Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[uruk]

Agnostics are the "Luke-Warm Christians" of the Atheist community.

If "Agnosticism" is the only rational position in terms of super-natural belief, then should I be "Agnostic" in terms of astrology or mediums or psychics or good luck charms, etc? Should the rational position of anything that can't be proved or disproved be "agnostic"? If that's the case it is not rational to believe that anything is untrue.

Astrology, mediums, psychics and good luck charms are not in the same catagory as god. You can test the validity of those things.

Coming up with a test for the existance or non-existance of god is not so simple.

It's not fence sitting or bet hedging. As someone mentioned before, being agnostic about god is simply recognising the possibility that the existance, or non-existance of god may be unknowable.

It's similar to asking the question "what was there before the universe existed?" There may be no way for us to frame a valid question.

 

[arthwollipot]

As someone mentioned before...

Several of us, actually.

 

[fls]

As someone mentioned before, being agnostic about god is simply recognising the possibility that the existance, or non-existance of god may be unknowable.

It's similar to asking the question "what was there before the universe existed?" There may be no way for us to frame a valid question.

Wouldn't all the claims about gods for which it is possible to frame a valid question allow them to be knowable?

Linda

 

[fls]

Based on this conversation, I now think that you see the Bayesian approach as rational and the minimax approach as not rational.

Also, I should make it clear that either/both approaches can be rational and that I am not advocating for any particular approach. My complaint, as I have stated several times now, is that you have grossly misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances that you laid out. If you had done the same thing with a Bayesian approach, I would have the same complaint.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Also, I should make it clear that either/both approaches can be rational and that I am not advocating for any particular approach. My complaint, as I have stated several times now, is that you have grossly misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances that you laid out. If you had done the same thing with a Bayesian approach, I would have the same complaint.

I do not think I have misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances. What have I said that you think is a grossly misrepresention? Are you sure you haven't simply misunderstood what I've said about it? Your comments regarding minimax don't indicate much depth of understanding on your part.

As do I.

Damn. It finally all made sense and now you've gone and spoilt it.

I've been saying all along I find different approaches equally rational. You're the one who's been saying that mine isn't rational. I've never said that yours wasn't. I don't see it as a one size fits all, but try to select the approach I think will work best. Clearly you do too. That we disagree on which method would work best in this situation does not mean that one answer is right and the other wrong.

I don't really care whether or not we discuss other stuff. I just didn't want to get sidetracked from the main discussion by a red herring (since whether or not there are other reasonable approaches doesn't really speak to whether or not your approach is reasonable).

It would help me to understand what you consider reasonable and rational and what you don't. So far I have one example, the one we've been discussing. Another example would allow me to draw parallels and contrasts between them.

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? I suspect the ratio is something like one in a thousand, although I haven't put any real work into estimating it; I could easily be off by several orders of magnitude. But considering that those ideas that represent a much better ratio (maybe even as high as 50/50) would be excluded as the product of science (i.e. a different form of discovery), there's not going to be much to work with.

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? is not the question I was asking, though it does give me a glimmer of insight into your assessment of the probability.

This was a question I asked earlier in the thread. Let me see if can rephrase your answer to it in such a way that you agree with it, okay. That's a fairly good way to establish if I understand you correctly.

How is it you feel comfortable setting the probability of those particular "indistinguishable ideas" so close to a 0/1 distribution (indicating near certainty) that you find it very silly to use the choice of .5/.5 for such situations?

You feel that the probability of ANY "indistibuishable idea" being true is very very small because you feel the probability of any idea being true is very very small, thus you find the idea that I rate them at 50/50 is ludicrous.

Before I respond to this, I would like to know if this is an accurate statement of your position. Thanks.

Beth

 

[fls]

I do not think I have misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances. What have I said that you think is a grossly misrepresention? Are you sure you haven't simply misunderstood what I've said about it? Your comments regarding minimax don't indicate much depth of understanding on your part.

I did find it a struggle to figure out what particular aspect you were talking about that could fit under the minimax principle and would give the results that you gave. I figured it would help if I gave guesses that you could say were wrong or right as a way to get to specifics.

Minimax is a way to model the problem, but until some constraints are placed (the specification of a distribution or a measurement or a range or something), it doesn't narrow down the possibilities to something useful. I think it is a misrepresentation to present it as useful in the absence of constraints. If I've said something that looks like a misunderstanding on my part, it would help if you would address that specifically.

I've been saying all along I find different approaches equally rational. You're the one who's been saying that mine isn't rational. I've never said that yours wasn't. I don't see it as a one size fits all, but try to select the approach I think will work best. Clearly you do too. That we disagree on which method would work best in this situation does not mean that one answer is right and the other wrong.

I simply think that there is a difference between an approach that allows you to be right more often than not and one that will be wrong almost all of the time.

It would help me to understand what you consider reasonable and rational and what you don't. So far I have one example, the one we've been discussing. Another example would allow me to draw parallels and contrasts between them.

I think it's rational to take into consideration empirical input, i.e. the results of testing ideas with the scientific method.

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? is not the question I was asking, though it does give me a glimmer of insight into your assessment of the probability.

This was a question I asked earlier in the thread. Let me see if can rephrase your answer to it in such a way that you agree with it, okay. That's a fairly good way to establish if I understand you correctly.

You feel that the probability of ANY "indistibuishable idea" being true is very very small because you feel the probability of any idea being true is very very small, thus you find the idea that I rate them at 50/50 is ludicrous.

Before I respond to this, I would like to know if this is an accurate statement of your position. Thanks.

Beth

That's the gist of it, although "any idea" would need to be qualified. Some groups of ideas are likely to be true while others have varying probabilities.

Linda

 

[uruk]

Wouldn't all the claims about gods for which it is possible to frame a valid question allow them to be knowable?

Linda

Well at least know what it's not. Maybe. But how could we tell?

Also how could you tell if the claims actually applied to a god or not? How could you verify to determine if it is a valid claim?

"God created the univers". How do you verify? How do you test? Do human concepts pertain? All concepts of god are human concepts and are relative to what we experiance in this universe? Does any of it relate or pertain to god if it exists? Is god even restricted to conform to what we call logic? Is god required to relate to this existance?

Who knows for sure? We can only know what we can comprehend and that is tied intimately to this univers. God may be incomprehensible to us

 

[fls]

Well at least know what it's not. Maybe. But how could we tell?

By whether or not they were lawful.

Also how could you tell if the claims actually applied to a god or not?

By whether or not they are lawful.

How could you verify to determine if it is a valid claim?

You could fairly easily determine if it wasn't.

"God created the univers". How do you verify? How do you test? Do human concepts pertain? All concepts of god are human concepts and are relative to what we experiance in this universe? Does any of it relate or pertain to god if it exists? Is god even restricted to conform to what we call logic? Is god required to relate to this existance?

What we are looking for is something that would relate to the human concept. It would only occur to us to call something God if it related to something that we think of as God. Otherwise, it would be said that we verified gods a long time ago - electromagnetism, gravity, dark energy...

Who knows for sure? We can only know what we can comprehend and that is tied intimately to this univers. God may be incomprehensible to us

Right. We make our discoveries through what comprehension we gain from this universe. Gods relate to this universe.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Minimax is a way to model the problem, but until some constraints are placed (the specification of a distribution or a measurement or a range or something), it doesn't narrow down the possibilities to something useful. I think it is a misrepresentation to present it as useful in the absence of constraints.

Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

I simply think that there is a difference between an approach that allows you to be right more often than not and one that will be wrong almost all of the time.

That's an argument against agnosticism I've heard before. While either theists or athiests might be correct, the agnostic is guaranteed to be wrong!

I think it's rational to take into consideration empirical input, i.e. the results of testing ideas with the scientific method.

That's the gist of it, although "any idea" would need to be qualified. Some groups of ideas are likely to be true while others have varying probabilities.

Linda

Good. I understand your position much better now. We have, at bottom, very different ways of framing the question and the sample space we are examining. I don't make the assumptions you are and vice versa. I want to thank you for taking the time to explain your position in such detail to me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I don't see atheism as the only rational outcome. For example, I think that theism can be rational, as well. It isn't belief that defines the position as rational, but rather the approach.

<snip>

What approach would that be?

 

[fls]

What approach would that be?

Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Linda

 

[fls]

Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

What criteria do you use to decide if something is useful?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Linda

While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

 

[fls]

While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

As a convenient fiction?

Linda

 

[Beth]

As a convenient fiction?

Linda

You see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational? This is not what I would have expected. Perhaps I don't understand your beliefs after all.

 

[fls]

Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

What criteria do you use to decide if something is useful?

Linda

 

[Beth]

What criteria do you use to decide if something is useful?

Linda

It works as it is supposed to and achieves it's purpose at a cost I am willing to pay.

Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

 

[fls]

It works as it is supposed to and achieves it's purpose at a cost I am willing to pay.

How is it supposed to work in this situation?

Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

Not personally.

Linda

 

[Beth]

How is it supposed to work in this situation?

As I have described earlier in this thread. I think we're starting to go in circles on this subject.

Not personally.

Linda

Then I'm confused about your stance again. This is the conversation sequence I'm not understanding:

Linda: I don't see atheism as the only rational outcome. For example, I think that theism can be rational, as well. It isn't belief that defines the position as rational, but rather the approach.

Ivor: What approach would that be?

Linda: Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Ivor: While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

Linda: As a convenient fiction?

Beth: Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

Linda: Not personally.

Could you please provide an example of what you consider to be a rational approach that leads to theistic beliefs?

 

[fls]

As I have described earlier in this thread. I think we're starting to go in circles on this subject.

Then I honestly missed it. Can you restate it for me.

Linda

(note: I will start a new thread for your other question)