Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[TruthSeeker]

Atheism is just as bad as theism. That's why I'm an Agnostic. And I think that's a pretty nice place to be. You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it. Why do we need answers anyways?

EDIT: Btw, I'm slightly inclined to the existence of "God". And, in my opinion, Taoism is the "religion" (philosophy, actually) that gets the closest to a possible God...

[Thomas Knierim]

TS: Atheism is just as bad as theism.

Why?

TS: And I think that's a pretty nice place to be.

Don't get too comfy. :lol:

TS: You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it.

Unfortunately it isn't that easy. You are probably an atheist regarding Zeus. Do you believe in Zeus? No you don't. You don't even believe in the possibility of Zeus existence. That makes you a Zeus atheist. The Christian god is one specific personal god of one specific group of people with specific attributes, and as such he isn't very different from Zeus. Is it rational to be a Zeus atheist while being a Christian god agnostic? I think it isn't.

TS: Why do we need answers anyways?

Human nature?

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

Huuumm... I don't remember having started this thread... :huh:

Oh well, if I did it, it was for some good reason... :lol:

Why?
It's divisive.

Don't get too comfy.
It's not. But it's better then the other two options...

Unfortunately it isn't that easy. You are probably an atheist regarding Zeus. Do you believe in Zeus? No you don't. You don't even believe in the possibility of Zeus existence. That makes you a Zeus atheist. The Christian god is one specific personal god of one specific group of people with specific attributes, and as such he isn't very different from Zeus. Is it rational to be a Zeus atheist while being a Christian god agnostic? I think it isn't.
Well, I never though about it that way. When I think of those terms, I think about it in a non-specific way. Atheism is the abscence of any "god", from all religions. Theism is the presence of a "god" from a religion. And Agnosticism is the middle ground. You can be a theist and believe in a certain god, but that doesn't make you atheistic for all the others.

Human nature?
I suppose. Is it healthy?

[scameter]

I agree with your original post truthseeker. And, Thomas, I am not an entire agnostic, nor am I an entire anything; I am essentially partially everything. I am atheistic about Zeus, but not about all gods, and even Zeus I see as a mythological character depicting human truth. I am agnostic about God, but I do still ask questions theologically; indeed, I love theology. Which means that I only say I don't know, but still try to know, or at least search.

[Thomas Knierim]

TS: Huuumm... I don't remember having started this thread...

You are right. I have taken the liberty to move your statement out if its original "Darwin's Rottweiler" context and make it appear as a new thread. I'm a tricky sod, you know. :lol:

TS: It's divisive.

...to which the atheist will probably respond that theism is divisive.

TS: But it's better then the other two options...

Sort of like in Pascal's wager? We don't really know whether there is big guy with a long white beard in the sky, so we lose nothing by allowing for its possibility?

TS: And Agnosticism is the middle ground.

And what would that be? Presence of some god of some religion? There's the tunnel light, you die, then comes a figure... it's Ra, cripes, the Egyptians were right!

TS: You can be a theist and believe in a certain god, but that doesn't make you atheistic for all the others.

Interesting statement, but it seems that most believers disagree. Most Muslims think that Allah is the only true god; likewise most Christians think that their god is the only true god.

TS: I suppose. Is it healthy?

It cannot be disowned.

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

You are right. I have taken the liberty to move your statement out if its original "Darwin's Rottweiler" context and make it appear as a new thread. I'm a tricky sod, you know.*
Damn you! Republican! :lol:

Oh well... I was thinking of starting this thread anyways...
Huumm... you read my mind... <_<

Damn you! Psychic witch! :goodlaugh:

;)

...to which the atheist will probably respond that theism is divisive.
Yes! Theism is also very divisive.

Sort of like in Pascal's wager? We don't really know whether there is big guy with a long white beard in the sky, so we lose nothing by allowing for its possibility?
Yes, but "god" is not necessarily like that. There are many descriptions of "god". I guess what they have in common is that "it" controls the universe in some way and "it" is sentient.

And what would that be? Presence of some god of some religion? There's the tunnel light, you die, then comes a figure... it's Ra, cripes, the Egyptians were right!
No. Agnosticism states that we don't know whether there is a "god" or not and that if we deny there is one, we are commiting a grave fallacy. I think the following quote sums it up pretty well

"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence."
-- Carl Sagan

Interesting statement, but it seems that most believers disagree. Most Muslims think that Allah is the only true god; likewise most Christians think that their god is the only true god.
Yes. But my point was that "theism" means the belief of a "god" and "atheism" is the belief of no gods. Which one or how many is all irrelevant here. If you believe in one god but not the other you are still a theist. To be a theist all you need is the belief in one "god" regardless which one it is.

It cannot be disowned.
Huuuumm... maybe.
But we should always start from point 0. If you believe there is no god and there is actually one, you are starting from point -1. The only way to be impartial and logically correct is to be agnostic and say "we don't know everything". You can still think about it and investigate, even though you are agnostic. In my opinion, there is probably a "god" out there. But I won't just blindly believe. I still take a neutral stance.


EDIT: found origin of quotation...

[Thomas Knierim]

Sagan: Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Correct. This statement goes to the logical core of it. Evidence of absence and thus certainty of the non-existence of gods, or God, cannot be had. However, I contend that it is irrational to presume the opposite; that is, it is irrational to presume the existence of something for which there is no evidence. The same pattern of thought can be applied to other things for which there is no evidence, such as the teapot in space, the monster on the dark side of the moon, the pink unicorn, etc.

We are not agnostic about the pink unicorn. We are disbelievers.

Historically, the strongest "evidence" for God came from the argument of design, and various natural phenomena that were not properly understood in the past and thus ascribed to a supernatural power. Today we understand these natural phenomena and we have evolution theory, which makes God effectively a failed hypothesis. In other words, the rational underpinning for the God hypothesis is now gone. There's nothing left but an old book, an ancient tradition, and millions of believers. These are the only things that still support faith.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Thomas: We are not agnostic about the pink unicorn. We are disbelievers.

Please speak for yourself. I am sure that, somewhere out there is a person who has an unshakeable belief in the Pink Unicorn.

And That is the core problem! :shakehead:

[scameter]

Thomas, however, I further propose that it is irrational to believe in anything undoubtingly, including evidence, and the reality we experience. Probability cannot be included here. And, about the unicorn, I was thinking about it earlier today and I am curious what exactly makes something real. Why is a car more real than a unicorn? Simply because we can see and touch a car, but not a unicorn? I cannot find a car naturally in nature; we make it. And, if it can be real even when we make it, why can a unicorn not be real when we imagine it? We are simply making it with our minds instead of our hands. Why is that which is palpable to the outer senses more real than that which is palpable to the mind?

[greatballsoffire]

What you belive is real.

What your are tought by the society is what you learn to accept as real.

Just a a baby who is taught to call white as black since his birth would always call white as black.

We operate from the region of what is known. Or from the region of what is learned from the society.

We are afraid of the unknown.

There is no difference between a car an a unicorn.

[Thomas Knierim]

There is no difference between a car an a unicorn.

Well, if you want to take this as a maxime for your life, then good luck with it. You would obviously operate at the level of a delusive lunatic. :o

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

There is no difference between a car an a unicorn.

See? told you there was somebody out there!

However, I don't agree. There is a huge difference between something we create in our minds and something that is universally accepted as real.
The car can run you over and break your bones if you don't get out of the way. The unicorn will simply land you in the looney bin. Big difference!

[Kether]

Thomas, however, I further propose that it is irrational to believe in anything undoubtingly, including evidence, and the reality we experience. Probability cannot be included here.
I agree that it is wrong to believe anything with 100% certainty, but this is a logical technicality that has no real application in the search for knowledge. What beliefs logical and scientific enquiry tell us are true, are really probably true, because the answers to metaphysical questions are so hard to find, and probably impossible to answer with certainty.
There seems to be a contradiction in your post. You say that it is irrational to believe with certainty, yet, in the very next sentence, you effectively praise certainty by saying we should not think probabilistically. Are you saying, then, that we should treat all of our beliefs as if they had a probability of 1?
I cannot find a car naturally in nature; we make it.
Does whether something is artificial or not make it real or unreal? I don't think that the classification of things into 'natural' and 'artificial' is anything more than a handy conceptualisation without a logical basis in reality, so it would be wrong to construct a theory that presupposed its actual existence. Humans and human minds are products of nature; in fact, an inextricable part of nature. The artificial is not in opposition to the natural: it is part of the natural, a product of the natural.
Why is that which is palpable to the outer senses more real than that which is palpable to the mind?
Firstly, I think we shouldn't talk about "palpability". Shall we just say the 'products of' the senses and the mind? The proposition that there are things palpable to the senses - a reality that is sensed - is what we are questioning here, and the idea that things can be 'palpable' to the mind, instead of just created by the mind, is quite an odd one.
The reality created by the senses is far more consistent than concepts or mental imagery. It can hurt us. It feels much more real.
Here's something I posted in another thread, adapted slightly:
Firstly, I think that if an individual is to experience something, then that 'something' must take a mental form; it must be translated from its utterly objective material existence into sensations - neural pulses that are subjectively felt, as colours, shapes, sounds, smells, etc, by that miraculous illusion known as the self. In the mind, I think that sensations are bound up with cognitive processes, but - crucially for my argument - initially and fundamentally only with the very basic ones that are not affected by conscious, cerebral beliefs and culturally conditioned values.

Sensations are not the same as the Real phenomena that they represent, and thus could be thought of as symbols - but only if one adopts a very broad definition of 'symbolism', which may be misleading; for clarity later on in my argument, I will call such basic, raw thoughts and sensations concepts, since TruthSeeker's definition of 'concepts' seems to be the same as my definition of these raw sensations/cognitions.
The physical existence that concepts represent is the Nameless, and cannot be experienced without translation into thought and sensation. But concepts and their most basic processing are outside the control of our beliefs, values, and cultural conditioning: all of the things that those who reject the possibility of objectivity think corrupt our views of the world.

Concept, the Nameless, is representative rather than in actual existence, but for all intents and purposes it may be said to be objectively true. It is consistent - the world that we see does not contradict itself, and it does not contradict our own intuitive impressions of it; in other words, it is extremely probable that it is an excellent, accurate model of the Reality.
Since sensations are outside the control of the self and its conscious and unconscious beliefs (if anything, they are its masters - especially if it is a scientist) and since they offer a consistent and totally convincing model of reality, they can be said to be objectively true - they are the Nameless.

[TruthSeeker]

Correct. This statement goes to the logical core of it. Evidence of absence and thus certainty of the non-existence of gods, or God, cannot be had. However, I contend that it is irrational to presume the opposite; that is, it is irrational to presume the existence of something for which there is no evidence.
Yes. And that's why Agnosticism is the only logical option.

[TruthSeeker]

Why is a car more real than a unicorn? Simply because we can see and touch a car, but not a unicorn?
Yes, we have discussed that before when I talked about the sun and the reflection of the sun...
That's one of the reasons "god" is perfectly possible.

Anyways... let's not forget parallel universes, either...

[Smurf]

Atheism is just as bad as theism. That's why I'm an Agnostic. And I think that's a pretty nice place to be. You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it. Why do we need answers anyways?

Well, no one has all the "answers", they just think they do.

And anyway, what answers?

[scameter]

I agree that it is wrong to believe anything with 100% certainty, but this is a logical technicality that has no real application in the search for knowledge. What beliefs logical and scientific enquiry tell us are true, are really probably true, because the answers to metaphysical questions are so hard to find, and probably impossible to answer with certainty.

Indeed, and that is what we trust when we attempt to find knowledge; whether it is certain or truthful or not is, I suppose, left to the more loose field of philosophy, as it does not search for knowledge only, but wisdom. :)

There seems to be a contradiction in your post. You say that it is irrational to believe with certainty, yet, in the very next sentence, you effectively praise certainty by saying we should not think probabilistically. Are you saying, then, that we should treat all of our beliefs as if they had a probability of 1?

No, I am saying that nothing is certain, and that probability cannot apply because of that. Everything should have a philosophical probability of 0, because to think it has more is to become blind to the possibility of it not having any. I am a skeptic; I believe nothing is certain because the future is uncertain and because everything can be doubted. To me, if there is any amount of doubt about something, and I mean a doubt with a reason behind it, the thing is not certain, even such large things as reality and our consciousnesses. But, as I said, this talk isn't for the more probabilistic things such as science and history. I suppose it's for philosophy.

Does whether something is artificial or not make it real or unreal? I don't think that the classification of things into 'natural' and 'artificial' is anything more than a handy conceptualisation without a logical basis in reality, so it would be wrong to construct a theory that presupposed its actual existence. Humans and human minds are products of nature; in fact, an inextricable part of nature. The artificial is not in opposition to the natural: it is part of the natural, a product of the natural.

I agree. But my point is that our minds make both the car and the unicorn; I could not go into a forest or a cave and find a car sitting there. We make a car using nature, and we make a unicorn using our imaginations. Thus, why is one any less real than the other? I can experience and feel a unicorn, mentally. Why does it not existing from the natural flow of events make it unreal? For the same could be said of a car. Both are products of nature, of our minds, as you say.

The reality created by the senses is far more consistent than concepts or mental imagery. It can hurt us. It feels much more real.

Of course. But there are entire existences in fantasy and science fiction literature that have made me feel as deeply as anything here has. It is just more emotional, and less physical. If we were unable to feel with our minds, books of fiction would not exist.

In the mind, I think that sensations are bound up with cognitive processes, but - crucially for my argument - initially and fundamentally only with the very basic ones that are not affected by conscious, cerebral beliefs and culturally conditioned values.

I do not think they are "bound up", however. I think that in the mind, sensations of existence felt by our senses are translated into emotional responses, and also cause the creation of thoughts regarding the sensations, which are usually attached to symbolic identification our mind has learned to use for the assistance to both memory and thought consistency. I disagree with the continued proposal that our mind and our cognition "bounds" what we perceive and sense. I am not sure if you meant this in the way I read, but I think you did.

Sensations are not the same as the Real phenomena that they represent

And yet this is all we can know "real phenomena" by, thus is our eternal bounds in subjectivity.

But concepts and their most basic processing are outside the control of our beliefs, values, and cultural conditioning: all of the things that those who reject the possibility of objectivity think corrupt our views of the world.

Of course, because without objectivity, we are to doubt everything. :)

but for all intents and purposes it may be said to be objectively true. It is consistent - the world that we see does not contradict itself, and it does not contradict our own intuitive impressions of it; in other words, it is extremely probable that it is an excellent, accurate model of the Reality.

Yes, but that is a very large statement my friend. To definitely say that something is objectively true is both entirely against what I philosophically believe, and what I think to be logical. But, I think you were not making a philosophical statement, but rather creating a logical grounds for things relying on existence, such as history and science, to exist in unimpeded.

Yes. And that's why Agnosticism is the only logical option.

Perhaps. Although, logically, wouldn't saying that we cannot know about God/the spiritual be too certain? :P

[Kether]

Everything should have a philosophical probability of 0.
If we believe that every proposition has a probability of 0, we will be led to contradictions. "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both have a probability of 0: if one is true, the other is false. Besides, what happened to 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'? Just because something might not be true doesn't give it a probability of 0.
And contrary to your belief that treating all propositions as impossible is the only way of taking into account their uncertainty, giving something a probability of 0 actually ignores the uncertainty of propositions. All beliefs have a probability of something between 1 and 0, but not exactly 1 or 0. This takes into account uncertainty, yet by believing the most likely proposition, we can get somewhere in terms of finding knowledge, even if we have to constantly reassess the probability of our beliefs to make sure that new knowledge does not lower their probability. That's why I believe probability to be valid.

[scameter]

If we believe that every proposition has a probability of 0, we will be led to contradictions. "God exists" and "God does not exist" cannot both have a probability of 0: if one is true, the other is false. Besides, what happened to 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'? Just because something might not be true doesn't give it a probability of 0.

Not necessarily. That is if we trust in the validity of deductive reasoning, which is too absolute. For instance, nothing can be both everything and nothing at once logically, and yet the Tao is described as being just that. If we give something a philosophical (emphasis on that word) probability above zero, we will be limiting ourselves with faith. Probability is for things such as science and history who have faith in some things, such as logic and evidence, to be used as boundaries in which probability can take place. For instance, if everything has a philosophical probability of zero, evidence cannot be absolutely true. Nor can anything. Much less probable. If anything is doubtable, it is not absolute, and philosophically, also not probable above zero, because to assume probability for something would be both assuming in the existence of that which is being guessed at using probability, reality, and that there will be a future that will house this thing and it's reality which is said to be probable.

And contrary to your belief that treating all propositions as impossible is the only way of taking into account their uncertainty, giving something a probability of 0 actually ignores the uncertainty of propositions. All beliefs have a probability of something between 1 and 0, but not exactly 1 or 0. This takes into account uncertainty, yet by believing the most likely proposition, we can get somewhere in terms of finding knowledge, even if we have to constantly reassess the probability of our beliefs to make sure that new knowledge does not lower their probability. That's why I believe probability to be valid.

Of course it is, for searching for knowledge, for the reasons I explained above. But, contrary to your belief, philosophy is not about knowledge only, much less specific knowledge in which things are given an amount of probability above zero.