Argument Against Agnosticism

[junglecat]

I think "faith in the scientific method" is a contradictory statement - faith is belief without evidence and the scientific method is based on evidence. The point the atheists make against the agnostics is that the God described in the bible is given contradictory properties and therefore we know it does not exist. Often at this point the goal post is moved to describe God in a way that isn't contradictory but then they are talking about some other being not the one described in the bible. I think we can be agnostic about anything non-contradictory, sadly the Judeo-Christian God does not fall into this category.

The first definition of faith in the Oxford dictionary is "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"

The Greek word 'pistis' is translated into English as 'faith' and it usually meant trust in the evidence given.

One modern definition of faith may be belief without evidence but it's not the only one and certainly not the meaning in the context of the New Testament.

[Tyler H]

The first definition of faith in the Oxford dictionary is "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"

The Greek word 'pistis' is translated into English as 'faith' and it usually meant trust in the evidence given.

One modern definition of faith may be belief without evidence but it's not the only one and certainly not the meaning in the context of the New Testament.

 

Thank you, I did not know that; I was only familiar with the religious meaning of the word.  I retract that part of my statement.

[junglecat]

Thank you, I did not know that; I was only familiar with the religious meaning of the word.  I retract that part of my statement.

Also, when you talk about the god of the Bible it is helpful to contrast it with the qualities of other gods of equal antiquity. The writers of the books of the Bible were writing against those gods. Jesus completes the final deconstruction of the Greek and Roman gods who ruled through violence.

[Tyler H]

Also, when you talk about the god of the Bible it is helpful to contrast it with the qualities of other gods of equal antiquity. The writers of the books of the Bible were writing against those gods. Jesus completes the final deconstruction of the Greek and Roman gods who ruled through violence.

I'm not sure I understand, why would it be helpful? Unfortunately I am not very educated in Greek and Roman mythology; my knowledge in that area consists of what I learned from God of War, lol. As far as I know we could be agnostic about those "gods" because, however unlikely it may be, they don't have any contradictory qualities.

[junglecat]

I'm not sure I understand, why would it be helpful? Unfortunately I am not very educated in Greek and Roman mythology; my knowledge in that area consists of what I learned from God of War, lol. As far as I know we could be agnostic about those "gods" because, however unlikely it may be, they don't have any contradictory qualities.

The god we see revealed in the pages of the Bible is the conception of men through the ages.  What you see as contradiction is a process of cultural evolution over a long period of time.  By the time we get to Jesus and the Roman Empire there are two very distinct brands of gods. There was a good reason the Christians were persecuted for two centuries. Their god mythology ran completely counter to the gods of the Romans. The modern way of looking at gods is that they are abstract, non-corporeal beings that we can dismiss because they can't be investigated scientifically. This has nothing to do with the cultural context of gods as they evolved in ancient times. Myth and ritual were how people thought about and kept societies organized. If we fail to understand the meaning of ancient mythology, we will never see our own mythology. That's what we see in post-modernism.

[The Huxley Agnostic]

I think "faith in the scientific method" is a contradictory statement - faith is belief without evidence and the scientific method is based on evidence. The point the atheists make against the agnostics is that the God described in the bible is given contradictory properties and therefore we know it does not exist. Often at this point the goal post is moved to describe God in a way that isn't contradictory but then they are talking about some other being not the one described in the bible. I think we can be agnostic about anything non-contradictory, sadly the Judeo-Christian God does not fall into this category.

 

No, it's just most often associated with not having evidence. I'm an agnostic, and I think the Bible is a bunch of nonsense. But, as per my analogy, I'm not going to label myself an anti-alienist, or anything of the sort, regarding Superman. I'm agnostic about the existence of "aliens". I'm agnostic about the existence of "gods". And, you can't prove the non-existence of things with a book. If I write a fabricated biography about you, then you come along and prove it's all false, that won't prove you don't exist. It just proves the book is nonsense. 

[Jot]

 

I would describe my position on "god" as "agnostic atheism". I recall discussing this with a few atheists who don't think there is such thing as agnostic atheism or think it's a cop-out position, but let's give a quick and simple philosophy of religion breakdown based on the distinction between belief and knowledge:

 

Theism/Atheism - Belief or lack of belief.

Gnostic/Agnostic - Knowledge or lack of knowledge.

 

To be an agnostic atheist, to me, simply means that I lack belief but don't make any claims about knowledge, because while it is "conceivable" for a "greater being outside our senses" to exist, it is by definition not knowable. What makes me remain a thorough atheist is that I think it is best to err on the side of doubt in the face of extraordinary claims. But where the agnostic atheist perhaps contrasts with some other atheists is that they lack an investment in the notion of "disproving god". I think a "greater being outside our senses" *could* exist, but there's just no basis to believe in it, and it's useless to try to disprove it as well. It's just epistemically null.

 

On the other end, the philosopher Kierkegaard would be an example of what could be called "agnostic theism", which amounts to maintaining the purity of belief/faith while doing away with any claims about knowledge. For this position, one has a "subjective relationship" with "god". This would be in contrast to those theologians and philosophers who engage in attempts at "objective proofs of god", which inevitably fail. It is a little easier for me to just smile and move on toward one who just has their subjectivity and eats it too. It's still irrational, but at least they're not pretending to have special knowledge of extraordinary things that they really can't possibly prove.

 

Hopefully this helps clears up the agnosticism thing? If "god" is "a greater being that exists outside our senses", it is useless to either try to prove or disprove it. But functionally, an agnostic such as myself is just an atheist skeptic, as it is nonsensical to believe in things that are by definition unknowable.  

 

 

As defined and talked by religion, spirituality and some philosophers god is not just a being that cannot be grasped or detected by any of our senses. It is much more than that...It is defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, etc...outside of space-time...etc (he possesses some attributes that are logically incompatible).

 

Also, I do not see how the fact that one can "conceive" of something makes it possible for that thing to exist. Let us say that I conceive of another dimension outside of space-time...does this mean that it is possible that it could exist? How does the fact that I can imagine something mean that that thing could also exist in reality? 

[rosencrantz]

How does the fact that I can imagine something mean that that thing could also exist in reality? 

 

Existence is not a predicate. Saying that something does exist doesn't add anything anything meaningful. The same is true for non-existence. Saying that unicorns doesn't give you further information.

[Anuojat]

How about this:

 

"If something is undefined or undefineable is doesnt exist."

[BenShade]

Suppose we disregard the definitions of God postualted by most religions which are in theselves self contradictory to be mere straw men to the greater question of whether or not we have an intelligent creator. Some current physics papers suggest this universe may be a simulation, in which place might we not call the programmer our God? He would be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent as far as our program runs.

[dsayers]

If something were outside the realm of reality as we know it, how then could we verify it?

Humans lack the apparatus with which to detect radiation, but we can perceive the effects of radiation. If ghosts existed, they would either similarly impress upon our senses or they would not. If they did, then we could measure them or the effects of their existence. If they did not, then for them to exist or not would be functionally identical.

 

The first definition of faith in the Oxford dictionary is "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"

The Greek word 'pistis' is translated into English as 'faith' and it usually meant trust in the evidence given.

One modern definition of faith may be belief without evidence but it's not the only one and certainly not the meaning in the context of the New Testament.

Doesn't this serve as disproof of an omnipotent Creator?

 

IIRC, Stef once made the case (paraphrasing) that agnosticism is intellectual sloth. I found it to be convincing. Because of the internal inconsistencies in the description of a deity, they simply cannot exist. Saying they exist in a dimension where X, Y, and Z is also meaningless in trying to determine what is true in our dimension.

 

It's all a distraction anyway. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. These behaviors are carried out every day by bad parents and in the name of the State. Things we can actively influence for the salvation of humanity. Surely that would count for something to any deity worth our worship. 

[Worlok]

How about this:

 

"If something is undefined or undefineable is doesnt exist."

 

 

I would describe my position on "god" as "agnostic atheism". I recall discussing this with a few atheists who don't think there is such thing as agnostic atheism or think it's a cop-out position, but let's give a quick and simple philosophy of religion breakdown based on the distinction between belief and knowledge:

 

Theism/Atheism - Belief or lack of belief.

Gnostic/Agnostic - Knowledge or lack of knowledge.

 

To be an agnostic atheist, to me, simply means that I lack belief but don't make any claims about knowledge, because while it is "conceivable" for a "greater being outside our senses" to exist, it is by definition not knowable. What makes me remain a thorough atheist is that I think it is best to err on the side of doubt in the face of extraordinary claims. But where the agnostic atheist perhaps contrasts with some other atheists is that they lack an investment in the notion of "disproving god". I think a "greater being outside our senses" *could* exist, but there's just no basis to believe in it, and it's useless to try to disprove it as well. It's just epistemically null.

 

On the other end, the philosopher Kierkegaard would be an example of what could be called "agnostic theism", which amounts to maintaining the purity of belief/faith while doing away with any claims about knowledge. For this position, one has a "subjective relationship" with "god". This would be in contrast to those theologians and philosophers who engage in attempts at "objective proofs of god", which inevitably fail. It is a little easier for me to just smile and move on toward one who just has their subjectivity and eats it too. It's still irrational, but at least they're not pretending to have special knowledge of extraordinary things that they really can't possibly prove.

 

Hopefully this helps clears up the agnosticism thing? If "god" is "a greater being that exists outside our senses", it is useless to either try to prove or disprove it. But functionally, an agnostic such as myself is just an atheist skeptic, as it is nonsensical to believe in things that are by definition unknowable.  

 

 

The "agnostic atheism" schtick is funny. People like to argue that atheism isn't making a claim and I disagree. Consider this, how can you lack a belief that god does not exist unless you do believe that god does exist? I say that atheism is a belief that god does not exist. To "not believe" that god exists, you would have to lack an opinion or simply be unaware of the concept. Supposing that you lack an opinion on the existence of god, would you simply not be agnostic? Then wouldn't your belief be that you do not know? Concurrently, wouldn't that mean that atheism and atheism are two different things? (yes, the same thing being two different things.) Sounds like bullshit to me. Seems to me that Atheism is a positive belief that god does not exist, which is making a claim as to the nature of the universe. Agnosticism is a belief that god is either exists or does not exist. 

 

A belief is simply an acceptance as something as fact without proof or evidence. To say that having an "objective relationship with god" is somehow different that saying that god either does or does not exist is disingenuous. Either you do have a relationship or you do not. Either it is objective or it is not. Either the thing you have a relationship with is god or it is not. Do you believe that there is a thing you have a relationship with and do you believe that that thing is god?

 

 

How about this:

 

"If something is undefined or undefineable is doesnt exist."

 

 

undefined or undefinable in what context? Meaning that you personally cannot define something? That your whole species cannot define something? Do you simply mean that if all information in the universe were compiled that the universe itself would not be able to define it, thus meaning that it literally would not exist because only things defined by the universe exist within the universe?

[D-Light]

I would describe MY position as skeptical atheist.

 

Skeptical - not given to believing claims without sufficient empirical evidence to justify affirmative belief.

Atheist - lacking an affirmative belief in any god(s).

 

As for faith, the Bible tends to define it as a confident expectation. Such expectation may or may not be warranted or justified.

 

I consider faith and fear as they are generally understood to be desirable and undesirable respectively, to be two sides of the same coin. One is an expectation of that which is desired/desirable, the other an expectation of that which is undesired/undesirable. Both faith and fear can be irrationally justified (such as phobias or an expectation of winning the lottery), or rationally justified (based on probable adherence to known principles and laws, etc.)

[dsayers]

People like to argue that atheism isn't making a claim and I disagree. Consider this, how can you lack a belief that god does not exist unless you do believe that god does exist? I say that atheism is a belief that god does not exist. To "not believe" that god exists, you would have to lack an opinion or simply be unaware of the concept. Supposing that you lack an opinion on the existence of god, would you simply not be agnostic? Then wouldn't your belief be that you do not know?

The way you're communicating this is actually one of the reasons why I have a problem with words like anarchy and atheist. The word atheist suggests that theism is the origin and atheism is the deviation. This would be begging the question. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus the burden of proof lies upon those claiming a deity.

 

I'm not saying this is necessarily your position. However, the way at which you concluded that lacking an opinion denotes agnosticism seems to stem from visualizing theism as the origin.

 

Anyways, we know that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. We also know that nothing exists in uniquity. The idea of a deity supposes to violate these. Based on our understanding of the real world, we CAN know that a deity doesn't exist. At least functionally speaking. For if a deity did exist, but in now way impressed upon our senses, then to exist or not is functionally no different. This is important to understand because if it doesn't impress upon our senses, then belief in that deity would be fruitless. Though if they did, we could measure and substantiate the claim.

 

Agnostics are either people who have not been exposed to these ideas or engage in intellectual sloth to play the middle ground. I know that when I self-identified as agnostic, it was due in part out of fear that God would punish me for denying him if he did exist. Pascal's wager I believe it's called. Once I was exposed to the above ideas (circa Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series), I no longer had any room in which to claim I did not know.

[rosencrantz]

The "agnostic atheism" schtick is funny. People like to argue that atheism isn't making a claim and I disagree. Consider this, how can you lack a belief that god does not exist unless you do believe that god does exist?

 

You are wrong. The first null-hypothesis is always that there is no connection or that something doesn't exist. If you want to disprove that, you have to come up with evidence to the contrary. And unless I missed something there is none.