(...) Long comments ago I said you that I wasn’t going to start a debate about Huxley. (...)
In this thread, you initially presented this definition of Agnosticism, that you keep repeating throughout the thread. And you claimed that this was Huxley’s interpretation. And what is more, you claimed primacy for this interpretation, by directly claiming the “semantic authority” and “copyright” that Huxley’s name would command.
When clear evidence is presented that show that your views are wrong (or at least, only partly correct) -- when evidence is provided that Huxley meant something very different than what you imagine -- your reaction is to not go into this issue at all?
But if you don’t want to discuss the reasons for your belief, if you don’t want to look at -- and directly address -- clear evidence that you might learn from (or else, if you can, refute), well then why tell us about your private personal beliefs at all?
But what the hell, why get our undergarments all twisted over this? Sure, you go ahead and believe what you like, as long as you don’t ask that others do the same. I have no issues with that, and absolutely, I have no right to insist that you debate your personal preference. As long as we are clear that this is merely your personal preference, nothing more, and that you refuse to “debate” this belief of yours.
I think that’s quite enough for a Soft-Atheism-style disowning of your position, without having to actively ‘disprove’ it.
(...) I’m dedicated to philosophy more than thirty years and I have found much more complicated texts that Huxley’s. (...)
And I’ve fought tigers and lions single-handed, and killed crocodiles by the dozen.
In other words : Your deep background in philosophy does not change the bald fact that -- as far as one can make out from this discussion -- you are clearly wrong about Huxley, and that you insistently refuse to discuss clear evidence that demonstrate your error.
I will not pretend to a depth of knowledge I do not have. Unlike you, I myself do not even have a single college credit in Philosophy per se. What I know of these things, I’ve merely picked up here and there, that’s all. And nor have I dedicated anywhere close to 30 years to anything at all! In terms of both education (in Philosophy) and overall experience, you clearly outgun me handsomely. I admit that freely. As such, I accept that it is possible that I may be wrong without realizing that I am wrong.
But you do see that you’ve not really been able to argue your case, don’t you? Would you be happy if I were to say to you: “Okay, you’re way better educated than I am in Philosophy, and a great deal older than I am, therefore fine, although you’ve been singularly unable to make your case, nevertheless I give way to you, you’re right and I’m wrong”?
Why don’t you draw on this knowledge of yours and clearly discuss the issues, and make your point about Huxley clearly, if you can? Or admit to your error -- if only provisionally -- if you cannot?
(...) Well, it seem the issue at last!
Actually you skipped a few other “issues” there, actual concrete issues, that have do with my refuting what you have claimed in earlier posts. But if you wish to gloss over them, it’s okay, I won’t insist we drag through them again. After all you’ve been ignoring the points I’ve been raising throughout this thread, so what’s one more instance of glossing over, especially given that we’re now obviously drawing towards the close of this fascinating discussion of ours?
Since you are not very exact I suppose that you call “Soft Atheist” to someone that states that he neither affirms nor denies that God exists because any proposition has to be sustained by (scientific) evidence.
Obviously, this statement has to be equally valid for any metaphysical, magical, esoteric, mythic or fantastic entities. Therefore, the Soft Atheist doesn’t deny that unicorns and astral trips exist.
This is a hard disregard of the argument by the burden of proof, because the burden of proof ever lies on existential affirmative propositions, never negative. In law it is the prosecutor who should present the charges, and the accused the discharge after. Justice courts are not science, but it is a useful simile.
Therefore, either the agnostic is an absolute relativist —and this lead to other difficulties— or he is against an usual rational rule, and this seems a hard contradiction for someone that introduces himself as a defendant of science.
I’m saying there’s two ways to refuse to accept some proposition. The first way, indeed the primary way, is to demand adequate evidence (or, more generally, adequate justification) for any proposition that is presented or introduced. If such is not presented, we do not accept it. End of story. That’s Soft Atheism.
This is enough, actually, to ensure that we never fall prey to fantastic imaginary constructs cooked up by charlatans and madmen.
Although not strictly necessary, there is another, additional, avenue open to us. This is the route of the Hard Atheist, that is, direct disproving of the proposition presented. Not all propositions allow it. (For example, very vague ideas, or ideas that cannot be falsified, cannot be disproved). But some propositions are concrete enough, specific enough, to be falsifiable, and if we take up this challenge and ourselves falsify it, then that makes us a Hard Atheist.
There’s a sea difference between saying “I do not have enough evidence for pocket universes (or for the Yahweh-God, or for the Thor-God), and so see no reason to accept that idea”, and saying “I have direct evidence here that shows that the idea of a pocket universe (or of the Yahweh-God, or Thor-God) is impossible (practically speaking, without going into philosophical hair-pulling about “impossible”). That’s the difference between Soft Atheism and Hard Atheism.
Agnostic’s contradictions don’t worry me too much as long as we conclude that the existence of God has the same degree of probability than centaurs, astral trips and David the Gnome. This is to say, practically zero. This is the main point. Agnosticism or atheism, hard or soft are some additional precisions with secondary issues.
I have no clue what you mean by “Agnostic’s contradictions”. Because I see no contradictions myself in Agnosticism, I cannot comment on whether you are right or not to not worry about these contradictions as they appear to you, until you explain what they are. (But feel free to let this pass if you don’t wish to get into all that again.)
As for your conclusion, broadly I agree -- obviously, how could I not?! -- but still, if you look with some amount of precision at what you are saying, then it will be evident that you are not comparing apples with apples. You are comparing specific imaginary constructs (centaurs, astral trips, and David the Gnome) with a very general and vague and undefined idea (God).
If you want to compare centaurs with the Yahweh-God, okay, I’m with you.
Or else, if you want to compare ‘fairy tales’ or ‘science fiction’ with “God”, again I am with you there.
You appreciate what I am saying?
“Fairy tales” and “science fiction” are very broad categories. While obviously no one believes in fairy tales or in fiction of any sort, nevertheless without closer examination of specifics, you cannot say with certitude that there might not be some elements of truth hidden there somewhere, simply because you don’t know what you’re discussing. Thus it is with “God”, if you use that word generally and without qualification.
So you tell me this, David Mo : Are you willing to declare to these forums that you, personally, do not believe in fairy tales and in science fiction? I will not allow you any more specifics, just those terms, “fairy tales”, and “science fiction”.
To the extent you can say you don’t believe in fairy tales and science fiction, I agree I don’t believe in God.
(To be clear, this is not an issue of Soft Atheism and Hard Atheism. This is a question of generalities, of not knowing exactly what you’re talking about. The correct response to this would be Igtheism.)
