Agnosticism: The Philosophical Cop-Out

[pyrotek7x7]

It's obvious I'm outnumbered here. I'll make my last case, it's about all I have left to try to spread my argument.

There isn't a single person on the planet who KNOWS whether god exists or not. If there was any solid proof, ANY proof at all that somebody was right, there would be a lot less arguing over religion and lot more converting.

But there is not proof. Nobody knows. When it comes to religion, it is always belief, always faith. That two-dimensional model may work for other things, but not for religion. Not even close.


Also, certainty and belief? Certainty does not exist, it is simply an illusion. It's when somebody absolutely believes in something. If I say "I am certain that I don't need to breath to live" you will think I am stupid, insane, or trying to prove a point. All this means is that I believe with 100% of my being that I don't need to breath in order to live. I don't know anything.

 

[Aesir]

It's obvious I'm outnumbered here. I'll make my last case, it's about all I have left to try to spread my argument.

There isn't a single person on the planet who KNOWS whether god exists or not. If there was any solid proof, ANY proof at all that somebody was right, there would be a lot less arguing over religion and lot more converting.

But there is not proof. Nobody knows. When it comes to religion, it is always belief, always faith. That two-dimensional model may work for other things, but not for religion. Not even close.

Here's the problem with your reasoning. It assumes everyone thinks logically and has the same standard of approval as you or I. I'm going to assume you need some kind of evidence to claim you know something. However many people are different, my mother for instance claims to KNOW god exists, because she's been through trauma in her life or what have you. Something about feeling like she was aided by a divine force that has to be god. To her she knows god exists.

There's a difference between Knowledge and Truth.

The two dimensional model works quite fine for religion too, there are many theists who simply don't know if god exists but they chose to believe anyway for whatever reason. Like I said before Knowledge and Belief are two separate things.

Also, certainty and belief? Certainty does not exist, it is simply an illusion. It's when somebody absolutely believes in something. If I say "I am certain that I don't need to breath to live" you will think I am stupid, insane, or trying to prove a point. All this means is that I believe with 100% of my being that I don't need to breath in order to live. I don't know anything.

I think you're just getting terms confused at this point. Just because you have knowledge in something doesn't mean it's the correct knowledge or if it's true or not. It simple means you know something.

 

[Zero Beat]

Yossarian, I am 100% certain you have no idea what you are talking about. You're right about one thing, you clearly don't know anything.

 

[Mewter]

There is a misunderstanding here. When we say knowing, we mean the person in question believes that they know the truth, or how sure they are of themselves. Of course objective knowledge would not fit in that graph, but the person's judgement of their own knowledge or opinion works perfectly. That is what it is supposed to represent. Basically, the vertical scale represents "I am uncertain/could be wrong" to "I am right". That is what it is supposed to be, if I'm not mistaken. I apologize for all the times I said knowledge. That was poorly worded.

Now that that is cleared up, it is safe to say that yes, saying, "I don't need to breathe in order to live." is kind of out there, and that in turn is crazy. Up there ^ is what I assume the graph to mean. Now let's ask Zero Beat if that is what the vertical scale represents.

Edit: Thus, weak (a)theist/agnostic are born from this graph. You can look at it and say."Yeah, this looks exactly like what a weak agnostic is! It seems this guy is not inclined toward either side, but he is also unsure of himself. Thus, he is bottom-middle!"

 

[pyrotek7x7]

I will admit I'm getting a little out of hand with this "knowledge/belief" subject. I'll drop that and say I was wrong.

About the model, though, I'll try to say some of what I've said already but slightly differently. In Zero Beat's model, where left is theism and right is atheism, what's in the middle? I need this explained to me for me to continue.

 

[Mewter]

I will admit I'm getting a little out of hand with this "knowledge/belief" subject. I'll drop that and say I was wrong.

About the model, though, I'll try to say some of what I've said already but slightly differently. In Zero Beat's model, where left is theism and right is atheism, what's in the middle? I need this explained to me for me to continue.

Agnosticism. The position of not knowing, I assume. But once you start raising the level of certainty, you end up with someone who blatantly assumes there is no way to say if God exists or not. Of course, this makes no sense. But then again, to other people with differing viewpoints, holding a top right or top left position is just as equally crazy, so I guess those should be cut out of the picture, too? But wait, people like that are realistically possible.

Obviously, this is different from talking about gods or religions in general, in which the meaning of atheism changes a bit. But in the context of one specific god.... Grrrr, semantics.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

Agnosticism. The position of not knowing, I assume.

So agnosticism is in between theism and atheism? Are you sure about this? Think about how that completely destroys the two-dimensional model and is exactly what the one-dimensional model states. I'd like an additional opinion on the answer to my question, preferably from the creator of the model himself, Zero Beat. So I ask again, in Zero Beat's model, where left is theism and right is atheism, what's in the middle (of the horizontal axis)?

But then again, to other people with differing viewpoints, holding a top right or top left position is just as equally crazy, so I guess those should be cut out of the picture, too? But wait, people like that are realistically possible.

The top left and top right of the model are fine, as you are suggesting and as I have previously said.


(please note that the only subject I have been debating is how to illustrate varying degrees and types of religious thought. I've never said anything is crazy or stupid, I'm simply suggesting that some things are logically inconsistent and entirely impossible.)

 

[Mewter]

So agnosticism is in between theism and atheism? Are you sure about this? Think about how that completely destroys the two-dimensional model and is exactly what the one-dimensional model states. I'd like an additional opinion on the answer to my question, preferably from the creator of the model himself, Zero Beat. So I ask again, in Zero Beat's model, where left is theism and right is atheism, what's in the middle (of the horizontal axis)?

Ah, I see what you are saying, now. Haha. What is in the middle? Maybe it's saying "God's existence is unknowable," because that would make a lot more sense. Accounting for the "there is no God" on the right and "God exists" on the left, that's the only option left.

(please note that the only subject I have been debating is how to illustrate varying degrees and types of religious thought. I've never said anything is crazy or stupid, I'm simply suggesting that some things are logically inconsistent and entirely impossible.)

I know.

 

[Reaver197]

So agnosticism is in between theism and atheism? Are you sure about this? Think about how that completely destroys the two-dimensional model and is exactly what the one-dimensional model states. I'd like an additional opinion on the answer to my question, preferably from the creator of the model himself, Zero Beat. So I ask again, in Zero Beat's model, where left is theism and right is atheism, what's in the middle (of the horizontal axis)?

I assumed that what Zero Beat was trying to get at was the range of the belief of what kind of god there is. Like, far left, deep red theist might believe in a god that actively follows, intervenes, and controls human affairs. Whereas, more towards the gray area, people might believe in a deistic-esque god, one that set up the nature of the universe, but does not follow nor involve itself in the affairs of man. Leaning more towards atheistic, the interpretation of "god" may be be less of a conscientious being, but more akin to being like a physical law of nature; controlling, but no personality, objective, or particular goal to achieve.

 

[Mewter]

I assumed that what Zero Beat was trying to get at was the range of the belief of what kind of god there is. Like, far left, deep red theist might believe in a god that actively follows, intervenes, and controls human affairs. Whereas, more towards the gray area, people might believe in a deistic-esque god, one that set up the nature of the universe, but does not follow nor involve itself in the affairs of man. Leaning more towards atheistic, the interpretation of "god" may be be less of a conscientious being, but more akin to being like a physical law of nature; controlling, but no personality, objective, or particular goal to achieve.

Hmm...

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

Here's the vocabulary he used, which is more for specific religions. Yours is more for religion/gods in general, right?
/I'm rambling on now

 

[pyrotek7x7]

So, a position in the upper-middle would be saying "I know that God's existence is unknowable" and the lower-middle would be saying "I have no idea if we can know if God exists or not"? Hmm...

I've got a theory on how you guys are thinking and how I am thinking. If this theory is correct, nobody is wrong in their argument because we're debating on separate ideas.

As Zero Beat has said, Gnostic = Knowing and Agnostic = Not Knowing. This can be a wide idea, though. When it comes to...ancient literature, I am agnostic. I know little about it. If we're talking about mathematics, I know plenty, so I am gnostic. What I'm talking about is strictly "Do I know if there is a God or not?" If you are agnostic, you don't know, and if you are gnostic, you do.

I didn't quite realize until recently that the two-dimensional model is NOT using this form of being gnostic or agnostic, it is a step above. Being gnostic in Zero Beat's model is saying "I know that I know if God exists." Likewise, being agnostic in this model is saying "I don't know if I know if God exists." There are two layers occurring here, one is covering someone's viewpoint on religion, and another is covering whether somebody knows their viewpoint on religion.

In this way, the one-dimensional model is strictly using the first layer of agnosticism/gnosticism, while the two-dimensional models adds the second dimension, which is knowledge of one's knowledge. Let's look at it like this (purely an example):

|Theist<----->Agnostic<----->Atheist|
_______________I am here ^

This is suggesting that I am very gnostic about my position that I am in between agnosticism and atheism. I know where I stand in my viewpoints towards religion.

|Theist<----->Agnostic<----->Atheist|
___I am in this area ^^^^^^^^^^

This is suggesting that I am partially agnostic about my position towards religion. I think I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist, but not exactly sure where.

|Theist<----->Agnostic<----->Atheist|
I have no idea where I am on this graph

This is suggesting that I am completely agnostic about my position towards religion.


So, to compare the one-dimensional model and Zero Beat's two dimensional model: the horizontal axis on the two-dimensional model IS the one-dimensional model. The vertical axis is how sure a person is of their position on that one-dimensional model.

That is my theory, we are using different models for different ideas.

 

[Mewter]

That is my theory.

Ditto.
Like we said before, it's adding a whole new dimension to the mix.
Although personally:

|Theist<----->Agnostic<----->Atheist|
____I am in this area ^^^

Edit: Since we're all agreeing now....

 

[Deleted member]

I interrupt this debate with this:

http://tinyurl.com/ckhflg

Me! Homeless! (i'm the one in the blanket ! )