An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

The two points I am trying to make are:

• existence as an idea is very different from physical existence, and the criteria are very different;
• it is precisely with respect to the things that exist as ideas that we are agnostic. For example, I am not agnostic as to whether there is mail in my mailbox - I just go and look.

What I see repeatedly in this thread, are arguments that are applicable to physical things being applied to things that exist only as ideas. And then I see arguments that if it is only an idea, that we should be atheistic.My view: We are atheistic about something that exists only as an idea when we reject that idea. We are agnostic when we decline to embrace the idea but we do not reject it.As I suggested in Message 12, we are neither atheistic nor agnostic with respect to ordinary factual questions. We accept as fact, or reject, or are doubtful, or just express a lack of knowledge. We reserve the terms "atheistic" and "agnostic" for issues that are very different from ordinary factual questions. Yet if I went by Straggler's version of what is irrational and what is insane, then that would sure take all of the fun out of watching a Batman movie or a Spiderman movie (or just about any movie, for that matter).The problem with young earth creationists is not that they believe in a human constructed God. Rather, the problem is that they reject ordinary empirical evidence about the physical world.

I have no argument with anyone who says that gods exist solely as ideas.That is not what I am arguing against. To do so would be ridiculous. Frankly you seem intent on being a bit of a pedantic wanker. So are you some sort of conceptual-cultural-relatavist? Someone that insists that all concepts are entirely cultural and that no one concept has any more meaning or existence than any other?That is what it looks like at the moment. But I await your clarification on this.

What god concept is entirely immune from evidence of human invention? can you define god such that this is the case? I am intrigued to know what objective evidence you think even might exist for immaterial gods? What form would this evidence take? You cannot.But I am not the one describing gods as unknowable or insisting that the only method of refutation is to provide evidence that they "do not or cannot exist".I am the one saying that unknowability and irrefutability are simply baseless and unjustifiable assumptions which are no more relevant to assessing whether gods are likely to exist than they are to the concept of a magically unknowable Santa Claus existing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Heh: "I know that this concept is unknowable".How can you know such a thing? How can that be anything other than an entirely baseless assumption?And yet it seems to be the root premise of those who advocate the rationality of agnosticism towards "unknowable" gods regardless of any evidence favouring human invention that exists. Parliament and god are conceptually equivalent in your eyes?

Why not just stick to discussing what people say, instead of trying to categorize them (which is a form of ad hominem).

And physical existence is a very different idea from non-empirical existence that remains a part of reality independently of ones mind. When a theist/deist says "I believe that god exists" do you think they mean just as a concept inside our heads? As something that would no longer exist if there were no conscious beings capable of conceiving such an entity? If they do - I have no argument with them. As a self confirmed comic fan superhero geek I am a big fan of both of those concepts. But I do not consider them real. By my (and any normal definition that I have ever seen) I am atheistic about the actual existence of Spiderman and Batman. Are you not? And those who claim agnosticism towards the concept of god on the basis of inherent "unknowability" are denying empirical evidence of human invention in exactly the same way that someone who insisted we should rationally be agnostic towards the existence of the Easter bunny on the basis of magical "unknowability" would be ignoring empirical evidence favouring a contrary conclusion.To assert in the face of evidence is fundamentalism. And that applies to deistic fundamentalists as much as it does to biblical fundamentalists. Or even "agnostic fundamentalists"!!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am asking you to clarify what it is you are saying. Why don't you just do that and not make pointless intermediary posts?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Absolutely. I am making the additional point that simply asserting (or baselessly assuming) that god concepts are inherently "unknowable" and thus immune from such evidence is of no more relevance to god concepts than it is to a magically unknowable Easter Bunny.But this simple point seems to be highly contentious and lost on many.

I think you are making a bogus distinction.If there were no conscious being conceiving of such an entity, then:

• parliament (the institution, not the building) would not exist;
• highways would not exist, although there might be strips of land covered with asphalt or concrete;
• golf course would not exist, though their might be grassy fields with flags sticking out of holes.

I could list more.In modern societies, our lives are dominated by things that would no longer exist if there were no conscious beings capable of conceiving of such entities. This is very different from life in nomadic tribes or even in traditional agrarian societies.

I have been trying to do that. New Cat's Eye seems to understand the points I am making. I not sure why you are having problems with them. Why don't you stop making pointless categorizations of people?

Far from suggesting that you should disbelieve that gods exist only as an idea, I think Straggler is suggesting that that's exactly what he does believe, and what he's recommending. He's hardly suggesting that ideas of gods and beliefs in gods and religions are non-existence. It is the external existence of gods, their reality outside human imaginations, that he is atheistic towards, and if you too perceive gods as only an idea, then where is your point of disagreement? I've a slight problem with the phrasing. Why do you include the word "only"? If you're defining something as "existing only as an idea", then it can only be accepted as such.Reading between the lines, you seem to be using the word agnostic in relation to belief, rather than knowledge. As I suggested in an earlier post, that's a valid usage, simply because it is frequently used that way, and words mean what they're being used for at any one time. It's what I mean by the "uncommitted/neutral" usage. It's not exactly what Huxley meant. He brought in the word because he objected, understandably, to people who claimed certain knowledge on questions that are unknowable. I don't know who your "we" is. Atheistic only relates to gods, but I think that you've used it for something else earlier in the thread, which is unusual. Agnostic is widely used both in your sense, and in the unknowable sense, and is certainly used for factual questions. Suspending disbelief for fun isn't exactly the same as making a habit of believing in fictional beings, and I find temporary insanity very enjoyable sometimes. I write fiction, so I actively encourage controlled madness in others. They wouldn't do the latter without the former, so it's both really. Although, if you mean to make the point that they could construct ideas of different gods which wouldn't conflict with the empirical evidence and believe in those, then I agree.

I am making the distinction imposed on me by those who claim to believe in gods. Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly in the principle you seem to be espousing. The question is - Would gods exist? Are you using the term "god" in any way that theists or deists would accept? But the immaterial concepts in question are claimed to have done things like create the universe. Things that by definition happened without the existence of consciousness in the material world. Thus necessarily making them exist independently of us in a way that the golf course concept does not.Would god concepts exist if conscious beings in the material universe did not exist? Are gods and golf courses conceptually equivalent in this respect?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is posed as if it were a factual question. But it isn't.If you ask "Is the outside temperature 70F where you live?" then that is a factual question. We have clear criteria for answering it. I can simply take a thermometer outside and check the temperature.If you ask "Is there an earth-like planet somewhere in Andromeda?", then that too is a factual question. I can just hop into my spaceship and go look. Well, actually, I can't do that. But we still have clear criteria for settling the question, even if there are limitations on our ability that prevent us from applying those criteria in practice.So what are the criteria for the "God" question?Suppose, instead of the "God" question, we ask "were there atoms?" John Dalton would have said "Yes, there would be atoms." And he would be talking of Dalton atoms, not of Bohr atoms. And that would have been a factual question for Dalton, because he did have criteria and if they could be applied they would probably show Dalton atoms.We have different criteria, so we would agree that there were Bohr atoms, but not Dalton atoms.I am trying to point out that our notions of "truth" and of "fact" are very tricky, and we often use them incoherently. We talk of a "correspondence theory of truth" which should suggest that there are some rules of correspondence between what is in the world and the propositions we express about the world. And sometimes there are such rules of correspondence, but we don't all agree on them, and we keep changing them. The view often expressed by theologians and by philosophers, a view of some sort of all-encompassing truth, is incoherent as best I can tell.Okay, so with all that in mind, let's return to the God question: As far as I can tell, some (but not all) theists and deists do actually have criteria. However, they don't all share the same criteria. Presumably some of them have criteria that would be met in the hypothetical world of no conscious beings. If there were biological creatures, then William Dembski's criteria for determining that there was a god would presumably be satisfied. And presumably Straggler's criteria (if he even has any) would not be met.

Yes, it is usually only applied to gods, although I think I have seen it used with respect to non-theistic religions.If we are exploring the usage of a word, we sometimes need to temporarily relax some of the usual constraints for the sake of the discussion.

Hi Straggler,I notice that this thread is going on ad nauseum ... with you just repeating the same stale arguments from previous threads, nothing new, no surprises. Amusingly, I see several other people have the same kinds of problems with your imaginary evidence that I had.But I also notice that you have still failed to answer the question of why you feel a need to decide.You have not answered this question: What is wrong with saying that there isn't enough information to make a decision at this time?I'd say that if you really want to understand agnosticism, then you need to pursue this question of why you feel such a need to make a decision when the evidence is not conclusive.Enjoy.

---