Agnosticism: The Philosophical Cop-Out

[Deleted member]

And Twilight doesn't have a cult following? Those books are the only thing keeping the loser kids that read them from cutting themselves one too many times.

But even that's beside the point. People read books for inspiration. It's natural for people to emulate their fictional heroes and try to act like them. Whether or not it's healthy is up to the individual, but picking out one book of a million others like it and calling it the cornerstone of evil is ludicrous.

I've read Twilight, and I also work at a bookstore. It's a quick and dirty read, but it's nothing really all that special. It's impossible to gauge the next big thing in books.

Also, I'm not randomly picking out Rand's books (out of a million). Objectivists are, which is why I'm here to tell them that her books are not something to base lifestyles off of.

 

[RDK]

Hive can we get like....a tl;dr version of that?

Because no one will read all that.

I read it. What now, punk?

A Case Against Males

And somehow I missed this whole rant before, but I hope you weren't seriously considering this an actual argument. Comparing the damage done by religion to the damage done by an entire sex group is astronomically ********.

I've read Twilight, and I also work at a bookstore. It's a quick and dirty read, but it's nothing really all that special. It's impossible to gauge the next big thing in books.

Also, I'm not randomly picking out Rand's books (out of a million). Objectivists are, which is why I'm here to tell them that her books are not something to base lifestyles off of.

I see; misunderstanding then.

Edit: You've read Twilight? My respect for you just went down. Way down.

 

[Deleted member]

I do what my boss tells me. And when he says, "know this vampire shiat so you can explain the plot to fat goth girls", I ... listened?

Lol. Whatever, it was fun.

 

[Hive]

wow, i'm really sorry alt4 ^^ i realize that the format is really crappy on this (mostly the source material though). ^^ I think at the same time I realized that I slept about 4 hours though lol and so I've been off for awhile.

I think most of my conclusion is before the source material, and yes, sorry again its so unreadable, I'll try to fix it up more lately.
I think what I mainly found is that the evidence that we have right now is sketchy at best in relationship to suicide, homicide and religion.
As for religion raising suicide I think it is safe to say that it is just about as relevant of a belief as religion really raising homicide.
The reason why the surveys are less than reliable though is that most of them (for proving the homicide and suicide thing) are done in small sample sizes, and by less well known organizations. This is primarily because larger organizations like the US census bureau, and the WHO don't really keep track of religion, and definitely don't approach the realm of belief systems and crime, mostly out of tolerance I assume, and to be more politically neutral (i assume here, i'm guessing.).
The two main studies about suicide and homicide are used by looking mainly at "how religious countries are" and "what the crime rates are in those countries." (suicide and homicide). The thing is that with homicide it seems to create a trend that higher amounts of religion lead to higher amounts of homicide. Using that same trend though Lower amounts of Religion creates higher amounts of suicide (and to an equal degree it concludes that imo).
These trends though are less solid as they appear though by looking at the conclusions initially imo. ^^ When I was looking at lists of who the most atheist countries were (something that people vary greatly on as well lol) in comparison to the homicide numbers for example, they don't show a neat and tidy relationship as you would like, what I mean by that is, overall yea, I guess you can see a trend, but then you have countries that are supposedly some of the top atheist countries like vietnam, china, etc... that homicide rates aren't as hot in. (ps canada has the highest suicide rates, weird!) Overall though it seems to show that for the most part homicide rises with relgion (and vice versa for suicide- which is shown in the gif).

These results possess inherent problems though, they don't show other factors of why crime rates in countries could be higher, but assume the difference is solely due to religion. Even if you take that assumption to heart it still doesn't show for sure if religion is a cause or effect of the homicide or suicide either.
However, when you look at say statistics on the highest countries per capita, unemployment rates, education, and the social and economic conditions of the country and other similar statistics you find that they are much more indicative of crime rates in countries than religion is.

The reasons that religion promotes less suicide is generally viewed as this-"research suggests that in the United States, areas with higher percentages of individuals without religious affiliation have correspondingly higher suicide rates. Involvement with a religion may provide a social support system, a direct way to cope with stressors, a sense of purpose and/or hope, and may lead to a stronger belief that suicide is wrong." is cited at the main reason for the link.

Other surveys were conducted as well on the suicide and religion thing. Most of the results agree that less religion usually constitutes greater suicide rates, but their were some alternate conclusions (as with homicide). They did these by looking at how religion has changed over time and what the suicide rates were, amounts of religions in US states and what the suicide rates were, and various reports using questionnaires. (one even saying that people who attend church are four times more likely than people who don't to not committ suicide- not sure how they got that lol). The same kinds of tests were ran comparing homicide to religion.
Personally I believe that both results are too argueable and use too small of sample sizes, hoewever, I really do believe that by believing one of these using statistics, etc... you really have to submit to the other one being true as well, since they use basically the same forms to conduct analysis.

On my looking at suicide vs. homicide in comparision, suicide seems to be clearly a worse social problem.
The UN even saying "Each year, more than 1million people take their own lives - more than the combined annual deaths from homicides and wars." Which is even more than even the most extreme views on homicide/murder really.
When looking at the Us statistics for recent (above 2000) years the latest rate of suicides is 10.8 per 100,000 people, and for murder is 1-4 per 100,000 people. The relationship consistently seems to be about 10 or 3 to one (suicide to murder). Suicide is a worse threat imo, and actually these numbers are a lot more reliable seeing where they come from (us census and who). Globally I'd say this number is more around 2-1 total (average) due to wars and such, mainly in underveloped countries.

Another interesting statistic I found is that the rate of political religious incidents that cause murder has dramatically declined recently (and is continuing to). This would seem to suggest that those incidents that are tied to religion have a clear capacity to change over time, and that current understandings about it aren't static.

Finally having to do with the relationship between Scientists and Belief in God.
There are two main studies it seems that people can't stop spouting.
The first one (and on one extreme of the spetrum) is conducted by the National Association of Scientists and the questionnaire was sent out to 517 of its members. A little over half responded, and the result was
ELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

The second one (and much larger) with 1646 members on the other hand led by ice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund found that about 2/3 scientists believe in god by questioning lead research university faculty in different universities.
the most atheist group being biologists and the least atheist group being doctors. physicists and chemists usually fall in the middle at around 38% not believing in god. obviously this indicates significant (and unignorable) populations of both thoughts.

Like I said these are probably the two most used statistics. I tend to believe in the second one more than the first, just because of sheer size and format, but I also believe it overestimates the number (i believe the true rate for believing in god and scientists is about maybe 20-40% do believe). However I leave that to you.
That doesn't mean I agree that conclusive evidence has been reached though. There are a few more studies on this too.
The result? the numbers differ WIDELY.
One of the funnier ones mentioned was about Scientific America- a mostly atheist minded publication that did a survey on belief of god and scientists as a followup to their 1914 study that showed about 40% believed so, to show that it has dropped over time, but in fact, had ended up at, again, 40% some 90 years later. ^^


RESULTS
My result then is that no foolproof answer is really 100% apparent, however, the majority in the science vs. belief in god seem to indicate that both populations are at least somewhat sizeable, and they should be both be viewed as valid options in the scientific community. about around 20-40%.

My result for suicide vs. homicide is that
its about 2-3 to 1 suicide compared to homicide
and that the statistics on both suicide and homicide compared to religious views are both sketchy, however, both use the same kinds of ideas, and even similar data often, so I'd say if you believe in one believe in the other.

However, given the widely differing answers in both of the test, I think the most important thing is not to say any results are "fullproof" or even close to certain. ^^

my view (sorta)- also don't think that I am against religion going down at all, I still believe people should be educated more and that when done religion will fall by some. However, I also believe that even if it does fall religion will still be a big part of world thought, and that option, while less than the past, is still significant and needs to be respected.
I also have a theory that people choose what beliefs they are to be more mentally stable, or comforted, and that religion is actually a sort of result/safeguard of mentality (in developed countries, and countries where changing your beliefs is socially acceptable) rather than a cause of it. Some psychology tests i viewed earlier showed that suicide and homicide stem basically from the same thought processes as well. Which is part of the reason why I think having the ability to change your beliefs is important (i am 2/3 of the time theist and 1/3 of the time atheist afterall lol).

EDIT: crap! this was supposed to be short! T.T <-fail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


@RDK- yes lol, of course the male thing doesn't reflect what I truly believe! It is a satire (idk why i'm interested in satires right now lol), it is only meant to apply the points people are using to defend hate against religion to other topics and the fallout of using stereotypes (by looking at crime rates in smaller populations and applying them over the group as a whole). It also raises the question of "if you do decide one is better, how exactly do you expect to implement it?"
I honestly don't have anything against males lol, I just thought it would be interesting (and less boring for me) to change my approach and use satire which I don't think is used often in debate. :D
The only reason I used males lol is because it can be applied to many of the points that are being brought up and it is a subject that everyone here has a similar preexisting conclusion about (well i hope so!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yay I just beat warcraft iii!.... like ten years after everyone else lol

 

[adumbrodeus]

Not at all.

What does a person look for when they pray to God? Signs. And we rational people know that whatever random, arbitrary event that comes along that can be considered a "sign" is just that--random and arbitrary. If that's how they're going to base massive decisions involving the country--on a religious whim--then I'd rather not have them running my government, and I don't think you would either. At least I hope you wouldn't.


If we agree that no deity is involved, wouldn't it be 100% the person's thought process? That's what I have a problem with. He's basically playing Russian Roulette with the country when he offers its future to his God.

But you're entirely missing my point.

Just because a person is religious doesn't mean that they'll be say... looking at sheep's liver's to figure out what they're going to do.

They could, i dunno, be saying a prayer that they make the correct decision, and be going through a completely rational decision-making process. Truthfully, that's what happens the vast majority of the time with most religious people. (Or at least it's attempted, bu unconscious biases mess with things regardless of religiosity)


Btw, I'm gonna be adding that whole "constantly expecting a sign" thing to my list of false stereotypes about religious people.


Seriously, rather then basing your debate against religion on some theoretical hick from the deep south strawman, try dealing with the attitudes of the people you're actually debating against.

In a wider sense, yes, religion is irrational. I hope you're honestly not going to debate that with me.

Considering individual people's situations, religion (or intelligent design, if the person lives in Louisiana and knows next to nothing about biology) may be the logical choice if there's a sufficient lack of knowledge. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still illogical to the rest of us who know.

I disagree, though this thread has moved far enough off-course, so I'll avoid derailing it further.

I will say, "nice stereotype of Louisianians", and presumably "nice stereotype about religious people in general".


Of course, everyone thinks people with enough knowledge should know better. Most of us just consider it assumed, so it's a waste of breath to actually say it out loud.

Wow! So many replies! You'll have to forgive me if I don't respond to each and every point everyone is making. I don't have all day!

Well, you could hold off your replies till you have time to adequately respond like I do.

Very well, I'll assume you have no adequate answer to the dropped points.

No, no. Unknowable and unfalsifiable are NOT the same thing. They are totally separate and independent. Something being unfalsifiable does NOT make it unknowable. All gods (that I've heard of) are knowable. It is conceivable that the god in question comes down and reveals himself.

Unknowable things are exceedingly rare. And something must be PROVEN to be unknowable. You can't just throw that assertion around wily-nilly.

You're misunderstanding me, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint it is, because scientific principals require it to be falsifiable otherwise there is no commentary. So while it might be practically knowable, scientifically that is not the case.

Okay, you see in your example all the objects in your room that you're looking for are different. You are correct in supposing that not finding an elephant does not say much about the probability of finding a pencil.

But how are any of the gods in any way different than another. We all agree that the FSM and IPU are absurd and almost certainly false. We all agree that Zeus and Poseidon are not real. But how do they differ than the christian god? Or the Hindu god(s)? Or (insert your) god?

In what way is HINO, Iroquois thunder god who shoots firery arrows at evil beings an "elephant" but the christian god a "pencil"?

What rationale does anyone have to believe THEIR god, as opposed to the millions of others? None. They're all the same. They are all arbitrary, man-made, and illusory. Ever wonder why people's gods tend to resemble themselves? It's because they make it up themselves. It's absolutely just as concocted and made up as the FSM.

Wait... we just got through discussing how deities are so different that it is impossible to create a technical definition for "deities", and now you're saying that they can be at most less dissimilar then an elephant and a pencil?

Regardless, an infinite number of contradictory objects can be created that fall within that bound, so the exact same problem arises.

No then, I could talk about how every religion has their own explanation for that, and has an equally valid claim to put forth their explanation, but that's not relevant.

Because we're talking about agnostics, and it doesn't matter how many are wrong as long as there are more that haven't been disproven.

And Zeus and Poseidon, are you sure?

Because we can see everyday people who cannot keep their religious (or just superstitious) nonsense to themselves.

Why is there even a debate about whether or not to teach "Intelligent Design" in schools? Why is there even a debate about whether to give rights to gay Americans? Pharmacists who refuse to give medicine to patients on religious basis. The list goes on and on. I think it is pretty well demonstrated that most people are incapable of separating their unfounded nonsense from reality.

The purpose of my saying this is not to suggest a law banning the practice of religion, no. We are a Free country, and should remain so. But that doesn't keep me from urging everyone reading this to use their reason in their everyday lives, and not blind superstition.

Just because some people feel their religion has to be the foundation for government doesn't mean everyone does.

I think part of the issue is that you're making the assumption that the so-called "fundamentalists" speak for everyone.

Regardless, gay rights? Psychologically threatening to long-standing patriarchal psychology. The exact same reason why a guy who has sex with a lot of girls is cool, but a girl who has sex with a lot of guys is a w****.

Though I'm generally in favor of the right of people to choose what services they offer, in the case of what I think you're talking about (the morning after pill correct?), there's a very legitimate ethical debate that should be going on about this anyway. Unfortunately the polarization that occurred between the religious right and well everyone has disguised that.

You know good and well I'm aware of the placebo effect. It is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to do things which will have an effect only as a placebo. But only if they intended is to be a placebo. When doctors start to do entire surgeries that have no effect (no effect in the medical world means equivalent effect as a placebo) then we have a dangerous situation.

They are no longer "doctors" at that point, and just practitioners of Voodoo. I, for one, would much rather have REAL medicine.

Yes, and how is this correlated with religiosity?

Because this seems to be more an issue of longstanding belief that people haven't adequately questioned.


Edit:

utter brilliance

Good **** man.

Hive can we get like....a tl;dr version of that?

Because no one will read all that.

*presents counter-example*

I did.

 

[Zero Beat]

This caught my attention.

You're misunderstanding me, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint it is, because scientific principals require it to be falsifiable otherwise there is no commentary. So while it might be practically knowable, scientifically that is not the case.

For some reason when somebody starts throwing the word science around, things tend to get fuzzy real quick. Not as fuzzy as when they're bringing up the word faith, but things are less fuzzy when neither are used.

If science is different from practice, then what good is science?

If religious people had any idea how much their opposition makes science overblown, they'd be cursing themselves

 

[adumbrodeus]

This caught my attention.


For some reason when somebody starts throwing the word science around, things tend to get fuzzy real quick. Not as fuzzy as when they're bringing up the word faith, but things are less fuzzy when neither are used.

If science is different from practice, then what good is science?

If religious people had any idea how much their opposition makes science overblown, they'd be cursing themselves

It's an issue of conceptual foundations, and the conceptual foundation of science is "falsify the null hypothesis", because that's the only way that it can use primarily deductive reasoning, with the usage of inductive reasoning only to falsify.

This all goes back to the problem of induction, which while a philosophical problem, has a ton of practical implications, namely the issue that, if we have only seen white swans, how do we know that there will never be another color of swans?

That's how we got to Critical rationalism, and while there have definitely been refinements to how science deals with things, the core underpinning of critical rationalism holds.


By extension, theories that have no objective testable effects are out because scientific methodology simply has no mechanism to deal with them.


So, basically, science cannot comment on religion, ethics, aesthetics, etc because it has no mechanism for dealing with such things unless they posit objective testable effects on the outside world. Even if God does come down in all of his power and glory, that still has the falsification issue, so science lacks the mechanism for dealing with it.


See? Not fuzzy at all.

 

[Zero Beat]

O RLY

Science lacks the mechanism for dealing with it?

Going back on what ALT was saying....

Science can posit that religious people tend to be less informed, have a lower ability to learn, etc. Science can theoretically say "This system of ethics produces the most technologically advanced society." Or "This aesthetic tends to promote shortsightedness." You can prove it with research and with statistics:

Renting rims for your car. Show me some forward thinking individual who does it. Even just one individual. There has to be one, right? No, there isn't. And thus, science comments on aesthetics. Science provides the facts. People make the decisions. You can decide that nice rims on a ****ty car makes the car look less ****ty.

You can decide that people who think they're making the world a better place by banning you from building a monolithic dome house in "their" neighborhood are wrong. Science can show that they are more likely to have their house wiped out in a hurricane.

 

[adumbrodeus]

O RLY

Science lacks the mechanism for dealing with it?

Going back on what ALT was saying....

Science can posit that religious people tend to be less informed, have a lower ability to learn, etc. Science can theoretically say "This system of ethics produces the most technologically advanced society." Or "This aesthetic tends to promote shortsightedness." You can prove it with research and with statistics:

Renting rims for your car. Show me some forward thinking individual who does it. Even just one individual. There has to be one, right? No, there isn't. And thus, science comments on aesthetics. Science provides the facts. People make the decisions. You can decide that nice rims on a ****ty car makes the car look less ****ty.

You can decide that people who think they're making the world a better place by banning you from building a monolithic dome house in "their" neighborhood are wrong. Science can show that they are more likely to have their house wiped out in a hurricane.

All of which is entirely different from showing that one system of ethics is right, or that one aesthetic is beautiful and the other is ugly.

Sure, you can pull a whole mess of side effects from everything, maybe even get some causation in there (for example, the fact that atheism was built to appeal to intellectuals probably relates rather strongly to practitioners having higher average IQs at the moment), but it still can't comment on the fundamental questions involved, just side-questions which are falsifiable, and while nice to know, ultimately never address the actual issues.

 

[Zero Beat]

Fundamental question: "What do you want?"
Fundamental answer: "A life full of sex, drugs, violence, and awesome feelings."
Philosophical question: "What looks beautiful?"
Philosophical answer: "Anything that gets me sex, drugs, or respect."

What you want is the most fundamental question of anything. Whether you even exist is a stupid question next to what you want. So, what is the "fundamental" question you're thinking of?

Edit:
The kind of thing you're looking for seems to me like exactly the kind of religious "truth" that christians use in morality, some simple set of universal absolute rules for what is beauty and what isn't.

Your understanding seems concerned with rules, and not with the rules which rule the rules.

(Sorry, computer keeps hitting back and forth on the pages, excuse the edits)

Anyway, it's not "What's beauty" but "What decides what is beauty?" It's not "What is right" but "What decides what right is?" Once you answer the recursive question, the answer to the simple question becomes obvious. But if you can't think at that recusive level you'll be stuck like that forever.

It's the same with this topic, if you're not too busy, read my post, it's the last one in there :
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=222105

Concluding: Science can't tell you what is right, and it can't tell you what decides what right is, but it is one tool you have to make the decision. (i.e. what do you decide you're going to believe is the deciding criteria about what makes something right or wrong)

Let's try to make points which have a point next time.

 

[AltF4]

Well, you could hold off your replies till you have time to adequately respond like I do.

Very well, I'll assume you have no adequate answer to the dropped points.

I could very well say the same of you. In fact, I will. Next.

You're misunderstanding me, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint it is, because scientific principals require it to be falsifiable otherwise there is no commentary. So while it might be practically knowable, scientifically that is not the case.

All of this came from a diversion that you made.

We talked about the difference between "weak" and "strong" agnosticism. Weak, we decided, was merely the belief that the existence of a god is currently unknown. This isn;t much of a belief as it is a fact. The "god question" (as Dawkins puts it) is currently "unsolved". So weak agnosticism isn't very interesting.

"Strong" agnostics are more interesting. They make a claim. This claim is that the "god question" is UNKNOWABLE. I asked you multiple times for a justification for this claim, and received nothing.

Therefore, by your own standards I will conclude that you have no answer, and agree that agnosticism is unfounded, therefore a "cop-out".

Instead of actually answering the question, you only tried to confuse the subjects of knowability and falsifiability. They are entirely separate and independent. Agnsoticism does not concern itself with falsifiability, only knowability.

 

[RDK]

But you're entirely missing my point.

Just because a person is religious doesn't mean that they'll be say... looking at sheep's liver's to figure out what they're going to do.

Did I ever say they were? But how is looking for arbitrary "signs" from god, whatever those might be, any less arbitrary? You're still not employing rationality in your decision-making process. At least not good rationality.

They could, i dunno, be saying a prayer that they make the correct decision, and be going through a completely rational decision-making process. Truthfully, that's what happens the vast majority of the time with most religious people. (Or at least it's attempted, bu unconscious biases mess with things regardless of religiosity)

Then to them I would say, "What's the point of praying? What's the point of even having a religion?" If your god's will is going to happen no matter what you do, why does anything you do out of supposed "free will" matter?

It's an entirely defeatist attitude and it negates their whole worldview.

Btw, I'm gonna be adding that whole "constantly expecting a sign" thing to my list of false stereotypes about religious people.

In this context we're talking about people in government who make big decisions that effect more than just themselves. People like Bush. Are you tell me he's not "looking for a sign" or something to "guide" him when he prays to his god?

Of course, everyone thinks people with enough knowledge should know better. Most of us just consider it assumed, so it's a waste of breath to actually say it out loud.

But you still haven't answered my question. Your original point was that religion isn't always irrational. I'd like to know how.

All of which is entirely different from showing that one system of ethics is right, or that one aesthetic is beautiful and the other is ugly.

Perhaps that's because these things deal with opinion and not fact. Whether or not a certain supermodel looks hot, or a particular building facade looks beautiful is totally up to the beholder, seeing as how things like beauty are basically defined by whatever catches your fancy.

And I do think science has comments about ethics. If we look at things fundamentally, all organisms have a single unifying responsibility--to themselves, and to survive. That's why we have differing systems of ethics. There isn't any objective morality like some religions tote; it's going to be different for everyone.

 

[Hive]

@alt4- wait what? How can you say that agnosticism has the burden of proof in this case??
The entire point of agnosticism is that there is no reasonable proof either way by nature. (your differences between "strong and weak" agnosticism are artificial btw). It would be up to you to prove that atheism is the only reasonable outcome. A thing which hasen't been proven at all, unless you count strawmanning religious thinkers continually proof. We work from the unknown into known conclusions. We don't start from a predetermined conclusion about the world (atheism) and then try to prove that agnosticism exists. Given that all belief systems outside of nihilism depart from science in some way, and science is in fact the study of what we can logically know, then I would be very interested in how you would "prove" atheism as the only reasonable thought process.

@rdk-
all theists don't look for "signs" on a regular basis. not all theists even believe in signs from nature. many forms of theism are deistic, and many other only employ god as a way of determining ethics, a point for the universe and life after death. I for one don't look for signs everywhere. So your conclusion about this is just generalizing religious thought as a whole into an easily defeatable one for your arguments.

Then to them I would say, "What's the point of praying? What's the point of even having a religion?" If your god's will is going to happen no matter what you do, why does anything you do out of supposed "free will" matter?

this is ironic in the same way that materialism is based around the cause effect interaction of things. What's the point of being atheistic then if atoms are going to determine your will anyways???
You can't defeat this premise without destroying your own.
On a personal level free will can make sense, and besides that, not all theists believe that god determines everything. Many theists actually believe that free will is in fact more important then a controlled environment (the need for free will can override the need for happiness- for example would you rather tie someone up to a chair and administer drugs to them for the rest of their life putting them in a coma making them perfectly content, or would you allow them to make choices in life, and <gasp> allow them to be possibly unhappy?) , and many more believe in exactly the same atomic interactions that you do (i.e. me) and believe that god has other impacts on ethics, life after death, identity and other things that aren't tied to a physical understanding of the world. But also even if you believe that there is fate or that atoms control everything you do, you can still believe in free will situationally. Like I said before, believing people are completely controlled and worthless clumps of atoms makes no moral sense in social situations. A departure from this logic is actually, then, more reasonable.


science has no comments on ethics. period. even in your example, you have to assume that all animals have responsibilities to themselves and to survive, and furthermore that what most animals do (you assume) is indicative of ethical conduct. This is not scientifically true at all. Scientifically the difference between a live animal and a dead one is nothing. they both contain the same amount of mass, and there are no mystical scientific laws that differentiate the value between living things and nonliving things (if there are I would like to see the formula ^^). Science can contribute to ethical understanding, yes, but it doesn't determine them. Case in point, using your example, all organisms inevitably die, right? therefore objectively dying should be an ethical value.

 

[AltF4]

@alt4- wait what? How can you say that agnosticism has the burden of proof in this case??
The entire point of agnosticism is that there is no reasonable proof either way by nature. (your differences between "strong and weak" agnosticism are artificial btw). It would be up to you to prove that atheism is the only reasonable outcome. A thing which hasen't been proven at all, unless you count strawmanning religious thinkers continually proof. We work from the unknown into known conclusions. We don't start from a predetermined conclusion about the world (atheism) and then try to prove that agnosticism exists. Given that all belief systems outside of nihilism depart from science in some way, and science is in fact the study of what we can logically know, then I would be very interested in how you would "prove" atheism as the only reasonable thought process.

I get what you're saying. The problem is mainly with definitions. What exactly is an "agnostic" then? Depending on who you ask, you might get very different answers. I would prefer to use the definition that T.H. Huxley used when he coined the term. But the meaning today seems to have deviated from that.

Adumbrodeus insisted on splitting the definition into two camps: the so called "weak" and "strong" agnostics. These aren't my definitions. I'm just using them because it's what adumbrodeus wanted. And according to that definition, "strong" agnostics do make a claim. Which would have to be supported.


Really, the classification into words like "atheist" "theist", and "agnostic" are a bit of a disservice. In reality, there are degrees of likelihood. The scale goes all the way from 0 (being 100% sure there is a god) to 100 (100% sure there is no god).

But being either a 0 or a 100 is not strictly sound. So really our scale goes from 1 - 99.

At the bottom of the scale, you have theists. At the top of the scale you have atheists. In the middle you have the agnostics. But where exactly do you draw the lines? It's fuzzy. There are no lines.


We all start at the middle of the scale (or at least we should). Therefore agnosticism is the "default" position. This is just as T.H. Huxley described it. Before you have any information, it is only logical to stay in the middle.

But then as you gain information, you can slide up or down the scale. Someone who sees a ghost (or thinks they do) might become more theist. Someone who just discovered that Santa was a lie might become more atheist. (Both trivial examples, so as to not derail the topic)

What I've been trying to say all along is that being agnostic AND an adult is rather difficult, if not impossible. By adulthood, one should very well have been exposed to events that will shape their belief. One would have to lead an exceedingly boring life to not have formed an opinion on the matter.

 

[Hive]

omg alt4 i love you. not really, and i still disagree with much of what you say! but i was just thinking about this yesterday, and almost make a topic about how language and linguistics effects how we think of philosophical problems (and especially how we subdefine belief systems). For example, we use terms like atheism vs. religion and such, but, in reality these two aren't counter points.
atheism is a non belief in god
and religion on the other hand is usually used to imply organized belief systems with social groups.

But the line between them is fuzzy.

For example Deism can actually be called both theistic and nonreligious.
And many forms of Buddhism on the other hand can be called both Atheistic and Religious.

Really these two differences should be religion and non religion, and atheism and theism. But we must also realize that these are artificial lines.
For example, by drawing the line at say, Jewish, and Non-Jewish we can make decisions and show supporting statistics that say all kinds of stuff. Converselely the most defined line I think would be Nihilism vs. Belief in meaning in belief systems, and by approaching it this way we can show other "evidence" as well. I really believe how we define relevant lines/material effects our insights. I also believe that whether people believe in god or not is a very overrated concept, but maybe that's just me. But back to the topic lol. ^^

Agnosticism is a default position, I see what you are saying. But that also doesn't mean that it should be discarded with experience. It provides a backdrop to alternate forms of religious belief and allows psychological adaptability (we can switch beliefs to provide comfort and mental stability). We might become more theist or atheist in time, but we can still admit the possibility of other relevant thoughts as well. Just because we believe something doesn't mean we have to believe it is the only reasonable way to think. Having formed no opinion on the matter would be boring. But not any more boring than it would be if everyone had the same opinion about the universe.
All belief systems have benefits AND flaws, the human mind is not as simple as to only provide one answer to all problems

 

[Reaver197]

Urgh, I keep trying to respond to old posts, but people keep posting new stuff that I feel that I have to respond to. Makes it tough to keep up, lol. I hope people are ok with me dealing with some of the current stuff right now, and then posting my response to older stuff once I can manage it.

@alt4- wait what? How can you say that agnosticism has the burden of proof in this case??
The entire point of agnosticism is that there is no reasonable proof either way by nature. (your differences between "strong and weak" agnosticism are artificial btw). It would be up to you to prove that atheism is the only reasonable outcome. A thing which hasen't been proven at all, unless you count strawmanning religious thinkers continually proof. We work from the unknown into known conclusions. We don't start from a predetermined conclusion about the world (atheism) and then try to prove that agnosticism exists. Given that all belief systems outside of nihilism depart from science in some way, and science is in fact the study of what we can logically know, then I would be very interested in how you would "prove" atheism as the only reasonable thought process.

@rdk-
all theists don't look for "signs" on a regular basis. not all theists even believe in signs from nature. many forms of theism are deistic, and many other only employ god as a way of determining ethics, a point for the universe and life after death. I for one don't look for signs everywhere. So your conclusion about this is just generalizing religious thought as a whole into an easily defeatable one for your arguments.



this is ironic in the same way that materialism is based around the cause effect interaction of things. What's the point of being atheistic then if atoms are going to determine your will anyways???
You can't defeat this premise without destroying your own.
On a personal level free will can make sense, and besides that, not all theists believe that god determines everything. Many theists actually believe that free will is in fact more important then a controlled environment (the need for free will can override the need for happiness- for example would you rather tie someone up to a chair and administer drugs to them for the rest of their life putting them in a coma making them perfectly content, or would you allow them to make choices in life, and <gasp> allow them to be possibly unhappy?) , and many more believe in exactly the same atomic interactions that you do (i.e. me) and believe that god has other impacts on ethics, life after death, identity and other things that aren't tied to a physical understanding of the world. But also even if you believe that there is fate or that atoms control everything you do, you can still believe in free will situationally. Like I said before, believing people are completely controlled and worthless clumps of atoms makes no moral sense in social situations. A departure from this logic is actually, then, more reasonable.


science has no comments on ethics. period. even in your example, you have to assume that all animals have responsibilities to themselves and to survive, and furthermore that what most animals do (you assume) is indicative of ethical conduct. This is not scientifically true at all. Scientifically the difference between a live animal and a dead one is nothing. they both contain the same amount of mass, and there are no mystical scientific laws that differentiate the value between living things and nonliving things (if there are I would like to see the formula ^^). Science can contribute to ethical understanding, yes, but it doesn't determine them. Case in point, using your example, all organisms inevitably die, right? therefore objectively dying should be an ethical value.

I won't try to butt in too much with the debates you're having with specific other people, but I noticed some issues with your arguments. First off, there is the issue, as I've brought up before, of getting proof for the nonexistence of something. While, you can have definitive, tangible proof and evidence for the existence of something, you, by nature, have definitive, tangible proof for something not existing. Instead, what you have to do is take the claimed attributes of whatever is being put forth for consideration, and see if those attributes are in line with evidence that has been tested and verified. If the attributes run in contradiction with said verified evidence, then that would have taken as an indication for the nonexistence of said thing. It's only if you have claims that verified evidence does not run in direct contradiction with but, yet, does not give tangible proof for the existence of the thing either, do you achieve the state of agnosticism. However, people make many claims about many different kinds of gods, and for a great majority of those claims and gods, brings a conflict with known and verified evidence. Like, the common and seemingly innocuous ability for people's god(s) to hear their prayers (whether it is by verbalization or by thinking). I've already given this example before, though, so I'll refrain from repeating the argument, but I will if people would like me to.

Also, your claim that, somehow, nihilism is the only belief system that doesn't depart from science is without any basis. Please just don't state such things without logical reasoning or proof thereof. Science does have a predisposition for valuing things by the essence of how accurate and truthful it is as a representation of how the world works, which, seems to me, to go against the definition of nihilism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

As for life after death, there is no evidence at all that such a phenomena happens, and often calls for things that run in contradiction with other verified evidence, such as the idea of a soul (or some essence of ourselves that is able to continue mental thought without an actual brain structure).

So, if there is no real validity to the claim for the existence of god, arguing for the impact he/she/it has on ethics and identity is fairly absurd and has no real point. You also make the continued assumption that somehow atoms are at heart of what "controls" people. Yes, atoms are necessary for our existence, yet, to say they "control" us is adding a level of cognizance and intent that they patently don't have. Our existence, and actions, are emergent behavior from the overall interaction of atoms and the forces of nature working out to a very unique and complex degree. There is no way anyone could compute out at any given moment the totality of effects and causes of the whole system that makes up a person and "predict" exactly what they are going to do. That's why we attribute a sense of will and agency to living creatures.

Also, to call people a "worthless clump of atoms" is your own subjective prerogative. There is no logic in that, so to say it is necessary to depart from "that" logic is a fallacy, and much more so to say that it is somehow "reasonable".

While science cannot an action is more "right" or "wrong" than another, it can give guidelines to us by giving us information in such as how specific actions will influence others. It also can give reasons for why we have "ethics" and how our senses of it are formed. It can also give guidelines as to what behaviors or actions will be most optimal for out situation or for achieving a particular goal (whatever it may be), and which ones are not. Science can't say that an animal has the responsibility to survive, but, it can give guidance to the what ways are best for it to survive.

Also, yes, there is a measurable difference between dead animals and living ones, and that is enough to make it fall under "science". You are thinking about it purely from one perspective (in this case, mass). There are differences in the dynamics, the ordered state, the actions and processes being undertaken within the body and cells of the creature, and, most notably, the actions a living body take to maintain and preserve a state of equilibrium that is independent of its outside environment.

Your last two lines leave me puzzled. Objectively dying should be an ethical value? What? What does "objectively dying" even mean? And how is at an "ethical value"?

Anyway, I hope to have a response and proper acknowledgment for your previous posts on suicide statistics and such. They were certainly considerable and interesting posts.

 

[RDK]

science has no comments on ethics. period. even in your example, you have to assume that all animals have responsibilities to themselves and to survive, and furthermore that what most animals do (you assume) is indicative of ethical conduct. This is not scientifically true at all.

Sure it is. All it takes is observation.

I assume this as the basis of natural morality / ethics just like I assume the axioms of any scientific investigation (I exist, etc.). Without that first axiom, everything else falls apart, as you're throwing causality out the window.

Scientifically the difference between a live animal and a dead one is nothing.

Umm, also completely not true, at least for someone who knows a lick about biology. Living organisms must demonstrate all of the following characteristics to be considered "living":

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Dead organisms possess none of those characteristics. Thus, they're dead.

Sorry; I digress. Being a biology student, seeing things like that sort of pisses me off.

they both contain the same amount of mass, and there are no mystical scientific laws that differentiate the value between living things and nonliving things (if there are I would like to see the formula ^^).

It's called life.

Science can contribute to ethical understanding, yes, but it doesn't determine them. Case in point, using your example, all organisms inevitably die, right? therefore objectively dying should be an ethical value.

*SIGH*

Dying can't be an ethical value, especially in the moral system I outlined in the last post. In order to be a value, something has to positively contribute to the main purpose, or overall goal of the individual.

Example: In my moral system, I may value two things almost equally (I.E., eating a hamburger, or saving my friend who's about to die). Depending on which value is that much higher to me, that's the value I'm going to go with. To take the lesser value for some other cause besides to directly benefit me is making a sacrifice that doesn't fit with my overall goal or purpose.

If dying were the inherent overall purpose or goal of all organisms, we would have no life today. That's why I proposed that the goal of all life is to A) stay alive, just long enough to B) reproduce / pass on genes. It's observable in nature.

 

[AltF4]

omg alt4 i love you.

lol! Well, I'm glad to hear that.

not really, and i still disagree with much of what you say!

...

but i was just thinking about this yesterday, and almost make a topic about how language and linguistics effects how we think of philosophical problems (and especially how we subdefine belief systems). For example, we use terms like atheism vs. religion and such, but, in reality these two aren't counter points.
atheism is a non belief in god
and religion on the other hand is usually used to imply organized belief systems with social groups.

I like to say (and have said in the past) that the phrase "no pain, no gain" is applicable to both physical activity and mental activity. Only listening to opinions you agree with is unhealthy for the mind. It may pain you to listen to opposing viewpoints, but it makes you stronger.


What I do disagree with you on is the assertion that "science" is somehow not sufficient. That sometimes we "need" religion for some circumstances. I disagree. Atheism is not unfulfilling, nor is it incomplete. I do not require nor want services that religion provides. ...in fact, what are these services, exactly?

 

[Hive]

Also, your claim that, somehow, nihilism is the only belief system that doesn't depart from science is without any basis

How many textbooks/scientists would you like me to quote to prove that science doesn't tell us how to live?
Science doesn't show that we are meaningful, at the very best it is agnostic (it doesn't know). And at the worst it is nihilistic.
The burden of proof that science somehow shows us how be ethical and how to live is on you guys, and so far I haven't heard anything that would constitute proof.
That doesn't mean I don't study science and believe much of science (because I know this assumption is going to try to be pulled, lamely). This means that I recognize its bounds and don't try to attribute fantastical things to it that it doesn't have relation to.

You will never ever ever find a formula based purely on science that dictates that the search for happiness is intrinsically meanigful. The reason that I make this assumption is that it (should be) common sense.

RDK, you missed my point. I don't care what types of things are used to define something as alive in a biology textbook. And I wasn't saying that being alive and dead are similar in definition. What I was trying to say that being alive or dead has no difference in value scientifically, without adding other assumptions that aren't based in science. Science doesn't care whether an orgainism is alive or dead, and does not say that either is better.


What you are saying doesn't show ethics. Defining something doesn't constitute ethics. (And also some points are very debatable. Computer Viruses for example are argued to be living by stephen hawking since they can reproduce, etc.. but don't qualify for "metabolism." We could be computer simulations for example, but we would still be alive. And the "reproduction" part is debatable too. old people-> can't reproduce/don't grow anymore-> not alive. wait, what?) But that's not the point.

You keep saying these definitions for life like they mean something more than just a definition. If you want to live, yes, you should have cellular organization and brain activity, etc.. to be alive. But this desire to live, and the desire to be happy, etc... all have no scientific priority than other beliefs and emotions! Science doesn't show any inherent value between a dead thing and a living thing. In order to prove that you would need to show that an assembly of atoms with organization, etc... has more scientific value than another group of atoms. which it doesn't.

Nothing you have said can even show that (even after you've defined life) that life is inherently more meaningful than death. Just because something happens more often doesn't show value either, only predictability. This is why i used the death example. death is definable, it happens in all animals, and on a gentic level biological processes cause it, however, these being true doesn't constitute an ethic.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I could very well say the same of you. In fact, I will. Next.




All of this came from a diversion that you made.

We talked about the difference between "weak" and "strong" agnosticism. Weak, we decided, was merely the belief that the existence of a god is currently unknown. This isn;t much of a belief as it is a fact. The "god question" (as Dawkins puts it) is currently "unsolved". So weak agnosticism isn't very interesting.

"Strong" agnostics are more interesting. They make a claim. This claim is that the "god question" is UNKNOWABLE. I asked you multiple times for a justification for this claim, and received nothing.

Therefore, by your own standards I will conclude that you have no answer, and agree that agnosticism is unfounded, therefore a "cop-out".

Instead of actually answering the question, you only tried to confuse the subjects of knowability and falsifiability. They are entirely separate and independent. Agnsoticism does not concern itself with falsifiability, only knowability.

And here I was assuming that you were presenting this as a side-topic.


Quite simply you're confusing "correct" and "cop-out".

Cop-out as defined by this thread is an "evasion of a position" as opposed to a position itself.

Being incorrect doesn't make one's position a cop-out or unjustified, it just makes one incorrect or unjustified.


Come on, you had to know I'd see through that.



Regardless, you know I'm correct in regards to scientific paradigms, they aren't equivalent but falsifiability is a requirement for any commentary period.

Still, I have no desire to prove agnosticism as the justified position.

Did I ever say they were? But how is looking for arbitrary "signs" from god, whatever those might be, any less arbitrary? You're still not employing rationality in your decision-making process. At least not good rationality.

What exactly did you think I was trying to get across with that?

Because I can tell from your response that you had no clue what I was trying to say.

Then to them I would say, "What's the point of praying? What's the point of even having a religion?" If your god's will is going to happen no matter what you do, why does anything you do out of supposed "free will" matter?

It's an entirely defeatist attitude and it negates their whole worldview.

That had no reference to "God's plan".

It's merely asking for insight, which is useful, especially when one considers lateral thinking.

In this context we're talking about people in government who make big decisions that effect more than just themselves. People like Bush. Are you tell me he's not "looking for a sign" or something to "guide" him when he prays to his god?

Truthfully I don't know whether he's expecting from God, he could be expecting a sign, he could be asking for insight, he could want a whole number of things.

All we know for sure is that he has bad decision-making skills and a good amount of megalomania.

But you still haven't answered my question. Your original point was that religion isn't always irrational. I'd like to know how.

Oh really? Funny I thought I said...

Of course, this doesn't bother to address the underlying assumption that religion in general is irrational in the first place.

And just before I gave my thesis in regards to this:

The fact is, as I pointed out, there is a sliding scale of rationality vs. irrationality. Nobody falls completely on one end or another, and most religious people are no more illogical then non-religious in their everyday dealings.

So no, that wasn't my point at all, it was in fact, something I chose specifically and explicitly not to address.

So I will not answer your question because I chose not to take take up that issue, at least in this thread.

Perhaps that's because these things deal with opinion and not fact. Whether or not a certain supermodel looks hot, or a particular building facade looks beautiful is totally up to the beholder, seeing as how things like beauty are basically defined by whatever catches your fancy.

And I do think science has comments about ethics. If we look at things fundamentally, all organisms have a single unifying responsibility--to themselves, and to survive. That's why we have differing systems of ethics. There isn't any objective morality like some religions tote; it's going to be different for everyone.

It can comment on motivations and the like, but not the thing itself.

Fundamental question: "What do you want?"
Fundamental answer: "A life full of sex, drugs, violence, and awesome feelings."
Philosophical question: "What looks beautiful?"
Philosophical answer: "Anything that gets me sex, drugs, or respect."

What you want is the most fundamental question of anything. Whether you even exist is a stupid question next to what you want. So, what is the "fundamental" question you're thinking of?

Edit:
The kind of thing you're looking for seems to me like exactly the kind of religious "truth" that christians use in morality, some simple set of universal absolute rules for what is beauty and what isn't.

Your understanding seems concerned with rules, and not with the rules which rule the rules.

(Sorry, computer keeps hitting back and forth on the pages, excuse the edits)

Anyway, it's not "What's beauty" but "What decides what is beauty?" It's not "What is right" but "What decides what right is?" Once you answer the recursive question, the answer to the simple question becomes obvious. But if you can't think at that recusive level you'll be stuck like that forever.

It's the same with this topic, if you're not too busy, read my post, it's the last one in there :
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=222105

Concluding: Science can't tell you what is right, and it can't tell you what decides what right is, but it is one tool you have to make the decision. (i.e. what do you decide you're going to believe is the deciding criteria about what makes something right or wrong)

Let's try to make points which have a point next time.

Ah, but you haven't really established that it actually sets the rules as opposed to some pre-existing ruleset which these measurable factors cause people to come closer to or further from.

Which brings it all back to square one.

So while the recursion issue is an interestedly topic, it goes far beyond the scope of this thread, and I don't think it can actually establish anything of value since the question in the first place is whether the "rules that define the rules" actually define the rules in the first place or merely came about (either as a result or totally independently).

 

[AltF4]

And here I was assuming that you were presenting this as a side-topic.


Quite simply you're confusing "correct" and "cop-out".

Cop-out as defined by this thread is an "evasion of a position" as opposed to a position itself.

Being incorrect doesn't make one's position a cop-out or unjustified, it just makes one incorrect or unjustified.


Come on, you had to know I'd see through that.

See through what? Believing in something you accept is incorrect (or at best unfounded) is not a cop-out? Agnosticism is generally regarded as being "in the middle" between atheism and theism. So it's pretty clear why someone would choose it, despite accepting that it is incorrect.:

They wish to avoid debate.

Regardless, you know I'm correct in regards to scientific paradigms, they aren't equivalent but falsifiability is a requirement for any commentary period.

Falsifiability is a requirement to even bother talking about something. If a system is unfalsifiable, then it cannot (by definition) have any effect on the world. So there's no point in even talking about unfalsifiable things.

I think you're tripping up in assuming that all gods are unfalsifiable. They are not. You can divide them up into two groups: unfalsifiable and falsifiable.

Throw away the unfalsifiable ones. They are pointless.

Now we are left with a set of gods that are both falsifiable and (presumably) knowable. They can be written out as a fully fledged scientific theory. Thus science surely IS capable of commenting on them.

You might catch me (or others) calling religions "unscientific". This is not to mean that their god is unfalsifiable (which may coincidentally also be the case) but rather that they do not follow the scientific method. They do not examine evidence rationally.


You might have to recall two things I said previously:

1) You needn't observe something to falsify it. Observability and falsifiability are not exactly equivalent. (The IPU being falsified, as an example)

2) Refusing to accept that your god is falsified, does not change the fact. For example, Omnipotence and Omniscience are mutually exclusive in EXACTLY the same manner that being Invisible and Pink are mutually exclusive. Therefore the standard christian god is out. (Not matter how many times you see a priest try to describe it as a "cosmic mystery")

Still, I have no desire to prove agnosticism as the justified position.

I didn't think so.

 

[RDK]

RDK, you missed my point. I don't care what types of things are used to define something as alive in a biology textbook.

Well now I'm confused. What other definition is there?

The whole point of my posting that was to show you that, scientifically, there is a difference between a living organism and a dead one. In fact, there's 7 differences--the ones I just posted.

 

[adumbrodeus]

See through what? Believing in something you accept is incorrect (or at best unfounded) is not a cop-out? Agnosticism is generally regarded as being "in the middle" between atheism and theism. So it's pretty clear why someone would choose it, despite accepting that it is incorrect.:

They wish to avoid debate.

But you're making the assumption that THEY think that it's incorrect or unfounded.

I think it's incorrect or unfounded, but you can't assume that an agnostic believes even remotely the same as I do because I am *gasp* not an agnostic.

Attempting to use a THEIST as a case study about AGNOSTICISM is intellectually dishonest and illogical. You can't even generalize off of individual agnostics.


Sure, you can posit why somebody might accept it, even while disagreeing with it, but for this to hold any weight you have to prove that agnostics actually think as you think they do.


We've established that agnostics have actual positions (which you admitted) so the only route open to you is to prove that agnostics, without exception, believe agnosticism is unjustified in order to justify the assertion that agnosticism itself is a cop-out.


As I said before, good luck with that.

Falsifiability is a requirement to even bother talking about something. If a system is unfalsifiable, then it cannot (by definition) have any effect on the world. So there's no point in even talking about unfalsifiable things.

Oh?

What if it's merely something that cannot be traced to that specific entity, or intervention in general. Or what if there's simply no way to construct it as anything other then an existential statement?

Regardless, the issue at hand was never whether it had any point, the issue is truth (always been more a fan of pure science then applied science).

That means that paradigms that do not require falsifiability are free to comment.

I think you're tripping up in assuming that all gods are unfalsifiable. They are not. You can divide them up into two groups: unfalsifiable and falsifiable.

And where did I say that?

I even mentioned falsifiable gods previously.

Throw away the unfalsifiable ones. They are pointless.

In a scientific context they are pointless.

But again, the reverse is true, the paradigm of science is pointless for things that are unfalsifiable.

Now we are left with a set of gods that are both falsifiable and (presumably) knowable. They can be written out as a fully fledged scientific theory. Thus science surely IS capable of commenting on them.

Which is true, but we were talking primarily about unfalsifiable Gods from the beginning, and my "science cannot comment on them" comment was explicitly directed at those which aren't falsifiable.

1) You needn't observe something to falsify it. Observability and falsifiability are not exactly equivalent. (The IPU being falsified, as an example)

I never pretended they were, but from the context of the scientific paradigm, unknowability follows from unfalsifibility.

2) Refusing to accept that your god is falsified, does not change the fact. For example, Omnipotence and Omniscience are mutually exclusive in EXACTLY the same manner that being Invisible and Pink are mutually exclusive. Therefore the standard christian god is out. (Not matter how many times you see a priest try to describe it as a "cosmic mystery")

And feel free to create a thread where we can discuss the contradiction (since again, it falls outside the scope of the thread).

Otherwise I will merely say that you are incorrect.

 

[AltF4]

Attempting to use a THEIST as a case study about AGNOSTICISM is intellectually dishonest and illogical.

You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the religious affiliation of every member of the debate hall by name. I didn't even know you were a theist.

You can't even generalize off of individual agnostics.

We've established that agnostics have actual positions (which you admitted) so the only route open to you is to prove that agnostics, without exception, believe agnosticism is unjustified in order to justify the assertion that agnosticism itself is a cop-out.

...and yes I can generalize on the basis of individuals. What the hell do you think generalizations ARE?

I don't have to prove anything without exception to make a generalization. If I did that, I'd be proving it unequivocally. Not generalizing. Generalizing lets me make statements that are generally true.

...hence the word generalization...

Oh?

What if it's merely something that cannot be traced to that specific entity

This would violate causality. Every effect has one cause. And the information about this relationship cannot be destroyed.

or intervention in general. Or what if there's simply no way to construct it as anything other then an existential statement?

By "intervention" I suppose you mean "divine intervention" yes? This also violates causality.

Regardless, the issue at hand was never whether it had any point, the issue is truth.

Well, if you want to debate about things you admit have no point, then go ahead. You can do so at the kids table with the rest of the philosophers.

In a scientific context they are pointless.

There are other contexts?

 

[aeghrur]

Wait, every effect has a cause?
What's the cause of energy?

 

[AltF4]

Wait, every effect has a cause?
What's the cause of energy?

Yes. It's called the principle of causality. It is a basic axiom that must be assumed.


And by "what is the cause of energy?", I assume you mean "Matter and energy exist today, so where did they come from? What created them?"

Well the answer is pretty obvious: What makes you assume that they were created? They didn't have to be.

(Note: this is off-topic. A more full discussion on this would be ample subject for its own thread)

 

[adumbrodeus]

You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the religious affiliation of every member of the debate hall by name. I didn't even know you were a theist.

No, of course you didn't. But you assumed that simply because I chose to defend agnosticism as not being a cop-out, even after I explicitly displayed behavior that I said should not be attributed to agnostics as par the course (namely, refusing to defend the position itself as justified).

From that you should've concluded that I was anything but an agnostic because then I could've presented myself as a counter-example. If you had read carefully you should've come to that conclusion rather quickly.


So in essence you made two hasty generalization fallacies to support your point, the first was that I was an agnostic (in other words, generalizing that only agnostics defend agnosticism period), and the second was generalizing my behavior to all agnostics.

...and yes I can generalize on the basis of individuals. What the hell do you think generalizations ARE?

I don't have to prove anything without exception to make a generalization. If I did that, I'd be proving it unequivocally. Not generalizing. Generalizing lets me make statements that are generally true.

...hence the word generalization...

Quite simply no. "Generalization" is a logical/mathematical concept that refers to an attribute being shared by the entire set you're generalizing to, not just "most".


You've been dodging a formal proof this entire time because you were trying to prove that the philosophy is a cop-out in and of itself due to the philosophy not having a position, but since you admitted this is not the case, you have only that option left.

You must prove a formal generalization that agnostics utilize it as a cop-out with-out exception if you wish to prove the philosophy itself is a cop-out without referring to the philosophy's beliefs.

This would violate causality. Every effect has one cause. And the information about this relationship cannot be destroyed.



By "intervention" I suppose you mean "divine intervention" yes? This also violates causality.

And how do we know that everything in existence has to follow strict linear causality?

Well, if you want to debate about things you admit have no point, then go ahead. You can do so at the kids table with the rest of the philosophers.

Hey wait, what does the thread title say? Could this be a thread about "philosophy"?

I saved a seat for you.

There are other contexts?

Oh, there are plenty of other paradigms for discussing the universe. We'd be here all day if I named them all.

 

[AltF4]

I think it's safe to break from quote-reply format.

You sure do seem to suffer from "Yossarian Sydrome" (do you guys remember him!) whereby you bring in your own definition to terms and apply them to us, who do not mean what you are meaning.

Do you seriously think I'm talking about mathematical generalization? No. And if so, you're being absurd. We're not in math class. Why would I mean that, as opposed to the normal usage of the word? Even after I painstakingly made clear (twice) that I was talking about the normal usage of the word "generalization", to mean that something is mostly true, you STILL insisted that I use YOUR definition of the word.

How absurd! Does it get any more absurd?

I even had to go down a long road of suppositions with you just to accommodate your opinion of what agnosticism is. (which, by the way, is not what the vast majority of people who say they are "agnostic" are meaning) I guarantee that if you asked your typical agnostic if they were "weak"or "strong" they'd have no clue what you're talking about. They mean it as "a half way point between the religious and atheist. They give both sides credit and consideration."

Actually, I lied, I will quote something:

And how do we know that everything in existence has to follow strict linear causality?

When you start doubting causality, it is grounds for ending discussion. And so I shall.

 

[RDK]

I don't mean to pile on, but as the OP poster, I think I should probably bring us back to exactly what the OP prompted.[/COLOR]

The main point of this thread is to make the assertion that agnosticism is, in regards to belief in a supernatural deity or power, completely unfounded and unnecessary. Just as I am not an "agnostic" about whether or not the Earth is round or flat (I myself have not traveled the world or viewed the Earth from space in order to personally glean enough information to prove it), there is no sufficient reason to take up an agnostic stance towards potential deities. If there is no sufficient reason given, then we are rationally justified in selecting atheism.

Yes, this thread is indirectly related to philosophy, but not actually about philosophy. The point of making this thread was to show why agnosticism is an irrational position when modern science comes into play, and why a healthy skepticism of the kind of things agnostics take stock in is needed.

So no, this thread isn't exactly about philosophy. It's about why, in light of scientific evidence (or the lack thereof) a certain philosophical viewpoint should be considered invalid.

And seriously? You're suddenly going to doubt the role causality plays in existence?

You sure do seem to suffer from "Yossarian Sydrome" (do you guys remember him!) whereby you bring in your own definition to terms and apply them to us, who do not mean what you are meaning.

OMG this made my day.

 

[Hive]

Well now I'm confused. What other definition is there?

The whole point of my posting that was to show you that, scientifically, there is a difference between a living organism and a dead one. In fact, there's 7 differences--the ones I just posted.

i see. i'm sorry if i misunderstood where you were going with that. i know that there are differences between how we define living and dead things... I'm not trying to argue that lol. ^^
What I'm saying is is that (in a strict scientific sense) the value of an animal being in one of these states compared to the other is indifferent. That unless you add beliefs/desires outside of science, science views these two outcomes as similar in value (not definition). sorry about that!


@alt4 the principle of causality doesn't cover everything....
for example the theistic argument of cosmology is based entirely around the premise of everything having a cause, but I would argue against this, that in fact things can exist without having a cause.
What is the cause of the universe for example? Or what is the cause of the laws in the universe being how they are? What is the cause of the unvierse existing in this way at all? Because these things are infinite in nature (supposedly) I would argue against a cause for them. However, I also believe other factors can be without cause as well. What is the cause of random fluctuations in subatomic particle positions for example? And other quantum phenomena, I think are random by nature and don't have a set cause. I suppose you could try to say that the cause is the quantum laws that govern them, but idk, this seems like a copout to me, basically saying something is caused by the laws that you make to define them.
This doesn't mean that everything doesn't have a cause, what I'm saying is some things do. And also just because something doesn't have a cause doesn't mean its not, in some way, predictable.

edit: just because causality doesn't hold true for every situation doesn't mean that we can't still apply logic, or predict the outcome possibilities of the random motions.

late edit: good **** zero beat! ^^ <likes graph>

 

[Zero Beat]

I've been trying to forge a visual image of this debate for a while now, here goes:

Instead of targeting someone in specific, I am going to address the original post.

If you've been in the arena of atheism for any period of time, you'd know quite well that agnosticism means not knowing. Not believing is something entirely different.

Words to know:
Gnostic = Knowing
Agnostic = Not Knowing
Theist = Believes in god
Atheist = Not Believing in god

Visual representation:

This doesn't even need to go into the two forms of agnosticism. This is just about how there's two different spectrums: Belief, and knowledge.

You can say the following:
"I don't know, but I don't believe" and be an agnostic atheist(light cyan). Or, "I know there is no god" and be a gnostic atheist. (Dark cyan)

"I don't know there's a god, but I believe in one." Light red(agnostic-theist)

"I know there's a God and I believe in Him." Dark red(gnostic-theist)

^^^Refer to the picture.

Original post states: |Theist<----->Agnostic<------>Atheist|. But it's two dimensional, not one-dimensional.

Hope this cleared some doubts or verified existing viewpoints.

 

[Mediocre]

I agree with Zero Beat on this one, actually.

As someone who considers myself both an agnostic and an atheist, I don't feel like I'm "coping out" in any way.

I'm simply disbelieving in God, and at the same time acknowledging that I don't have any actual evidence to back up that belief. I generally don't believe in things that I've never seen any evidence for, even if I haven't seen anything that actually disproves them either.



Also...

When you start doubting causality, it is grounds for ending discussion. And so I shall.

Good choice, I think.

If you chose to ignore the laws of the universe when debating, you can do that. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If we were having a debate about how many planets were in the solar system, and I said, "Yeah, but how do we know the planets revolve around the sun because of gravity?" I would not expect anyone to take me seriously after I said this.

Denying that the law of cause and effect is real is pretty much on the same level.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think it's safe to break from quote-reply format.

You sure do seem to suffer from "Yossarian Sydrome" (do you guys remember him!) whereby you bring in your own definition to terms and apply them to us, who do not mean what you are meaning.

Do you seriously think I'm talking about mathematical generalization? No. And if so, you're being absurd. We're not in math class. Why would I mean that, as opposed to the normal usage of the word? Even after I painstakingly made clear (twice) that I was talking about the normal usage of the word "generalization", to mean that something is mostly true, you STILL insisted that I use YOUR definition of the word.

How absurd! Does it get any more absurd?

I don't know, I checked the dictionary definition of the word, and here's what I found.

1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. Logic .
a. a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b. the process of obtaining such propositions.
4. Psychology .
a. Also called stimulus generalization. the act or process of responding to a stimulus similar to but distinct from the conditioned stimulus.
b. Also called response generalization. the act or process of making a different but similar response to the same stimulus.
c. Also called mediated generalization. the act or process of responding to a stimulus not physically similar to the conditioned stimulus and not previously encountered in conditioning.
d. the act or process of perceiving similarity or relation between different stimuli, as between words, colors, sounds, lights, concepts or feelings; the formation of a general notion.

Hmmm, isn't mathematical generalization one of the dictionary definitions here?


Furthermore, did I not explicitly say on several occasions that I was referring to "for all"? Thus making it generalization in the mathematical sense?


Ok, you can keep attempting to dodge your proof by throwing up excuses, but I think it's pretty obvious what you're attempting to do here.

I even had to go down a long road of suppositions with you just to accommodate your opinion of what agnosticism is. (which, by the way, is not what the vast majority of people who say they are "agnostic" are meaning) I guarantee that if you asked your typical agnostic if they were "weak"or "strong" they'd have no clue what you're talking about. They mean it as "a half way point between the religious and atheist. They give both sides credit and consideration."

Just because people don't realize they fall into a category doesn't make it any less applicable to them. Regardless of whether they know it or not, the people that you're talking about would probably fall into a subcategory of weak atheists.

Actually, I lied, I will quote something:



When you start doubting causality, it is grounds for ending discussion. And so I shall.

Way to overreact on an aside/thought experiment...

I don't mean to pile on, but as the OP poster, I think I should probably bring us back to exactly what the OP prompted.



Yes, this thread is indirectly related to philosophy, but not actually about philosophy. The point of making this thread was to show why agnosticism is an irrational position when modern science comes into play, and why a healthy skepticism of the kind of things agnostics take stock in is needed.

So no, this thread isn't exactly about philosophy. It's about why, in light of scientific evidence (or the lack thereof) a certain philosophical viewpoint should be considered invalid.

Whether or not philosophy is the paradigm by which we're exploring it, it is a commentary on philosophy.

Also...



Good choice, I think.

If you chose to ignore the laws of the universe when debating, you can do that. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If we were having a debate about how many planets were in the solar system, and I said, "Yeah, but how do we know the planets revolve around the sun because of gravity?" I would not expect anyone to take me seriously after I said this.

Denying that the law of cause and effect is real is pretty much on the same level.

As I said, more of a thought experimental then anything else.

A thought about whether there are locations where because of immense differences in how the laws of physics work, ultimately causality works very differently.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

I think part of the problem is that the definition of Agnosticism isn't always that certain.

I had a friend who said he was an agnostic. However, he said this as well: "I do believe in a God, I just think that Christianity has it wrong."

That isn't being an agnostic. That's being a monotheist.

EDIT:
Zero Beat: I heartily disagree with your two-dimensional model. In a sense, it contradicts itself.

You can say the following:
"I don't know, but I don't believe" and be an agnostic atheist(light cyan). Or, "I know there is no god" and be a gnostic atheist. (Dark cyan)

"I don't know there's a god, but I believe in one." Light red

"I know there's a God and I believe in Him." Dark red

Two statements here don't work. "I don't know, but I don't believe" and "I don't know there's a god, but I believe in one" simply seem impossible. If you didn't know, there's no way to entirely believe whether there is a god or not. I feel these statements suggest that there isn't 100% belief.

I'm looking at it this way: both of the statements say "I don't know ___, but I believe ___." There isn't a noticeable difference between knowing and believing in this situation. If someone knows something, then do they REALLY know it? Knowledge of a fact is the same as believing in it 100%. A person might say that he KNOWS 2+2=5. With 100% of his consciousness, he believes it to be true. I, on the other hand, KNOW that to be false. All my life, I have completely believed that 2+2 does not equal five, but rather it equals four. One of us might be wrong, one of us might be right.

Therefore, I think the "|Theist<----->Agnostic<------>Atheist|" one-dimensional model still stands.

 

[Aesir]

EDIT:
Zero Beat: I heartily disagree with your two-dimensional model. In a sense, it contradicts itself.

Two statements here don't work. "I don't know, but I don't believe" and "I don't know there's a god, but I believe in one" simply seem impossible. If you didn't know, there's no way to entirely believe whether there is a god or not. I feel these statements suggest that there isn't 100% belief.

I'm looking at it this way: both of the statements say "I don't know ___, but I believe ___." There isn't a noticeable difference between knowing and believing in this situation. If someone knows something, then do they REALLY know it? Knowledge of a fact is the same as believing in it 100%. A person might say that he KNOWS 2+2=5. With 100% of his consciousness, he believes it to be true. I, on the other hand, KNOW that to be false. All my life, I have completely believed that 2+2 does not equal five, but rather it equals four. One of us might be wrong, one of us might be right.

Therefore, I think the "|Theist<----->Agnostic<------>Atheist|" one-dimensional model still stands.

I disagree with this disagreement.

You can be unsure but still believe, it's a very common thing we all do it.

For instance when you go to bed in the morning you don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, however you believe it will. The same is for some skeptical theists, they may not know god exists, but they may chose to believe in him anyway because it's the most reasonable assumption to them.

For instance many pascal wager advocates would probably fall under the agnostic theist model.

 

[Reaver197]

It seems he is simply mistaking the meaning intended by Zero Beat. Zero was trying to simply make a graph that represents the range of the belief (theist to atheist), and the degree of certainty they hold of their position.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

Aesir: I suppose I made the mistake of not giving the example of not having 100% belief. In fact, this hardly ever happens. 51% belief in god means, as you said, that this person believes the most probable assumption is that god exists.

But what I think you and Zero Beat are thinking is that you need a two-dimensional model in order to be halfway between two ideas. I'll explain with my own pictures why the two-dimensional model does not work.

This looks nice. It's square, colorful, and simple. The idea of agnosticism is even more simple.

In this model, the four corners represent varying extremes: gnostic atheism, gnostic theism, agnostic atheism, and agnostic theism. Those last two extremes don't exist. The closer one gets to agnosticism, they become less and less of a theist or atheist. Agnostic theism is like saying "I completely believe in a god, but I really have no idea." This does not make sense. A better way to make this model is to make a triangle, where distance from theism or atheism is inversely related to the distance from agnosticism.

That looks a little more simple, but we can go further.

Now take a look at the top. The two extremes make sense; Gnostic theism and gnostic atheism. But what about in between these extremes? "I'm absolutely sure that I only partially believe in a god." This one is tricky; you can say this and still have it make sense. However, for the purposes of our model, it does not. While this person is absolutely sure, they only PARTIALLY believe in a god. Agnostic. This person is agnostic. You can't go in between gnostic atheism and gnostic theism and turn out with anything but gnostic agnosticism, and I'm positive that we can all agree that gnostic agnosticism makes no logical sense.

This logical inconsistency is solved by cutting out the middle ground between the two gnostic extremes, and this is what we get:

But wait a moment...this looks familiar...ah yes, the one-dimensional model. If you take this and fold it out, it is now a line. |Theist<----->Agnostic<------>Atheist|. There is no middle ground between theism and atheism other than agnosticism.

EDIT: And please don't be mistaken; there is still middle ground in the one-dimensional model. You can be between atheist and agnostic, or between theist and agnostic. You can't be between theist and atheist, however, without being agnostic.

 

[Aesir]

No, do you even understand the difference between belief and knowledge? You can not know something, we all lack knowledge in certain areas but that can't stop you from not believing or believing in them. The idea that Belief and knowledge are somehow the same is a little out there.

For instance you can apply this model many other things. Aliens, Bigfoot, leprechauns, ect..

(a)gnostic is a knowledge stance, and (a)theism is a belief stance.

 

[Zero Beat]

I believe I was as clear was HOLY WATER.

I even nicely defined all of the terms, I mean, just read people:

Words to know:
Gnostic = Knowing
Agnostic = Not Knowing
Theist = Believes in god
Atheist = Not Believing in god

 

[Mewter]

Aesir: I suppose I made the mistake of not giving the example of not having 100% belief. In fact, this hardly ever happens. 51% belief in god means, as you said, that this person believes the most probable assumption is that god exists.

But what I think you and Zero Beat are thinking is that you need a two-dimensional model in order to be halfway between two ideas. I'll explain with my own pictures why the two-dimensional model does not work.

Oh, it works. Just think, "I believe with all my heart there is a/no god and I do (not) know for sure."
You can say, I know for sure(certainty) we'll never know if god(s) exists or not, which is top middle, or you can say (with uncertainty) we'll never know if a god(s) exists or not. These are strong and weak agnosticism, respectively.
Top right is saying with utter certainty that god(s) do not exist( a complete and stupid mistake) and the top left is saying with total certainty that god(s) exists. The bottom ones are vice versa. Even if these don't make sense, they exist. Better yet, this graph shows varying degrees.
And, for all intents and purposes, it is better kept as two dimensional, as it adds more dimensions that are not available in a one dimensional line. Can a line show the extra dimension of knowledge/certainty? No, even though having it adds more preciseness and meaning.
Edit: I'm not necessarily against the triangular strip. In fact, I like it more than a line going |Theist<----->Agnostic<------>Atheist