Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[Politesse]

Agnosticism isn't somewhere on the spectrum between theism and atheism; It's a separate orthogonal axis. Theism-Atheism says what you believe; Gnosticism-Agnosticism says how sure you are.

I see it more as being honest about the limitations of human knowledge. Its not that agnostics are unsure of what to believe, but that we refuse to pretend we have knowledge about that which no one could possibly have knowledge. I'm certain of my stance, it's just that it is a profoundly skeptical stance, by design and intention. Agnosticism is about epistemology more than any particular belief.

 

[abaddon]

To me, agnosticism is avoidance of totalizing claims. I have an allergic reaction to them and feel it's more truthful to stick to a nuanced stance instead. Apparently it confuses the heck out of some folk; sometimes they don't know if I'm a materialist or idealist or what. The answer to "so what do you believe in?" is "as little as possible because all 'believing in' is more or less wrong due to incompleteness".

So, as not just an atheist (one who lacks belief in gods) but also a practicing agnostic (one who has a claustrophobic reaction to all-encompassing claims of knowledge), would I say "Maybe there are gods"?

The answer is, as to a lot of things: it depends on what you mean.

Jehovah and similar anthropomorphic beings get a big NO.
Non-anthropomorphized "ground of being" abstractions get a MAYBE. (And then a further "it depends").

I see others say things like "bible says all reality is like this" or "science says all reality is like that". But those doors are closed to me because it'd feel like being in a cramped 5'x5' box if I try to be so fully sure about things myself.

So it's not total openness to all possibilities. It's reluctance to take up strong belief about many of them. I'd rather stick to exploring the ideas than invest in belief. When I argue, usually the point is "maybe you shouldn't be so sure about that", not "you ought to accept that the 'isms' that I believe in are the truth".

 

[Politesse]

To me, agnosticism is avoidance of totalizing claims. I have an allergic reaction to them and feel it's more truthful to stick to a nuanced stance instead. Apparently it confuses the heck out of some folk; sometimes they don't know if I'm a materialist or idealist or what. The answer to "so what do you believe in?" is "as little as possible because all 'believing in' is more or less wrong due to incompleteness".

Right on! I think you've stated it better than I did.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To me, agnosticism is avoidance of totalizing claims. I have an allergic reaction to them and feel it's more truthful to stick to a nuanced stance instead. Apparently it confuses the heck out of some folk; sometimes they don't know if I'm a materialist or idealist or what. The answer to "so what do you believe in?" is "as little as possible because all 'believing in' is more or less wrong due to incompleteness".

Right on! I think you've stated it better than I did.

So you are saying you are agnostic - with regards to gods - because you are agnostic about all knowledge. I take that to mean you believe you cannot know anything with certainty.

 

[Politesse]

To me, agnosticism is avoidance of totalizing claims. I have an allergic reaction to them and feel it's more truthful to stick to a nuanced stance instead. Apparently it confuses the heck out of some folk; sometimes they don't know if I'm a materialist or idealist or what. The answer to "so what do you believe in?" is "as little as possible because all 'believing in' is more or less wrong due to incompleteness".

Right on! I think you've stated it better than I did.

So you are saying you are agnostic - with regards to gods - because you are agnostic about all knowledge. I take that to mean you believe you cannot know anything with certainty.

No, I wouldn't say that. I think it is important to look at knowledge and certainty as kind of a scalar thing. If someone tells me they have a pretty good idea about the life cycle of a newt, I'm going to feel pretty confident about what they tell me, since I have a very clear picture of what sort of evidence they have and how they would have generated it, and that their colleagues would be apt to correct them if the data were to stop supporting their claims. Gods are not like newts, though; there's more than one way to look at them, and precious few means to test any of those ideas in a serious way. I know who to go to if I want to talk to an expert on newts. I'd ask my friend Liz over in the bio department, and she'd refer me to someone as intiquately acquainted with field studies of newts as I am with the data on ecstatic states. Who do I go to if I need an expert on gods? There is no such person, because there has never been a rational basis for such expertise.

I am the closest thing really, a cultural anthropologist who has been studying these issues for twenty years. The only people perhaps more qualified to make such a call would be colleagues who've been in the game longer than I have. I could name a few names. But I also know, from talking to them, that I share something in common with them: for all that, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" on gods, and neither would most of the other specialists in this field whom I have known; what we mostly study are ritual and symbolic expressions (concrete phenomena and thus naturally within the domain of scientific exploration) of an idea that can't really be empirically tested (and thus beyond the domain of what we can really comment on as a specialist, or even would care to).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No, I wouldn't say that. I think it is important to look at knowledge and certainty as kind of a scalar thing. If someone tells me they have a pretty good idea about the life cycle of a newt, I'm going to feel pretty confident about what they tell me, since I have a very clear picture of what sort of evidence they have and how they would have generated it, and that their colleagues would be apt to correct them if the data were to stop supporting their claims. Gods are not like newts, though; there's more than one way to look at them, and precious few means to test any of those ideas in a serious way. I know who to go to if I want to talk to an expert on newts. I'd ask my friend Liz over in the bio department, and she'd refer me to someone as intiquately acquainted with field studies of newts as I am with the data on ecstatic states. Who do I go to if I need an expert on gods? There is no such person, because there has never been a rational basis for such expertise.

I am the closest thing really, a cultural anthropologist who has been studying these issues for twenty years. The only people perhaps more qualified to make such a call would be colleagues who've been in the game longer than I have. I could name a few names. But I also know, from talking to them, that I share something in common with them: for all that, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" on gods, and neither would most of the other specialists in this field whom I have known; what we mostly study are ritual and symbolic expressions (concrete phenomena and thus naturally within the domain of scientific exploration) of an idea that can't really be empirically tested (and thus beyond the domain of what we can really comment on as a specialist, or even would care to).

So even though the bolded above sounds like it carries a lot of certainty with regards to your convictions, you are not completely certain about that statement. Is that correct?

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse used to identify as Pagan-Christian and would not provide any details of what that means. So, he may be senstive to isuues with scince.

I believe he said he teaches college.

Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.

I would not call them spokespersons. I read Gould's books except that last tome and saw him speak in Seattle not too long before he died. One of his prized possessions was an autographed Yankees baseball from when he was a kid. As he put it takes a lot of time to get a PHD and get started. After that you hvae a limited time for yiur work, who hs the time to deal with issues like religion?

Dawkins is a popular writer and Sagan was a terrible face on science IMO. Pop science.

There are no spokespersons, there are peole with views on science.

When did I ever "not provide any details of what that means"? It's no mystery or secret, I was practicing with two religious groups at the time, one Anglican and the other Wiccan. These days I hang out with some cool Jedi folks in the city and turn up for church every now and then. Belief-wise I am and always have been a resolute agnostic, the only philosophy I'll defend to the death. And yes, I'm a professor of anthropology at a community college, which has a lot more with why people misrepresenting the sciences pisses me off. I'm also queer and prefer jazz to pop. But so what? If you can't think of any argument except to vaguely attack the poster for being too weird, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.

So, you do believe in the supernatural of some kind? That would explain your sciencey comment. Science does not support magic spells at least not yet

What part of agnostic was unclear?

If you think science is a belief system, or a club that only card-carrying atheists belong to, you do not understand science. Science is a method, not a religion. If a scientific conclusion cannot be objectively demonstrated through reprodcible experiment or observation regardless of the observere's personal ideoogy, it either isn't science or it isn't correct.

And no, what someone believes about Jesus or karma or whatever has nothing to do with why the OP was wrong or misleading about nearly every one of their "facts". Their own sources contradicted them. Do you believe that Wikipedia is willfully misrepresenting the current consensus age of the cosmos for the sake of religious apologetics?

Your logic here just fails me, dude. Like, I really just I don't grasp this argument. Since I am (I guess?) a secret evangelical, I would want the OP to say that the universe was somewhere between 13.787±0.020 billion yeas old, with some as yet unexplained data that appear to contradict this with respect to the local galactic neighborhood. But, if I loved science and atheism, and maybe sucked a dildo the shape of Richard Dawkin's cock every night, I'd be fine with the OP "approximating" it at 13.6 and refusing to further discuss the matter.

Is the idea that only religious people care about accuracy, whereas atheists are sloppy/lazy with their facts and therefore superior to those annoying, pretentious, ivory tower Christians due to being more polite, or more approachable or something? If so, this is accomplishing the opposite of convincing me to want to convert to your worldview. I'll keep the science and dump the social malformation, thanks.

I'm glad I know some other atheists, and thus that this is not actually a common perspective among atheists. If all I knew were you and Unknown Soldier, I would not be impressed! But, like, lpetrich on this forum would never have posted lazy slop like the OP. Actually, he did start a thread on the age of the cosmos, and it's a very good read. Follow his lead, and you'll be on a much more sturdy path in terms of apologetics.

For one who preents himself as a precise thinking academic Iwoud say when yiu invoke a term like agnostic define it precsely insted of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.

You are using a common tactic. You drop words like' scalar' in an attempt to sound 'sciency'.

They never really say anything substantive that they can be held to but they can fool some people. I have seen people make a career out of the tactcic. Appering know;edgebale by attacking those who are.

In the 70s I used to watch the PBS show Firing Line with William Buckley. I was not a fan of Buckley but he was interesting to watch.

He had peple on to debate a predetermined topic. When he was not getting anywhere in a debate he would resort to criticizing grammar and word usage of his opponent.

Point v being you are doung a lor of handwaving and ssaying little of substance. Mostly thinly veiled self aggrandizement.

The basic questin to you is for those with religious and mythological beliefs is it important to beat the beliefs aginst histrcal and scientific facts?

 

[Politesse]

No, I wouldn't say that. I think it is important to look at knowledge and certainty as kind of a scalar thing. If someone tells me they have a pretty good idea about the life cycle of a newt, I'm going to feel pretty confident about what they tell me, since I have a very clear picture of what sort of evidence they have and how they would have generated it, and that their colleagues would be apt to correct them if the data were to stop supporting their claims. Gods are not like newts, though; there's more than one way to look at them, and precious few means to test any of those ideas in a serious way. I know who to go to if I want to talk to an expert on newts. I'd ask my friend Liz over in the bio department, and she'd refer me to someone as intiquately acquainted with field studies of newts as I am with the data on ecstatic states. Who do I go to if I need an expert on gods? There is no such person, because there has never been a rational basis for such expertise.

I am the closest thing really, a cultural anthropologist who has been studying these issues for twenty years. The only people perhaps more qualified to make such a call would be colleagues who've been in the game longer than I have. I could name a few names. But I also know, from talking to them, that I share something in common with them: for all that, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" on gods, and neither would most of the other specialists in this field whom I have known; what we mostly study are ritual and symbolic expressions (concrete phenomena and thus naturally within the domain of scientific exploration) of an idea that can't really be empirically tested (and thus beyond the domain of what we can really comment on as a specialist, or even would care to).

So even though the bolded above sounds like it carries a lot of certainty with regards to your convictions, you are not completely certain about that statement. Is that correct?

I'm very certain of my convictions. None of those convictions is a god though, or even a newt. My guarded certainty about newts is a measure of the degree to which I trust the way knowledge about newts has been produced, and even that certainty is provisional, because that method is also provisional by nature.

 

[Politesse]

agnostic define it precsely

I did. An agnostic is someone who is skeptical, and honest, about the limitations of human knowledge.

You are using a common tactic. You drop words like' scalar' in an attempt to sound 'sciency'.

I wasn't aware that this term had any other meaning than the one I intended?

Appering know;edgebale by attacking those who are.

How does this have anything to do with my post? I haven't attacked any "knowledgeable people" as far as I know...

The basic questin to you is for those with religious and mythological beliefs is it important to beat the beliefs aginst histrcal and scientific facts?

I can't even parse what this sentence is supposed to mean...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm very certain of my convictions. None of those convictions is a god though, or even a newt. My guarded certainty about newts is a measure of the degree to which I trust the way knowledge about newts has been produced, and even that certainty is provisional, because that method is also provisional by nature.

I take it you are not completely certain of your convictions, only very certain. Does this extend to all fields of knowledge for you, that you are not completely certain of your convictions? Is that perhaps because you think that there are no facts because there are no complete certainties?

The topic of gods and agnosticism seems like a circle to me. It's a question beggar. If you are very certain you do not have seven invisible heads or have been delivered by a stork how can you be less certain about gods? Is it because gods by definition are unknowable? Which came first, the unknowability or the god?

 

[Politesse]

there are no facts because there are no complete certainties?

How does that logically follow? Why would a fact cease to be a fact simply because we lack any ability to confirm it? We're just organisms within a larger system - we have no power to create or destroy any facts.

 

[bilby]

The difference between gods and newts isn't that there are lots of ways of looking at a god; It's that there are none.

Newts exist. This cuts the number of demonstrable claims you can make about newts from infinity to some finite number.

That there are an infinite number of equally demonstrable claims you can make about gods is not evidence of their greatness, infinitude, or importance; It's evidence of their nonexistence.