Agnosticism

[Eldarion Lathria]

I always say I agree with Protagoras. "I do not know if the gods exist or not. There are too many barriers to knowledge." Do I believe in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god, the traditional gods of Atlantis/Norway/India and so on? No. But belief and knowledge are two different things.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was actually hoping to get some feedback to how we can't be sure that gods are real but can be sure we don't have more fingers or heads. The consensus seems to be that biblical gods are dopey and agnostics are sure those type gods are not real. Is the certain uncertainty that is agnosticism not applicable to fingers or heads? Can't we have appendages that we can't see or sense but are there because they exist like these agnostic gods? How is that not possible? Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

 

[Politesse]

I was actually hoping to get some feedback to how we can't be sure that gods are real but can be sure we don't have more fingers or heads. The consensus seems to be that biblical gods are dopey and agnostics are sure those type gods are not real. Is the certain uncertainty that is agnosticism not applicable to fingers or heads? Can't we have appendages that we can't see or sense but are there because they exist like these agnostic gods? How is that not possible?

Why believe in gods and not unicorns?

Why believe in gods and not invisible appendages?

Why believe in gods and not that 2 and 2 equal 5?

Why believe in gods and not a pure communist state?

Why believe in gods and not trifoliate chrysanthemums?

Why believe in gods and not square triangles?

 

[steve_bank]

Can one be agnostic atheist and be a believer in witchcraft? Magic incantations, spells, demons, and magic crystals?

 

[Politesse]

Can one be agnostic atheist and be a believer in witchcraft? Magic incantations, spells, demons, and magic crystals?

Practice and belief aren't necessarily in a one-to-one relationship. Witches I have known hold a wide range of personal beliefs, from committed atheism, to theistic idealism, to straightforward reconstructionist polytheism. I see no reason why anyone could not embrace an agnostic perspective, regardless of their beliefs, provided none of those beliefs is a doctrine accepted beyond the reach of evidence. And witches usually don't; as a general rule, they value the creative and intuitive aspects of the psyche over the rational/logical, but not to the exclusion of the latter - rather as a way of counter-balancing it.

 

[abaddon]

Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

I can't think of any good reason why. If the system of doubt is about conceptual abstractions and not about immediate percepts, then the consistency should be there in the responses to conceptual abstractions. Not applying it also to immediate percepts is not an inconsistency. The differences matter. Abstract concepts vs. immediate percepts... how different can things get?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why believe in gods and not unicorns?

Why believe in gods and not invisible appendages?

Why believe in gods and not that 2 and 2 equal 5?

Why believe in gods and not a pure communist state?

Why believe in gods and not trifoliate chrysanthemums?

Why believe in gods and not square triangles?

You lost me with all the "why" stuff. Could you try answering in a "how" sense. "Why" questions and responses are pretty lame, I'm sure you agree.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

I can't think of any good reason why. If the system of doubt is about conceptual abstractions and not about immediate percepts, then the consistency should be there in the responses to conceptual abstractions. Not applying it also to immediate percepts is not an inconsistency. The differences matter. Abstract concepts vs. immediate percepts... how different can things get?

Are you saying gods are conceptual abstractions and therefore require different consideration? How would you know that?

 

[abaddon]

Why wouldn't I know that?

The agnosticism isn't total. There's no "nothing can be known for certain" to it, there's no "no conceptual abstractions are workable" to it. I'm agnostic about metaphysical declarations like "no sorts of gods are possible".

Like I said before, the point is "avoidance of totalizing claims".

If your brain imagines there's an implicit "all" (like "[total] avoidance of [all] totalizing claims") in things I say, you will have twisted them into something I haven't said and caused your own confusion.

 

[bilby]

Why wouldn't I know that?

The agnosticism isn't total. There's no "nothing can be known for certain" to it, there's no "no conceptual abstractions are workable" to it. I'm agnostic about metaphysical declarations like "no sorts of gods are possible".

Like I said before, the point is "avoidance of totalizing claims".

If your brain imagines there's an implicit "all" (like "[total] avoidance of [all] totalizing claims") in things I say, you will have twisted them into something I haven't said and caused your own confusion.

How about "The only sorts of gods that are possible are those that are so poorly defined as to be meaningless, or so ineffectual to human affairs as to be irrelevant"?

Because I am certain that that's a true statement.

As a gnostic atheist, I do not consider wildly speculative 'god concepts' (that no person actually worships, and which exist only as thought experiments by wannabe philosophers desperate to insert doubt) to be gods at all, and nor do I credit entirely natural phenomena with the title 'god'.

Of course gods exist, but only in the exact same way that Superman and Spiderman exist - as fictional characters, usually with physically impossible attributes.

Superman is more real than Allah (for example), because everyone knows what Superman looks like.

Superman is even one up from Jesus, whose appearance (and, for that matter, whose godhood) are the subject of heated debate.

There are no gods. I know that there are no gods. I know this with the same degree of certainty that I know Superman isn't a real individual, and that the Moon isn't made of Stilton.

But if I say "The Moon is not made of cheese", I don't get dozens of keyboard warriors trying to bring ultra pedantic philosophy to bear and to persuade me that I can't really "know" these things for certain.

I can; And I do. The evidence includes (but is not limited to) the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is the best tested and most accurate theory in the history of science to date.

I am, with good reason and total justification, as certain that no gods exist, as I am that this forum exists and that I am posting on it.

 

[skepticalbip]

I was actually hoping to get some feedback to how we can't be sure that gods are real but can be sure we don't have more fingers or heads. The consensus seems to be that biblical gods are dopey and agnostics are sure those type gods are not real. Is the certain uncertainty that is agnosticism not applicable to fingers or heads? Can't we have appendages that we can't see or sense but are there because they exist like these agnostic gods? How is that not possible? Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

I think that you don't get feedback is because they can't or won't define wtf they mean by the word 'god'. Their 'god' seems to be only some nebulous idea or even something that fills an undefined emotional need like a replacement for their old childhood security blanket. When an agnostic says 'god' they are apparently not referring to Thor, Oden, or even Jehovah or any other god that is well defined because even they recognize the absurdity of such gods. Maybe they won't define their idea of a god because defining it would make it equally as obviously absurd. Or then maybe they haven't actually ever seriously thought about what they mean.

ETA:
I would give the creationists more credit. At least they know and will say exactly what they believe in enough detail that they can hold a coherent discussion.

 

[DBT]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

 

[Politesse]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

 

[steve_bank]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

It is easy to rationalize.

I can't prove god exists but I know god exists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was actually hoping to get some feedback to how we can't be sure that gods are real but can be sure we don't have more fingers or heads. The consensus seems to be that biblical gods are dopey and agnostics are sure those type gods are not real. Is the certain uncertainty that is agnosticism not applicable to fingers or heads? Can't we have appendages that we can't see or sense but are there because they exist like these agnostic gods? How is that not possible? Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

I think that you don't get feedback is because they can't or won't define wtf they mean by the word 'god'. Their 'god' seems to be only some nebulous idea or even something that fills an undefined emotional need like a replacement for their old childhood security blanket. When an agnostic says 'god' they are apparently not referring to Thor, Oden, or even Jehovah or any other god that is well defined because even they recognize the absurdity of such gods. Maybe they won't define their idea of a god because defining it would make it equally as obviously absurd. Or then maybe they haven't actually ever seriously thought about what they mean.

ETA:
I would give the creationists more credit. At least they know and will say exactly what they believe in enough detail that they can hold a coherent discussion.

Everything is ultimately behavioral. Does a person who claims we may have invisible appendages act differently than a person who thinks such a claim is absurd? Similarly, can agnosticism be quantified behaviorally? Do agnostics attend services to satisfy Pascal's Wager? Maybe in the broadest sense those behavioral differences are quantifiable. Language is a behavior so maybe that's the best method of documenting the difference.

Atheists and theists are accused of practicing fundyism but Agnostic fundyism is just as real.

 

[steve_bank]

I was actually hoping to get some feedback to how we can't be sure that gods are real but can be sure we don't have more fingers or heads. The consensus seems to be that biblical gods are dopey and agnostics are sure those type gods are not real. Is the certain uncertainty that is agnosticism not applicable to fingers or heads? Can't we have appendages that we can't see or sense but are there because they exist like these agnostic gods? How is that not possible? Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

I think that you don't get feedback is because they can't or won't define wtf they mean by the word 'god'. Their 'god' seems to be only some nebulous idea or even something that fills an undefined emotional need like a replacement for their old childhood security blanket. When an agnostic says 'god' they are apparently not referring to Thor, Oden, or even Jehovah or any other god that is well defined because even they recognize the absurdity of such gods. Maybe they won't define their idea of a god because defining it would make it equally as obviously absurd. Or then maybe they haven't actually ever seriously thought about what they mean.

ETA:
I would give the creationists more credit. At least they know and will say exactly what they believe in enough detail that they can hold a coherent discussion.

Everything is ultimately behavioral. Does a person who claims we may have invisible appendages act differently than a person who thinks such a claim is absurd? Similarly, can agnosticism be quantified behaviorally? Do agnostics attend services to satisfy Pascal's Wager? Maybe in the broadest sense those behavioral differences are quantifiable. Language is a behavior so maybe that's the best method of documenting the difference.

Atheists and theists are accused of practicing fundyism but Agnostic fundyism is just as real.

Aint it the truth.

 

[Politesse]

I was actually hoping to get some feedback to how we can't be sure that gods are real but can be sure we don't have more fingers or heads. The consensus seems to be that biblical gods are dopey and agnostics are sure those type gods are not real. Is the certain uncertainty that is agnosticism not applicable to fingers or heads? Can't we have appendages that we can't see or sense but are there because they exist like these agnostic gods? How is that not possible? Shouldn't we be equally uncertain about everyday observations as we are about gods, at least if we are going to be consistent?

I think that you don't get feedback is because they can't or won't define wtf they mean by the word 'god'. Their 'god' seems to be only some nebulous idea or even something that fills an undefined emotional need like a replacement for their old childhood security blanket. When an agnostic says 'god' they are apparently not referring to Thor, Oden, or even Jehovah or any other god that is well defined because even they recognize the absurdity of such gods. Maybe they won't define their idea of a god because defining it would make it equally as obviously absurd. Or then maybe they haven't actually ever seriously thought about what they mean.

ETA:
I would give the creationists more credit. At least they know and will say exactly what they believe in enough detail that they can hold a coherent discussion.

Everything is ultimately behavioral. Does a person who claims we may have invisible appendages act differently than a person who thinks such a claim is absurd? Similarly, can agnosticism be quantified behaviorally? Do agnostics attend services to satisfy Pascal's Wager? Maybe in the broadest sense those behavioral differences are quantifiable. Language is a behavior so maybe that's the best method of documenting the difference.

Atheists and theists are accused of practicing fundyism but Agnostic fundyism is just as real.

I feel like you are misunderstanding what agnosticism means, on a very fundamental level...

 

[DBT]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

A conviction can be held with or without the support of evidence. The latter is called 'faith.'

 

[Politesse]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

A conviction can be held with or without the support of evidence. The latter is called 'faith.'

And agnostics are, by definition, not keen on belief without evidence, though I would question your definition of "faith".

 

[DBT]

Agnostic theism seems wrong. If someone believes in God but is agnostic about the foundation of their belief, they are a theist. Their agnosticism is related to justification, not theism.

You're getting hung up on an overly dualistic conception of belief.

A conviction can be held with or without the support of evidence. The latter is called 'faith.'

And agnostics are, by definition, not keen on belief without evidence,

Which is in part what makes 'agnostic theism' an odd term.

though I would question your definition of "faith".

How so?