Agnosticism.

[mmonk]

That which drives both theists and atheists crazy. I used to say I was it, but no more. The arguments, like an idea, go nowhere without tangibility. Agnosticism is comfort in not knowing speculation and just rather not discuss it much, not due to fear of being wrong. The argument is lack of evidence vs a belief. An agnostic says why bother (except maybe people acting on a belief and it affects others negatively).

[Warren Stupidity]

1. This chart helps:

[DetlefK]

2. I am an agnostic because of mathematics.

I once derived a mathematical proof that showed that God's existence (as a being of infinity) cannot be proven beyond doubt and therefore he cannot exist.

Here are the two things I learned:
1. The whole concept of "reality" and "existence" goes (metaphorically and mathematically) to hell if you allow fantasy and lies into it.
2. Several mathematicians clobbered me, because my conclusion had a grave logical flaw that I had not been aware of. The very last step had failed and it turned out that I had not disproven God's existence.



God cannot physically be proven to exist or to exist not, because he is an infinite being, the universe is finite, and any proof might as well be an elaborate ruse by somebody finite but bigger than us. (The question literally has no answer.) And until somebody comes up with an actual proof in either direction, I'll stay an agnostic.

[cbayer]

4. I agree that is a question which literally has no answer.

So does it make any difference whether one believes or not? I doubt it has any significance beyond establishing a personal identity.

Making a hard claim for either position is foolhardy.

[Lordquinton]

7. It's not foolish to reject something that has zero evidence

We can be held to be agnostic about a great many things, but are rarely told to do so. In fact the Abrahamic god is the only thing on the planet that is held to this standard. People often reject ideas that have solid evidence, you yourself take a hard position and when people bring this up, but you have offered not counter than what every other theist puts forth: Personal offence.

There literally is no difference between God and leprechauns and Santa Clause, and you have yet to offer anything other than throwing a fit when it's suggested.

[cbayer]

8. No, I didn't say it was foolish to reject something that for an individual has zero evidence.

I said it was foolhardy to take a definitive position based on lack of evidence. People who state with some authority that there is not god have no more standing that those who state with some authority that there is a god.

I take a hard position on what? Your first paragraph here is really hard to follow and I would appreciate some clarification.

There is a difference between god and leprechauns and santa claus, there is just no difference for you.

And that's fine, but you do not hold the true position on this. You only hold your own.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. I would appreciate clarification on that point...

There is a difference between god and leprechauns and santa claus, there is just no difference for you.

This isn't a subjective argument. What makes god or gods so qualitatively different from other mythological figures that they should not be held to the standards of evidence?

[cbayer]

14. I know that there will be labels from a chart that you will apply to this, but

using those labels is a logical fallacy, imo, so I'm going to let that go.

When there is something that most of the people in the world believe in and there is evidence that those beliefs have existed for all of recorded human history, it has more weight and authority than things on which there is universal agreement are fiction.

Because you don't believe, doesn't make it less meaningful or likely to be true.

There is a qualitative difference and those that equate beliefs in god to beliefs in leprechauns and santa claus are merely using a childish mechanism to claim some point of superiority over others.

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. That's not an especially compelling qualification.

When there is something that most of the people in the world believe in and there is evidence that those beliefs have existed for all of recorded human history, it has more weight and authority than things on which there is universal agreement are fiction.

The concept of "God" does not share the same qualities across cultures or across time, even within extant religions. The concept has changed significantly as academic theology has refined belief, as religion has moved across various cultures, and as naturalism has brought traditional beliefs into question. The Yahweh of the 5th century BCE is not the Yahweh of today, and I daresay Yahweh has very little in common with the likes of Xipe Totec, the flayed god of the Aztec pantheon.

This semantic fluidity is not wholly different from that which emerges when people get caught in a lie. The constant redefining of the concept as we learn more and more about the universe is at least suggestive that people could be making it all up as they go along.

Moreover, many fixtures of traditional religions and folklore don't meet your criteria for exclusion:

Are you saying belief in Zeus was less vehement in Ancient Greece than belief in the God of Abraham is today? Or are you positing that Zeus might actually exist? Are you saying it would have been wrong, prior to the 20th century, to call into question the existence of vampires? It was, after all, a fairly ancient and commonly-held belief, especially in Eastern Europe. What about witches? Spellweaving women of demonic intent is by no means a modern invention, and, prior to modern times, belief of their existence was more widely accepted than not.

How about angels and demons? Not everyone believes in angels and/or demons, but a fair number do. And belief in them goes back quite a long way, indeed. Are they qualitatively different from other cryptozoological fixtures of human mythology, or is the comparison, by your measure, invalid? If so, why?

And, last but not least: how do you address the bandwagon fallacy? The popularity of a claim does not speak to its truthfulness. That many people over a long stretch of time have believed a proposition to be true is not evidence of its truthfulness.

There is a qualitative difference and those that equate beliefs in god to beliefs in leprechauns and santa claus are merely using a childish mechanism to claim some point of superiority over others.

For all the fuss you make about the arrogance of claiming knowledge, you'd do well not to profess unique, accurate insight into the intentions and internal motivations of people you barely know.

For the record, I don't think myself superior to believers in general any more than I think myself superior to people who hold behaviorism to be the end-all, be-all school of psychology. I believe I am right and they are wrong. And that's it. If you believe being wrong about something is a sign of inferiority, then that is your problem to deal with, not mine.

And that leads lastly, to this:

I know that there will be labels from a chart that you will apply to this, but using those labels is a logical fallacy, imo, so I'm going to let that go.

You know, if you don't like me, you're under no obligation to respond to things I say. Honestly, I'd rather you pop me on ignore than putting on the pretense of desiring civility when you can't respond to a simple, honest line of inquiry without resorting to petty insults and baseless character assassinations.

[cbayer]

50. I fail to see any petty insults or baseless character assassinations, but if that is

how my posts disagreeing with you come across, I will be happy to not respond to you in the future. If that is what you would indeed prefer, then you can help in that endeavor by not responding to me.

Is that the deal you want to make?

[gcomeau]

26. Ask...

...any of the people running around the country trying to remake the laws because of what they think said deity wants them to do without a single shred of actual evidential support, or any of the people they're trying to impose those laws on, whether it matters if you believe it or not.

"Making a hard claim for either position is foolhardy."

Hard claim: Based on the fact that the claim itself is unfalsifiable and thus worthless and pointless to even be made in the first place, and the total lack of evidence in it's support, I flatly reject said claim.


Explain to me the foolhardy part of the above.

[cbayer]

28. It appears that you have misunderstood or missed the entire point.

Making a hard claim for the existence of or lack of existence of a deity is what is foolhardy.

Those that are running around the country doing what you describe are foolhardy.

Those who state that there is no god are foolhardy.

You are welcome to flatly reject any claim you wish, but you can not with any credibility make a definitive claim as to what is or isn't true or tell anyone who see it differently that they are wrong.

What is worthless or pointless to you is worthy and meaningful to someone else.

Do you think your perspective is somehow superior? If so, who has granted that superior position and what have they based it on?

[gcomeau]

31. It seems you need to read my post again.

Hint: the "claim" I was referring to, and which I stated I flatly rejected, was "God exists".


Now by all means... explain to me what part of the reasoning I presented in order to flatly reject that claim was foolhardy.

You are welcome to flatly reject any claim you wish, but you can not with any credibility make a definitive claim as to what is or isn't true or tell anyone who see it differently that they are wrong.

I just did. Those who make the claim that God exists are wrong to do so. Justification for stating so already provided. I repeat my invitation for you to find a flaw in that justification.

"Do you think your perspective is somehow superior? If so, who has granted that superior position and what have they based it on?"

Evidence. It's in favor of my position. Wonderful stuff evidence, you should look into it.

[cbayer]

32. Oh, now I remember why it is so unpleasant to talk to you.

[gcomeau]

37. Because I don't smile sweetly and overlook the fact...

...that you consistently don't pay attention to what is said to you?

[cbayer]

38. Yep, that is pretty much it.

[skepticscott]

6. Nothing in science can be proven beyond doubt

So your proof was that nothing could exist. Including the brain you used to prove it. What does your mathematical training tell you about that conclusion?

And why can "god" not be physically proven to exist? Why MUST any god be an "infinite being"? Do you have any actual evidence for that, or are you just designing god to be the way you need him to be so that your agnosticism isn't intellectually silly?

[DetlefK]

17. That is wrong.

Science is based on the assumption that an event is reproducible.
If an event is reproducible, then it can be verified by various independent observers.
If independent observers make the same claim, then it is part of reality.

If an event is not reproducible, it is indistinguishable from a lie.

"Doubt" in science stems from the simple fact that all conclusions in science are considered falsifiable. No matter how good your explanation is, there MIGHT be a better one.

There is a theological school of thinking that ANY observation of nature does not follow some laws of nature but ANYTHING is suspect to the whim of God and therefore NO PREDICTIONS ARE POSSIBLE AT ALL, because God is free to do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
Something has always been like that for as long as anybody can remember? Doesn't matter. Because God.






A god of infinite power, wisdom andsoforth cannot be proven to be infinite because all the rulers we finite beings can apply are finite. If God simultaneously speaks to all humans telepathically that is no proof. He could have done that AND levitate a mountain AND write his name in clouds in the sky AND ...
For every miracle there's a miracle that is bigger than that. But we cannot tell whether something is infinite or just so big that our ruler can't measure it. Therefore: Miracles aren't sufficient proof of infinity.

A god of finite power, finite wisdom andsoforth might be a god or not, that's just a matter of semantics.
I can destroy bugs at a whim. Am I a bug-god?
Certain viruses can destroy me at a whim. Are they gods to us humans?
What about someone who is merely technologically more sophisticated than you?
What about someone who has power over you due to external circumstances?
When does a finite being deserve to be called a god?

[gcomeau]

27. No, it isn't.

"Proof" is for math and alcohol.

Science deals in the weight of evidence and probability. No finding in science has ever been or will ever be considered 100% proven. Only very very well supported and extremely likely to be correct/accurate. But *always* subject to re-evaluation as additional data becomes available.

That is the great strength of science and what distinguishes it from other far inferior methods of gaining knowledge. Like, say, theology... which just likes to make vague hand waving claims to knowledge and skips over the whole evidence thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Perhaps, but that's not the only way to answer the question.

For instance, we might be able to discover whether such a being is actually required to create the universe.

[Starboard Tack]

36. I tend to agree. Infinity is the key

Knowing infinity exists, there cannot be a beginning, so no creation. Hence, the only viable concept of a god is one that is synonymous with infinity. Obviously we cannot prove the metaphysical using physics.
In a sense, god exists for everyone, because we all have a concept of god, even though it may be borrowed. Believing in it is a whole other thing.

[cbayer]

3. I like the term apatheism, but I also like agnosticism.

It seems that more and more people are defining themselves as agnostic. It seems that they either don't really care if there is a god or not or believe that there is something, but do not necessarily define that thing as a god.

The positions of theism or atheism are much more concrete and people tend to really incorporate that into their identities, while those that take neither position seem less concerned and more amenable to many ways of seeing things.

I'm sure this will stir up the same old arguments about how you must be either a theist or an atheist, but as more people identify themselves as agnostic, that argument becomes weaker and weaker. Even if someone can make a logical semantic argument for agnosticism not being more than a modifier, it matters little when people adopt that term as their own and reject both theism and atheism.

But you are right, it is the position that drives both theists and atheists crazy, particularly is they see this as a team sport in which one must be assigned to one team or the other.

[rug]

5. Lack of evidence is only one argument and it is a very limited argument.

[NeoGreen]

15. Lack of evidence...

... wait, what? There you go with that evidence thingy, again.

I thought you said..."...after all, without evidence, you're simply posting fairy tales."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218134597 (5th Post)

I suppose if we have to choose between a "Very Limited Argument" or "Fairy Tales", then... I will choose the former.

[rug]

25. Drollery is not your strong suit.

But to reiterate, there are far stronger arguments against a deity than simple lack of evidence, which itself devolves into an argument about what is evidence which in turn plummets into an abysmal discussion of cognition.

Eventually, everyone there gets lost and wanders away muttering.

Make sure you bookmark this post too for future reference.

[NeoGreen]

47. Are you suggesting...

... that "Drollery" is your strong suit?
Given your explicit evaluation of my apparent lack of ability in that area.

Setting drollery aside, I would be curious to know, if your wiling list them, what arguments you consider to be stronger than the absence of evidence.

Maybe even a ranked list? if I may be so bold (or should I say, impertinent)?

[rug]

48. No, I'm saying it's not yours.

As to the stronger arguments, I stick with the philosophical ones, Epicurus specifically. Those arguments are not based on observation but on logic and internal contradictions and extrapolations. Those are much harder to rebut, especially since the common definitions of gods include supernatural attributes which by definition are beyond natural observation.

[libodem]

9. It's a fluster-cluck

That's all I can say. I have too much room for Woo to be the perfect atheist. I do love the cold logic and reasoning of a great mind.

But I love the occult. If it's hidden and we don't have access that's the damn door that piques my curiosity. I can't get enough first hand accounts of NDE and what and who they encountered on the otherside. I just like hearing about weird stuff.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Oh good, it's this thread again.

Fortunately, it was answered in post 1.

Too bad everyone will ignore that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. That is not what an agnostic thinks or says...

...if that agnostic is in any way familiar with how the term is defined.

Sure, it can be a bit superfluous, but in the traditional and philosophical sense "agnostic" addresses knowledge; specifically, whether or not the existence of God or gods is actually knowable. It has nothing to do with what one believes.

An agnostic could, therefore, say, "I do not believe one can ultimately know whether or not God exists, but I believe regardless", or "The existence of God may not be ultimately knowable, but I feel there is sufficient cause to operate under the presumption he does not exist."

The colloquial, everyday sense of the word bears little resemblance to Huxley's original definition because it has largely been coopted by people who call themselves "agnostic" because believers, for some reason, find the term less offensive than "atheist". If that's what people prefer to call themselves, that's their business... but is absolutely useless when exploring these positions with any degree of meaning.

[cbayer]

16. Sometimes when a word takes on a meaning in the colloquial, everyday sense

it trumps the initial definition, even if were initially defined by someone like Huxley.

I recognize that this is really hard for some people to stomach, but the horse has left the barn on this one. The argument about knowledge vs. belief no longer holds much sway, as vast numbers of people define themselves as agnostic, and neither theist or atheist.

The reasons for this are complex and individual. They are certainly not so simple as people just being uncomfortable adopting the label of atheist, though that may be true for some.

So you are right. It's been coopted by those who identify with it, and it's been coopted quite successfully.

Hopefully we can soon stop having this circular argument and just acknowledge that this is a separate group and they can call themselves whatever they want.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. I don't understand why you keep doubling down on this

I recognize that this is really hard for some people to stomach, but the horse has left the barn on this one. The argument about knowledge vs. belief no longer holds much sway, as vast numbers of people define themselves as agnostic, and neither theist or atheist.

Vast numbers of people incorrectly use "theory" to mean "speculation". Are you suggesting scientists should stop using the word "theory" to describe "sets of ideas intended to explain facts" because that is not what the word has come to mean in a colloquial sense?

Words have contextual definitions. An academic exploration of agnosticism and atheism isn't going to use the word "agnostic" the way PHIL 101 flunkie Joe Q. Jackoff interprets it to mean. Joe can call himself whatever the hell he wants, as far as I am concerned, but his preferred label is too cumbersome for academic discussion... which may be why precisely zero philosophers I have ever read have used "agnostic" in the colloquial sense.

And, incidentally, this is not a circular argument.

[cbayer]

22. I double down on this because I disagree with the argument about what this word means.

I am suggesting that when vast numbers of people use a word in a certain way, it is probably time to rethink the definition of that word.

When it comes to technical terms, you may have a good case that scientists should probably keep using the word in the correct way.

But when it comes to the general public, you just aren't going to convince all these people who you feel use the word wrong to start defining themselves with a different word. They don't consider themselves atheists, period. No matter how much you stamp your feet and insist that they really, technically are, they are not going to change it.

Why are you so invested in having them defined as something they don't accept?

Most surveys now are breaking people into specific categories which include separate designations of atheist and agnostic. The DU group is called atheists and agnostics. There are some major players out there who call themselves agnostics and not atheists (including Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is certainly not PHIL 101 flunkie Joe Q. Jackoff).

I don't really care how philosophers use the word. This isn't about philosophers. This is about regular people.

You link is about circular reasoning, not circular argument. But you do seem rather attached to very specific definitions.

"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm

I experience what you are saying as a circular argument.

[okasha]

39. Popular usage ALWAYS trumps a dictionary definition,

and will very likely appear in the next edition of the dictionary. "Gay," for instance.

[cbayer]

40. There is an abundance of examples and no matter how badly some want

to hang on to some traditional definition, time will inevitably alter it.

[okasha]

41. Just thought of another favorite pair.

"Napkin" used to mean "diaper."

"Diapered" used to mean "patterned. "

[cbayer]

42. We were just discussing tonight "period" versus "full stop".

There are so many examples when it comes to british and american usage.

I read this great article in the Health group today about health care in italy. The thrust of the article was about cultural differences and language is often the best example of those kinds of differences.

[okasha]

43. And of course, "period"

has acquired a whole different meaning in the past few decades.

[cbayer]

44. And that was an important part of our conversation!

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. What?

"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm

I experience what you are saying as a circular argument.

An example of circular reasoning is thus:

P1: The Bible is true.
P2: How do you know that?
P1: Because the Bible says so.

If I were making a circular argument as to the definition of "agnostic", I wouldn't be relying on multiple sources to make my point.

You link is about circular reasoning, not circular argument. But you do seem rather attached to very specific definitions.

Oh! This ought to be good.

Please, do tell us what separates a circular argument from circular reasoning.

[cbayer]

46. Oh, how inspiring. Our conversation is now down to silly gifs.

Maybe in a year or two, but not now.

[elleng]

30. cbayer, what the heck are you doing here???

You're in ITALY, aren't you???

[cbayer]

33. I most certainly am in Italy!

I am in a farmhouse, but just spent the weekend in Rome. I am living here for awhile, elleng, and the beauty of doing that is I get to do nothing at times. And this is a wonderful place to do just that.

[elleng]

34. Lovely.

I do 'nothing' a lot at my cottage! Going to visit grandbaby, at daughter's home, this evening, tho, and when baby's Dad goes back to work, in 3 weeks, I may actually HAVE somethings to do!!!

Buona giornata!

Buonasera!

[cbayer]

35. Oh, enjoy the baby!

I am hoping to have grandchildren within the next year and suspect my life will be changed forever.

Buonasera to you my friend. It is getting late here and I am hoping for a huge thunderstorm.

[intaglio]

52. Hie the unto Florence at sometime

You will love the Uffizi.

Enjoy yourself

[cbayer]

54. I went to Florence a few weeks ago and Rome last week.

And while I thoroughly enjoy these unique and fascinating cities, it is sheer pleasure to return to our isolated farmhouse.

What a delightful experience. I feel so very lucky.

Hope you get to do the same someday.

[mmonk]

18. Presently, any sort of god is unknowable.

Now any sort of god existing that intervenes in human events, answers prayers, etc. is knowable. And so far, the answer is no such god exists through any observable or quantitative analysis.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Right. Which is why the label "agnostic" can be unwieldy

Different gods have different qualities. I would argue I am agnostic in a general sense -- I don't purport to know whether or not there is a god -- but I'm pretty damned sure Jurmungandr doesn't exist. As a rule, I have people define what they mean by "god" first, and then make a call as to whether or not I'm agnostic towards its existence.

[mmonk]

21. Yep. And that is my point.

But people's minds are influenced by the religion of their cultures. And given my scientific basis background, what many people define as god certainly does not exist but anything unknown must remain open. So therefore, both sides hate us who won't commit but not commit to what exactly? With me, out of sight, out of mind, unless someone tries to order a society around a speculation or feeling or teaching which I'm against doing.

[edhopper]

23. Are there any Gods

that people have told you they believe in that you aren't atheistic about.

Seems you are saying: "I am open to hearing about some form of God and then determining if there is any viability to it, but so far none seem to exist."

[Iggo]

24. I only get mad because people think Theist means Yes, Atheist means No, and Agnostic means Maybe.

But then I remember people are stupid, and I feel better.

[elleng]

29. I don't say 'why bother,'

I say I'll believe it when I see it. I 'believe' in nature.

And I surely don't intend to drive anyone crazy, it's just the way I am, always have been. Some might call it rational.

[intaglio]

51. A difficult subject

c_bayer and myself have argued about it at length and neither of us fell to the "and you're a poopy pants" level - at least she didn't.

My personal view is that agnosticism is an attempt to be open minded. It is also my experience that it is not much of a comfort because the level of doubt is so high it is confusing.

[cbayer]

53. Thanks. I appreciate that.

Our conversations are generally enjoyable, even if we don't make any progress is changing the other's mind.