doesn't exist) because, they don't have 1. Agnostics don't believe that god exists. Agnostics don't believe that god doesn't exists. 2 cannot be established. So Anostics cannot know either. Christians and Athiests cannot know, because 2 still cannot be established. So belief and justification are the only two things left, both of which are established for the christian and the agnostic.

 

What I've been saying pretty much throughout the entire thread...this isn't the issue.

 

 

 

Padreko has you here Asimov.

 

As far as this whole debate is concerned, is it fair to say that agnostics at a minimum entertain the idea that god could exist, while atheists using Oscam's razor reject the posibility without the injection of more (read some) evidence?

 

I think he edited out the science bit, since I didn't find it when I replied to him. Science is limited only to studies of the natural world and cannot touch metaphysical or supernatural claims.

 

The problem is that you are trying to make it as if agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive ideologies when they are not! Everyone is an agnostic because we cannot know (at this point) if God exists or doesn't exist.

 

Even someone like me who has a strong conviction that God doesn't exist acknowledges that I cannot know.

 

Atheism is just the gainsay of the Theists claim that God exists. It's a disbelief in a claim.

 

Let me clarify:

x = god exists

 

Atheism itself is just the disbelief in claim (x). This disbelief can be called claim (~x).

Agnosticism is the admission that we do not know if our claim (~x) is true or not with absolute certainty (which is true regardless of the admission and hence redundant).

Strong/Weak is the strength of conviction that one has regarding claim (~x).

 

Understand?

[Padreko]

 

Belief != knowledge, I'm sure even basic epistemology says this.

 

 

 

 

NO! BELIEF DOES NOT EQUAL KNOWLEDGE. (I have richard feldmans EPISTEMOLOGY book right in front of my face). I mean there are several theories in epistemology; however, I am using TAK for my arguments. But in general for a person to KNOW X or have KNOWLEDGE of X, they must believe in X and X must be true.

 

 

I'm saying in the context of "do you believe God exists", agnosticism cannot apply since it is a given that we cannot know if God exists or not. Agnosticism is generally redundant as it applies to theology.

 

 

Ok so here's the thing based on my earlier definition of what it takes to KNOW something,

 

S knows p = df

 

1. S believes p

2. P is true

3. S is justified in believing p

 

No person can KNOW that god exists or doesn't exist because we cannot satisfy premise 2. So knowledge of god is out of the question. You can either believe, not believe, or suspend belief which apply to Christianity, Atheism, and Agnosticism respectively.

[Vigile]

 

Ok so here's the thing based on my earlier definition of what it takes to KNOW something,

 

S knows p = df

 

1. S believes p

2. P is true

3. S is justified in believing p

 

No person can KNOW that god exists or doesn't exist because we cannot satisfy premise 2. So knowledge of god is out of the question. You can either believe, not believe, or suspend belief which apply to Christianity, Atheism, and Agnosticism respectively.

 

Ok, but can't you replace the word god with say "genies" or "fairies" and make the same claim? I think this is why Asimov is saying that the term agnostic is redundant.

 

BTW, thanks for your contributions. I'm having an admittedly hard time following along, but I'm learning nonetheless.

[Asimov]

 

Belief != knowledge, I'm sure even basic epistemology says this.

 

 

 

 

NO! BELIEF DOES NOT EQUAL KNOWLEDGE. (I have richard feldmans EPISTEMOLOGY book right in front of my face). I mean there are several theories in epistemology; however, I am using TAK for my arguments. But in general for a person to KNOW X or have KNOWLEDGE of X, they must believe in X and X must be true.

 

*tears hair out* That's what I'm saying!!!!

 

!= means doesn't equal. So I'm saying that belief does not equal knowledge. WE ARE AGREEING ON THIS!!!

 

 

You can either believe, not believe, or suspend belief which apply to Christianity, Atheism, and Agnosticism respectively.

 

The problem is the word agnostic itself does not apply to a belief at all! It applies to the question of knowledge.

 

If there is a middle ground between theism and atheism, it is not agnosticism.

 

As I said before:

 

x = god exists

 

Atheism itself is just the disbelief in claim (x). This disbelief can be called claim (~x).

 

Agnosticism is the admission that we do not know if our claim (~x) is true or not with absolute certainty (which is true regardless of the admission and hence redundant).

 

Strong/Weak is the strength of conviction that one has regarding claim (~x).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, but can't you replace the word god with say "genies" or "fairies" and make the same claim? I think this is why Asimov is saying that the term agnostic is redundant.

 

It has a lot to do with knowledge of the supernatural, which no one can have. We have no sensory output to detect this nor do we have any verified empirical evidence regarding the supernatural...it's essentially a meaningless concept.

[Dhampir]

If I may, I'd like to introduce a slightly modified definition of Agnostic: the fact that at present it is impossible to know for certain whether or not god exists.

 

It sounds similar, but the difference is that it applies to everyone introduced to the concept of god, be they theists, atheists, or avowed agnostics.

 

It is true that no one knows given our information and our current ability to acquire information whether or not there is a god. It is a belief, no matter how strongly held on either side of the debate, and, as has been put more than once, belief != knowledge (is there a repository online to find these mathmatic symbols, Asimov, or is this just something you gotta go to school to find? [as you may be able to tell, I'm not a numbers guy]).

 

It is for that reason that Asimov (tell me if I'm off there) posits his claim, because agnosticism, if it can be applied to anyone, it is applied to everyone universally. We're all agnostic.

[Asimov]

If I may, I'd like to introduce a slightly modified definition of Agnostic: the fact that at present it is impossible to know for certain whether or not god exists.

 

It sounds similar, but the difference is that it applies to everyone introduced to the concept of god, be they theists, atheists, or avowed agnostics.

 

It is true that no one knows given our information and our current ability to acquire information whether or not there is a god. It is a belief, no matter how strongly held on either side of the debate, and, as has been put more than once, belief != knowledge (is there a repository online to find these mathmatic symbols, Asimov, or is this just something you gotta go to school to find? [as you may be able to tell, I'm not a numbers guy]).

 

It is for that reason that Asimov (tell me if I'm off there) posits his claim, because agnosticism, if it can be applied to anyone, it is applied to everyone universally. We're all agnostic.

 

I think that's a sensible way to put things and in line with what I have been saying.

 

I'm not sure where you can find the symbols.

[Amethyst]

It is for that reason that Asimov (tell me if I'm off there) posits his claim, because agnosticism, if it can be applied to anyone, it is applied to everyone universally. We're all agnostic.

 

Yes, I would agree with that, but not everyone is willing to admit they are agnostic. A fundy person of any religion wouldn't, for example.

[BigToe]

Asimov, you've changed what you're saying through the course of this thread. In your first post you said it is the most wishy washy, now you're saying it is redundant because it applies to everyone. Which is it?

[Dhampir]

not necessarily true. One need only have them acknowledge the difference between knowledge, then admit that they believe in god.

[Dhampir]

it's wishy washy because of it's redundancy. If everyone introduced to the concept of god is agnostic on account of it being unknown and unknowable as real, then claiming agnosticism is roughly akin to claiming, say, that you're not a blue-eyed human, but you are a human. Merely a statement of the obvious, and a truth that adds nothing to your description. You're saying you're something that everyone else is. And refusing to add anything to that.

 

I like that picture btw.

[Asimov]

Asimov, you've changed what you're saying through the course of this thread. In your first post you said it is the most wishy washy, now you're saying it is redundant because it applies to everyone. Which is it?

 

No I haven't:

 

I currently think that agnosticism has got to be the most wishy-washy position to take. Not only that, but it's thrown around everywhere as some kind of catch-phrase. It's almost as if people use it in order to get out of justifying a belief system that they actually have, but don't want to really think about.

 

....

 

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

 

This philosophical view is entirely irrelevant.

 

I've maintained that it is irrelevant for the whole thread, and I haven't been pressing the "wishy-washyness" of it since my first post.

 

It is for that reason that Asimov (tell me if I'm off there) posits his claim, because agnosticism, if it can be applied to anyone, it is applied to everyone universally. We're all agnostic.

 

Yes, I would agree with that, but not everyone is willing to admit they are agnostic. A fundy person of any religion wouldn't, for example.

 

Yes well not everyone is willing to admit that they are apes, either...it doesn't make the claim automatically untrue because they think it is.

[Asimov]

Most atheists seem pretty sure there is no god and are willing to defend that point. To me that's "actively disbelieving." Just lacking belief I would think would mean you don't really talk about it cause you don't really think about it. If you think about the fact that you don't believe, especially enough to discuss it, I would call that "actively disbelieving." In that case, religion is a pretty big part of your life.

 

There are plenty of people who lack belief, who don't talk about it all the time. So that's what I mean when I say "actively disbelieving" that you are actively involved in religious discourse in one way or another.

 

I think that's where strong and weak/positive and neutral/whatever and whatever atheism come into play. Both are atheists.

 

As for agnosticism being redundant I wouldn't agree, because of the simple fact, ask any fundamentalist christian if they KNOW jesus is real or if they just believe. They'll say "I know." Sometimes Agnosticism isn't so much about what you know as what you are willing to ADMIT you don't know. Many religious people aren't willing to make that admission, an agnostic makes that admission up front.

 

Well fundamentalists are retards anyways, so who cares?

[Padreko]

I GET IT NOW!! (Asimov, I cannot believe you made me think this hard... GRRRR.... Now I need to figure out how to break this down some other way...)

 

FINE!!!! so this is me

 

X* = X and ~X are retarded because they are theological arguments...

 

In my earlier response I did think about the tooth fairy thing and concluded that yeah, same problem right? Wrong....

 

First off its not a relevent question in the same sense as belief in god because

A. viritually no one believes in the tooth fairy,

B. no one is justified in believing in the tooth fairy because we all take it to be true that its just a figment of our imagination.

 

Vs. Athiesm(Christianity)

A. People believe either

B. They are also justified in believing them.

 

Same conclusion is that we can't *know* of these things.

 

 

 

 

for #1, I don't know if god exists, so I cannot say that I believe god exists. but at the same time, while it is logical and coherent to therefore NOT believe god exists, that sounds very close to believing god doesn't exist.

 

 

You can say you don't know if god exists and that you DO believe that god exists....

[Padreko]

What did we define God as btw?

[Asimov]

What did we define God as btw?

 

I think we're working on a generic god, and not any specific God. That's a different discussion for another day, hahaha.

[Padreko]

What did we define God as btw?

 

I think we're working on a generic god, and not any specific God. That's a different discussion for another day, hahaha.

 

So this whole time are you saying that agnosticism is fine, just the response to the question "do you believe in god" cannot be I'm agnostic - but rather, "this question doesn't apply to me"

If this is the case, I am going to fuck you up!!!

 

just kidding...

[Vigile]

First off its not a relevent question in the same sense as belief in god because

A. viritually no one believes in the tooth fairy,

 

A. An appeal to large numbers is a logical falacy.

 

B. They are also justified in believing them.

 

B. Why are they justified believing in a deity but not in the toothfairy? Because of A, a lot of people believe in god and no one believes in the toothfairy? Again, there is a disconnect here because you cannot appeal to large numbers. Large numbers of people can still be wrong.

[Saviourmachine]

I'm not sure where you can find the symbols.

Learn C++

[Ouroboros]

Talking about programming, I just see agnosticism as the NULL value of a boolean in SQL.

 

create table Person (

...

BelieveInGod bit NULL,

...

)

 

Which means the column can take three values:

BelieveInGod = 0 -- Atheist

BelieveInGod = 1 -- Theist, etc

BelieveInGod = NULL -- pure agnosticist

 

So, even databases supports the idea of the not-known "value" (it's not a true value, since it is the unknown value.)

 

The tri-state checkboxes supports this too, checked, un-checked or unknown (usually gray. And interestingly it's unchecked-gray, and not checked-gray! Does this allude to that agnostics are in de facto atheists?)

[aynalhub]

It's interesting to see how sensitive people are regarding their own belief systems...especially an incoherent one such as agnosticism.

 

Instead of any type of expected rational discussion regarding this I get hissy-fits and people thinking I personally insulted them.

 

I think we still haven't addressed the question of what we mean by "God" and thus everyone's panties are twisting in proportion to the number of posts.

 

It is useful to remember that "God" is only an English word, and that other languages and cultures have words that don't cover the same semantic territory at all, and have words for super-entities which the English "God" does not apply to. The question of the ancients passing us down that word is a compelling one.

 

The postmodern concept of God which is being called "generic" here is a very new idea and, I repeat, has not been clarified in this thread, so that the entire discussion remains, in your words, "incoherent".

 

What's really fascinating to me is that the discussion can subsist because, admittedly, the idea of a generic God seems universal to all our understanding, likely because we are mostly western individuals, spoon-fed on more-or-less Greco-Roman values and lifestyle (yes, the empire is alive and well).

 

Anyway, my point is that by using the word God, we are participating in a discussion about one word in one language which translates relatively well to contemporary Judeo-Christian European minds, but whose meaning we have yet to broaden or narrow according to agreed terms. So it's like we're all reading each other's posts within the scheme of our own imaginations, thus rendering our statements virtually incoherent, as we're not actually sharing any accurate terminology.

 

Please, what does "God" mean?

[Padreko]

 

A. An appeal to large numbers is a logical falacy.

 

 

B. Why are they justified believing in a deity but not in the toothfairy? Because of A, a lot of people believe in god and no one believes in the toothfairy? Again, there is a disconnect here because you cannot appeal to large numbers. Large numbers of people can still be wrong.

 

In response to A. I'm not appealing to large numbers. I'm stating fact, in reference of what it takes to know something. So you need to atleast believe something for you to know it. When you compared the tooth fairy to the general concept of god, well the first problem is, no one believes in the tooth fairy (thats my assumption, but i'm pretty confident in the truth of it.) Some people do believe that god exists. Do you understand what I am saying? Its like a comparison of apples to oranges.

 

In response to B. People are justified in believing god(or not believing in god), not because many people believe do it, but because they have some good reason to believe in it. Where as you don't have any good reason to believe in the tooth fairy, unless your 3 and don't know any better.

[aynalhub]

 

A. An appeal to large numbers is a logical falacy.

 

 

B. Why are they justified believing in a deity but not in the toothfairy? Because of A, a lot of people believe in god and no one believes in the toothfairy? Again, there is a disconnect here because you cannot appeal to large numbers. Large numbers of people can still be wrong.

 

In response to A. I'm not appealing to large numbers. I'm stating fact, in reference of what it takes to know something. So you need to atleast believe something for you to know it. When you compared the tooth fairy to the general concept of god, well the first problem is, no one believes in the tooth fairy (thats my assumption, but i'm pretty confident in the truth of it.) Some people do believe that god exists. Do you understand what I am saying? Its like a comparison of apples to oranges.

 

In response to B. People are justified in believing god(or not believing in god), not because many people believe do it, but because they have some good reason to believe in it. Where as you don't have any good reason to believe in the tooth fairy, unless your 3 and don't know any better.

 

Padro, the problem is not that what your saying doesn't make any sense it all, it's that it's mathematically false.

 

If you study logic, you will learn some basic fallacies, which are automatically false mathematically. One notorious one is the appeal to numbers, for example:

 

X exists in/is practiced by Y quantity of people, therefore X is correct.

 

Now, if you can't plug anything in to this equation, then it is a false statement. Let's try.

 

Rape is practiced by Thousands of people, therefore Rape is correct.

 

Now lets pretend we figured out the truth of the universe, and call it X, making the statement negative.

 

The Truth is practiced by Zero people, therefore the Truth is incorrect.

 

The fact that everyone ignores the truth (which is perhaps the Tooth fairy) says nothing about its veracity.

 

In other words, the problem is that quantity doesn't bear on truth. Truth is + or -, it doesn't move on a scale in proportion to any quantity.

 

So you see, the idea that there is a relationship between truth and the number of people overtly involved in it is wrong to begin with. While your argument makes sense, it is not logical, and therefore not useful for making a conclusion. It is not your statement itself that is objectionable, but the fact that it is mathematically useless for our discussion.